Comments on: Open Core is a bad word

By: dneary

dneary — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:24:35 +0000

“Everyone” being (rather obviously, from the context) “software vendors”.

Dave.

By: Don Barry

Don Barry — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 04:30:30 +0000

“The valuable brand, Open Source, is the one everyone uses.”

Not this person. “Open Source” arrived to steal the thunder of
Free Software and hide its commitment to freedom. I’ve never
used it, and I correct each and every person who tries to tell me
about “Open Source” with the statement that “it doesn’t mean
anything, and hasn’t since it was coined by people who had
contributed next to nothing in obfuscation of the successes and
achievements of Free Software.”

By: Giovanni

Giovanni — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:05:40 +0000

And “features” could also mean certain services that people take for granted. E.g. Microsoft Windows security updates and bug fixes. It’s a fact that any software needs some fixing after it is released and it’s usually a common practice to release those for free (as in accepting your software wasn’t totally rock solid and offering something to make the user feel that at least it’s being address).

Companies that release their “community” version and tell customers they will have to pay for those feature need to look carefully at the current state of affairs in the industry. Operating System vendors that want any market penetration cannot charge for that (they have to find ways to make money somewhere else). Charging for security updates to a “community version” OS will effectively tell customers that the only “real” version they can use is the “enterprise” paid version.

All the inneficiencies of the open core model have been discussed at length. I just wanted to point out that software vendors care to look carefully at the feature balance between the community and the enterprise versions AND also know where the industry they want to compete in is at that moment.