All Things

Dana Blankenhorn has posted an interesting article discussing how open source software is being divvied up among top software companies (IBM, Google, Microsoft) in a way reminiscent of Japanese keiretsus. She argues that only these three seem to have the “size, scope and ambition” to play in this space, though Sun also continues to seek such a dominant position.

According to the article, in American usage “keiretsu” has become a term describing a much looser form of business association, with one large company and a number of smaller ones beholden to it in various ways. The Mozilla Foundation’s dependence on Google would be a good example, a relationship of substantial ties between independent entities.

Years ago, I was thinking open source might end up being its own “keiretsu”. Nevertheless, I guess it was inevitable that it would instead end up fragmented and mostly beholden to big companies. Blankenhorn cites the examples of IBM-Red Hat and Microsoft-Novell as other instances of such ties.

On the other hand, if these big companies do things right, open source software can advance and still end up producing a thriving ecosystem. IBM’s relationship with the Eclipse Foundation is a prime example.

It seems that key to the whole process is how a Big Co. views the software product lifecycle. If it accepts that functionality gradually will become commoditized, it will view open source as the likely end-point for most proprietary software. Such a strategy/outlook will result in the Big Co.’s typically releasing the source after some years/decades, with the intent of building still-proprietary software and services on top of it.

IBM did that with VisualAge (now Eclipse), and has also worked hard at promoting the open-source Linux operating system. On the other hand, Microsoft seems to want to milk its Windows operating system forever, which makes it hard to play well in the open-source world.

While it may seem wasteful, companies such as Apple have shown that a steady discarding of old technology can do a lot to promote innovation. I keep waiting for more companies to follow their example.

Evidence continues to mount that “creative destruction” is indeed a key process in a healthy economy. Peter Drucker argued that companies ought to continually make way for the new by killing off old products, rather than waiting for the market to do it for them. Henry Ford’s reluctance to part with the Model T, and its nearly destroying Ford in the process, is the classic case study on this.

With software, however, there’s a difference, since many software products are foundations for other systems (software or hardware), or integral to the use/retention of valuable data produced by them. For this reason, it’s not as simple a matter to remove a program from the market. Software may be used for many different purposes by different customers. Some may be able to switch quickly to new products, but others would incur great cost.

Consequently, it seems inevitable that users are eventually going to demand some kind of protection from software vendors - or else from government regulators - that a software product’s source code be made open source if the product is abandoned. At the least users would be protected, and possibly the product might see further development by others (WordPress, successor to b2, is in some respects an example of this).

More interesting, however, are the more state-of-the-art open-source projects such as Linux and Eclipse, that promise innovation and a product that is “built right” for the future in a platform-agnostic way. Knowing that a software product will be here to stay, because the source is available, seems to be such a strong draw that many of these best-of-breed projects have been able to attract top talent to contribute, often on a volunteer basis, as well as substantial support from Big Co.’s such as IBM.

For the software industry to thrive and not just reinvent the wheel, we need strong and viable foundations to build on. If these Big Co.’s are willing to kill off the revenue streams from their old software somewhat before it dries up, their code may well retain importance, or even grow in dominance as Eclipse has. This can offer a strong foundation both for services and for additional products higher up the stack.

Moreover, it will produce an overall healthier software industry ecosystem, since the underlying code will continue to be developed, increasing the value of it and everything higher up on the stack, due both to stability and to greater innovation.

I wrote last fall about how Apple Needs Better Support for Mac Printer/Scanner Problems. Thankfully, it appears Apple may be aiming to invest more in printer functionality, as it has reportedly acquired the rights to CUPS, the Common Unix Printing System.

My previous post described how I’d continued to see occasional problems with printers on OS X, noting a particularly difficult problem I was having at that time with my HP 1320, that ended up taking up more than a day of my time and several weeks to get resolved. I still get fairly regular hits from Google searches for “hppostprocessing” error messages, so if that’s you, check out the comments to the previous post.

One of my main complaints involved the lack of diagnostics. While Mac OS X printing support through the Printer Setup Utility is fairly automatic, when there is a problem, there’s virtually no diagnostics to help you sort it out. I’d hope that improving such diagnostic support would be a priority for Apple.

Besides that, I’m still noticing various little quirks with printing on OS X (and am still running 10.4.8). Usually these aren’t showstoppers, but the system is doing something unexpected, which makes you wonder if there are lingering bugs. The bugs do occasionally bite, as they did the other day when everything kept printing with my 2 pages/page preset, regardless of what I entered in the print dialog (restarting resolved that).

As I wrote before, I hope Apple will put somebody in charge of this, say a “driver evangelist”, who will work with peripherals providers to iron problems out. The Ars Technica article does suggest that “The purchase could also be a good thing for CUPS, since Apple’s support for the project could lead to further improvements (if Apple chooses to release them) and to more pressure being placed on printer manufacturers.”

In any event, it’d be a lot more efficient for Apple and the peripherals folks to get together and iron things out, before millions of users have to scratch their heads - and then bang them against the keyboard in frustration.

Now that even MSN Spaces has a book, Share Your Story by Katherine Murray and Mike Torres (due out March 15th), you’d think there would be several good WordPress books available, but a search of Amazon yields next to nothing.

There is Building Online Communities With Drupal, phpBB, and WordPress, by Robert T. Douglass, Mike Little and Jared W. Smith, but its Amazon reviews were very uneven, and only a third of the book is about WordPress, anyway. So, is there a good, take-it-from-the-beginning WordPress book in the works anywhere?

Apparently I’m not the first to ask this question. Judging from the many comments to this post, about half the folks think it’s pointless, everything is available in the WordPress Codex and other online sources. On the other hand, a substantial fraction think a book would nevertheless be helpful, either because they like having a printed reference, or they want someone to organize all this information in a straightforward package. As for myself, I’d like a book for both reasons.

I can’t help notice that the Spaces book is being published by Microsoft Press. Microsoft has had its own publishing arm for a long time, at least since the mid ’80s, and it seems like their software has done pretty well. My point is that a book is traditionally a basic component of marketing any sophisticated software. Maybe that time is passing, but I’m not sure it’s past yet.

There was a database package, Omnis, that was developed initially for the Mac, and stayed in development for many years. At one point a few years ago I looked into it, but couldn’t get past the fact that after all those years, as far as I could tell it still didn’t have a single substantial book published about it. I just didn’t feel comfortable making an investment in such an important type of software like that.

WordPress seems to be growing in popularity anyway, but it still might help to have a book on it. Considering all the arcane programming topics that get written about, the lack of a book is surprising. I’m going to try to get what I need out of the Codex, which does seem well organized.

In recent years, for most regular folks the standard way of starting to learn (or evaluate) sophisticated software has been to find a book about it, maybe one of the proliferating Dummies or O’Reilly titles, or some other publisher’s, to help get yourself down the initial learning curve. If we’re going to move to online-only documentation, which may be OK, then we need to make up for the marketing shortfall by initiating an appropriate way to point newcomers to the proper starting point.

I suggest the WordPress software have some kind of built-in link to the Codex Main Page that clearly indicates to anyone that lands upon a WordPress blog where they should go to get started. Of course, folks could modify this default setup if they want, but if most every blog pointed uniformly to the correct starting point, then folks would get to the Codex even before they ever start wondering about a book.

In this case, online documentation might actually be preferable to a book, from a marketing perspective. But every little extra difficulty that a potential “customer” has to overcome is so costly to a marketing effort, and every point of confusion or uncertainty presents such a difficulty. Right now, even the WordPress Development Blog, as good as it is, doesn’t make this plain enough.

Geeks will think I am totally nit-picking about this, but considering how fast blogging is growing, and how much work has already been put into WordPress, it would be a shame for people to pass it over for a less capable solution. Blogsome isn’t worried about overstating the obvious, and puts an ad to their starting point twice on each blog page, both prominently on the side and at the bottom. The link should be a distinct one, saying something like, “Get started blogging with WordPress right here.” If we all added that to our WordPress blogs, I bet WordPress would grow even faster.

IBM is once again giving away some software; after donating its VisualAge tool to Eclipse and so many other products to greatly invigorate the open source movement, this isn’t so surprising. What’s more interesting is that these donations seem to be moving higher up the value chain, as IBM will reportedly begin giving away a Universal Database Express-C version of its high-end DB2 database that will run on up to two-chip systems.

It seems to me that a sign of a healthy software ecosystem is the gradual price decline of particular packages as they grow more complex. One example would be Microsoft’s bundling of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and various other packages into Office, which doesn’t cost nearly as much as the total prices of individual packages 15 years ago, especially after adjusting for inflation. Excel itself, when introduced on the Mac, had consolidated functions previously handled by Multiplan, Chart and some other programs.

One of the common signs that a particular software ecosystem is declining is that this trend of generosity on the part of the ISV reverses, and it starts to look for ways to increase unit revenues. This is one of the reasons why I suspect that much of Microsoft’s software business isn’t as healthy as it once was, as they have at least begun to make changes in their licensing/pricing that for some customers might be viewed as an effective price increase.

Some vendors, such as Computer Associates, seem to have done fairly well by buying up aging software and gleaning what they can from the remaining user base, many of whom may prefer to stay with what they have been using for quite a few years. Though potentially an opportunity for exploitation, if managed with restraint such a business can provide a valuable service, by keeping users from languishing without vendor support.

Nevertheless, in a healthy, growing software ecosystem the price of packages should normally decline, since the user base is growing (allowing development costs to be spread over more units) while development costs should be moderating as the product matures. Actually, while the first effect is often realized, for some reason (perhaps Parkinson’s Second Law - expenditures rise to meet income) the second is more difficult to achieve.

As sales of its software rises, a successful software vendor will typically add features while keeping steady or lowering the price. Though holding the line on costs, in the real world the size of programming staffs generally seems to balloon, which gradually works to reverse the virtuous cycle of generosity. This excessive growth in programming staff is a curious outcome which I suspect results from management’s desire to speed development in response to competition, despite Fred Brooks’ showing over thirty years ago, in his classic essay “The Mythical Man-Month“, that such an approach is generally counterproductive.

Peter Drucker frequently argued (e.g. Managing for Results, Ch. 9) that one of the biggest problems in business is vendors’ unwillingness to kill off their own aging products, thereby retarding innovation and eventually causing loss of markets to more innovative upstarts. I suspect a software ecosystem requires a modified form of systematic abandonment, where products gradually decline in price and eventually are given away, either as open source or as an inducement to attract new users who may upgrade a to a vendor’s more advanced offerings.

Vendors also ought to consider still selling at a lowered price older versions and upgrades of their software (at least as long as these are supported) since this might be a good approach to segmenting the market between higher-spending customers with newer hardware and budget-conscious buyers using older hardware (and might induce additional upgrades as the cost declined).

Of course, much of the business motivation for open source comes from recognition both of the need to continue stimulating a software ecosystem to attract new users (as many are attempting to do now with Java) and that much of the revenue opportunity comes from services and other add-ons, which seem also to be a fairly effective way to segment the market.

Every industry has its own unique economics. I remember a database seminar once in which a vendor rep described how he had worked with grocers, where the prices, discounts and other factors changed constantly. Airline economics, with which I’ve been fascinated for years, is another very difficult area.

Software, too, has its own sort of economics, driven by the vendors’ desire to smooth out the revenue stream (development is steady but revenues tend to bunch around releases), the extremely low unit marginal cost, and intense competition amidst constant technological change. I’m surprised there doesn’t seem to be more active discussion of the unique economics of software, as this might help to reconcile vendors and the open source community.

Software has been the “sick man of technology” for some years now, with disappointing advancement (despite incredible gains in hardware) and recurrent schedule slips. A better understanding of the underlying economics might go a long way in producing a newly healthy software industry.