tag:old.nabble.com,2006:forum-13717Nabble - OpenSource.org2009-12-01T15:41:25ZOpen Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community, specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software certification mark and program. OpenSource.org home is <a href="http://www.opensource.org" target="_top" rel="nofollow">here</a>.tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26601125NYT on Open Source business2009-12-01T15:41:25Z2009-12-01T15:41:25ZFederico Lucifredi-2Pretty good for a general consumption paper. They certainly understand
<br>more about F/OSS dynamics than the EU commission vetting SUNW+ORCL,
<br>that's for sure:
<br><br><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/technology/business-computing/30open.html?_r=1&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/technology/business-computing/30open.html?_r=1&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print</a><br><br>Best -F
<br><br><br>--
<br>_________________________________________
<br>-- "'Problem' is a bleak word for challenge" - Richard Fish
<br>(Federico L. Lucifredi) - <a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26601125&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">flucifredi@...</a> - GnuPG 0x4A73884C
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-25052438Re: Dirk Riehle: The Commercial Open Source Business Model2009-08-19T14:41:46Z2009-08-19T14:41:46ZPeter Thoeny-2I found it useful too. The actual paper by author Dirk Riehle, "The
<br>Commercial Open Source Business Model" is at <a href="http://dirkriehle.com/publications/2009/the-commercial-open-source-business-model/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://dirkriehle.com/publications/2009/the-commercial-open-source-business-model/</a><br><br>Regards,
<br>Peter
<br><br><br>On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:42 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
<br><br>> I found these slides interesting and useful:
<br>>
<br>> <a href="http://dirkriehle.com/2009/08/07/talk-slides-the-commercial-open-source-business-model/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://dirkriehle.com/2009/08/07/talk-slides-the-commercial-open-source-business-model/</a><br>>
<br>> -Evan
<br><br>--
<br> * Peter Thoeny - peter[at]thoeny.org
<br> * <a href="http://twiki.net" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://twiki.net</a> - TWIKI.NET - Enterprise Collaboration
<br> * <a href="http://TWiki.org" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://TWiki.org</a> - is your team already TWiki enabled?
<br> * Knowledge cannot be managed, it can be discovered and shared
<br> * This e-mail is: (_) private (x) ask first (_) public
<br><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-25045468Dirk Riehle: The Commercial Open Source Business Model2009-08-19T07:42:06Z2009-08-19T07:42:06ZevanprodromouI found these slides interesting and useful:
<br><br><a href="http://dirkriehle.com/2009/08/07/talk-slides-the-commercial-open-source-business-model/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://dirkriehle.com/2009/08/07/talk-slides-the-commercial-open-source-business-model/</a><br><br>-Evan
<br><br /> <div class="small"><br/><img src="http://old.nabble.com/images/icon_attachment.gif" > <strong>smime.p7s</strong> (7K) <a href="http://old.nabble.com/attachment/25045468/0/smime.p7s" target="_top">Download Attachment</a></div><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-24867781Today we just launched another amazing income stream ?2009-08-07T09:21:14Z2009-08-07T09:21:14ZdigitalsellerToday we just launched another amazing income stream
<br>with the Bear Marketing System. This new income stream
<br>is by far the most profitable one considering you get so
<br>much value for your membership.
<br><br>Company: China CRT International Trade Co., Ltd
<br>Our site: www.Crazy-digital.com
<br>Email Address: service@Crazy-digital.com
<br>Our MSN: Digital-seller@hotmail.com
<br><br>We are leaders in electronics suppliers and also have more variety of mobile phones Nokia, Samsung,
<br><br>Motorola, Sony Ericsson, Jabra, I-tech. Choose from the newest and highest Mobile
<br><br>Accessories on the screen and see the best mobile phones from LG, Apple iPhone,
<br><br>Motorola, NEC, Nokia, O2, PalmOne, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Sony Ericsson, Philips, DJ Mixers,
<br><br>HP . We hope to have long term business relationship with our customers.
<br>We deliver products purchased directly to your door 3-5 days after confirmation of your
<br><br>payment! We ship the consignment via DHL / FEDEX / TNT / UPS or other courier services.
<br><br>Shipping is for Free .We will send you the tracking number and business invoice as soon
<br><br>as the ship so you can trace the track online. We ship to anywhere in the world, all we need is
<br><br>your full and direct shipping detailed information.
<br>Once again, we want you to know that all these products are brand new and with this
<br><br>price, we hope that we know best what is needed to be. We would love to maintain a strong
<br><br>business relationship with you to the waiting list to purchase the upgrade product. Thanks and
<br><br>a greeting as they return to us with your order.
<br><br>Our site: www.Crazy-digital.com
<br>Email Address: service@Crazy-digital.com
<br>Our MSN: Digital-seller@hotmail.com
<br>Company: China CRT International Trade Co., Ltd
<br>Address: Hong Kong, China
<br>products offer peace of mind.
<br>Much success in your business, thanks<p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-24801417Re: Assist a master's thesis on free software businesses?2009-07-30T04:08:48Z2009-07-30T04:08:48ZBernard Lang<br>Cc: Ann Barcomb via <a href="http://ann.barcomb.org/cgi/contact.cgi" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://ann.barcomb.org/cgi/contact.cgi</a><br><br><br>Hi,
<br><br>If French data is any use, she may try to contact Jean-Paul Smets
<br><<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=24801417&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">jp@...</a>>. He has a thriving business, strictly free software,
<br>with open cloud computing too, based on free software developed
<br>internationally by his company Nexedi. <a href="http://www.nexedi.com/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.nexedi.com/</a><br><br>Most of the site is still in French, but he speaks fluent English or
<br>Japanese.
<br><br>There are many other free software business in France, including some
<br>corporate consortia.
<br><br><br>* Ben Tilly <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=24801417&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">btilly@...</a>> note le 30-07-09 :
<br>> A friend of mine is doing a master's thesis on free software
<br>> businesses and is looking for people to interview. I've known her
<br>> from the Perl community for close to a decade. Even though this list
<br>> is somewhat dead, I know there are a lot of people signed up here who
<br>> could provide her with useful material. If you're interested, you can
<br>> sign up at <a href="http://ann.barcomb.org/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://ann.barcomb.org/</a>.
<br>>
<br>> Cheers,
<br>> Ben
<br><br>--
<br> Après la bulle Internet, la bulle financière ...
<br> Et bientôt la bulle des brevets
<br> <a href="http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/revue/IMG/pdf/article_HS7RL2.pdf" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/revue/IMG/pdf/article_HS7RL2.pdf</a><br> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-kahin/the-patent-bubble_b_129232.html" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-kahin/the-patent-bubble_b_129232.html</a><br> la gestion des catastrophes comme principe de gouvernement
<br><br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=24801417&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">Bernard.Lang@...</a> ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644
<br><a href="http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/</a> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469
<br> INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
<br> Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-24734921Assist a master's thesis on free software businesses?2009-07-30T02:14:43Z2009-07-30T02:14:43ZBen TillyA friend of mine is doing a master's thesis on free software
<br>businesses and is looking for people to interview. I've known her
<br>from the Perl community for close to a decade. Even though this list
<br>is somewhat dead, I know there are a lot of people signed up here who
<br>could provide her with useful material. If you're interested, you can
<br>sign up at <a href="http://ann.barcomb.org/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://ann.barcomb.org/</a>.
<br><br>Cheers,
<br>Ben
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23806368Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-31T12:54:00Z2009-05-31T12:54:00Zdavelab62009/5/31 Don Marti <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=23806368&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dmarti@...</a>>:
<br>> begin Dave Crossland quotation of Tue, May 19, 2009 at 05:29:47PM +0100:
<br>>
<br>>> Fonts tend not to need much support. However, like software, "a font
<br>>> is never done" so perhaps options on future development can work.
<br>>
<br>> New startup will be offering hosted fonts:
<br>> <a href="http://www.kottke.org/09/05/typekit-real-fonts-for-the-web" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.kottke.org/09/05/typekit-real-fonts-for-the-web</a><br><br>Yes, thanks for mentioning it and I'm tracking it already :-)
<br><br>> There might be room for a service that offers a
<br>> drop-in Free replacement with the same interface --
<br>> if the new company becomes the "Twitter API" of fonts,
<br>> someone could become the identi.ca of FaaS.
<br><br>openfontlibrary.org is positioned for this :-)
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23806195Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-31T12:31:45Z2009-05-31T12:31:45ZDon Martibegin Dave Crossland quotation of Tue, May 19, 2009 at 05:29:47PM +0100:
<br><br>> Fonts tend not to need much support. However, like software, "a font
<br>> is never done" so perhaps options on future development can work.
<br><br>New startup will be offering hosted fonts:
<br> <a href="http://www.kottke.org/09/05/typekit-real-fonts-for-the-web" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.kottke.org/09/05/typekit-real-fonts-for-the-web</a><br><br>There might be room for a service that offers a
<br>drop-in Free replacement with the same interface --
<br>if the new company becomes the "Twitter API" of fonts,
<br>someone could become the identi.ca of FaaS.
<br><br>--
<br>Don Marti +1 510-332-1587 mobile
<br><a href="http://zgp.org/~dmarti/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://zgp.org/~dmarti/</a><br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=23806195&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dmarti@...</a>
<br>See you at OpenSource World: August 11-13, 2009 in San Francisco
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23636307Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-20T07:09:59Z2009-05-20T07:09:59ZMatthias Kirschner-4Hi Dave,
<br><br>* Dave Crossland <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=23636307&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dave@...</a>> [2009-05-19 15:55:42 +0100]:
<br><br>> So I thought I'd ask here about what free software business models
<br>> there are, exactly.
<br><br>Perhaps you will also be interested in this article: "What makes a Free
<br>Software company?" <a href="http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=260" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=260</a><br><br>Best wishes,
<br>Matthias
<br><br>--
<br>Deputy German Coordinator, Fellowship Coordinator
<br>Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) [] (<a href="http://fsfe.org" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://fsfe.org</a>)
<br>Join the Fellowship of FSFE! [][][] (<a href="http://fsfe.org/join" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://fsfe.org/join</a>)
<br>Your donation powers our work! || (<a href="http://fsfeurope.org/donate" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://fsfeurope.org/donate</a>)
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23628085Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-19T19:47:17Z2009-05-19T19:47:17ZStephen J. TurnbullDave Crossland writes:
<br><br> > Hah. I know the OSI was involved in rubber-stamping the license for
<br> > <a href="http://ossipedia.ipa.go.jp/ipafont/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://ossipedia.ipa.go.jp/ipafont/</a> recently, which are said to be
<br> > high quality Japanese fonts.
<br><br>The reason this came up on the LUG list is that a local OSS advocate
<br>needs TeX fonts for use in presentations at his place of employment,
<br>and the IPA fonts were specifically rejected as ugly.
<br><br>I consider them technically high quality (they scale well and don't
<br>produce artifacts at any (reasonable) transformation), though.
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23626655Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-19T17:06:30Z2009-05-19T17:06:30Zdavelab6Hi Stephen!
<br><br>2009/5/19 Stephen J. Turnbull <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=23626655&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">stephen@...</a>>:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> Dave Crossland writes:
<br>>
<br>> > As someone looking to improve free software fonts, there are two
<br>> > routes open to me: Find a way to get people who don't demand
<br>> > proprietary-font-developer wages to publish free software fonts, or
<br>>
<br>> I heard an interesting anecdote recently about why all free fonts for
<br>> Japanese suck: the people who have artistic talent don't want their
<br>> fonts used on porn sites. This is one case where what are often
<br>> called "author's moral rights" really bind on free software, I think.
</div><br>Hah. I know the OSI was involved in rubber-stamping the license for
<br><a href="http://ossipedia.ipa.go.jp/ipafont/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://ossipedia.ipa.go.jp/ipafont/</a> recently, which are said to be
<br>high quality Japanese fonts. I know nothing about CJK writing systems
<br>though so cannot comment on this.
<br><br>> > find a way to pay font developers who currently work in a proprietary
<br>> > software business model with a free software business model.
<br>>
<br>> Hm. One unusual factor is, why would a customer be willing to pay for
<br>> a font in the first place? ... exclusivity
<br><br>Yes, custom type design is the main breadwinner of most font
<br>development companies, and software freedom at a lower price than
<br>normal (always available for a price, but never using freedom itself
<br>as a marketing angle) may be an effective way to crack that part of
<br>the market. However, as you say -
<br><br>> Eventually you want it to be not just free, but available to
<br>> the public, as well.
<br><br> - and I expect that offering such bespoke services is much easier
<br>after a brand becomes known in the market place for published works,
<br>and that revenues generated this way can be reinvested into growing
<br>revenues for published works too.
<br><br>Thanks!
<br><br>--
<br>Regards,
<br>Dave
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23622735Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-19T12:25:02Z2009-05-19T12:25:02Zrichbodo>> 1) Widget Frosting++
<br>> As <a href="http://www.digium.com" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.digium.com</a> did, right?
<br><br>Very similar.
<br><br>> I don't think I'll understand free software business until I'm running
<br>> a successful one :-)
<br><br>Could be. Experience running any business will help.
<br><br>--
<br>-Rich
<br><br><a href="http://rbodo.blogspot.com" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://rbodo.blogspot.com</a><br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/complete" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.linkedin.com/in/complete</a><br><br>Skype: richbodo
<br>irc: irc.freenode.net, icltlfatppl
<br>Yahoo IM: rsb_mv
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23621611Free Software Business Models2009-05-19T11:11:12Z2009-05-19T11:11:12ZStephen J. TurnbullDave Crossland writes:
<br><br> > As someone looking to improve free software fonts, there are two
<br> > routes open to me: Find a way to get people who don't demand
<br> > proprietary-font-developer wages to publish free software fonts, or
<br><br>I heard an interesting anecdote recently about why all free fonts for
<br>Japanese suck: the people who have artistic talent don't want their
<br>fonts used on porn sites. This is one case where what are often
<br>called "author's moral rights" really bind on free software, I think.
<br><br> > find a way to pay font developers who currently work in a proprietary
<br> > software business model with a free software business model.
<br><br>Hm. One unusual factor is, why would a customer be willing to pay for
<br>a font in the first place? For the same reason that movie stars are
<br>willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for designer clothing --
<br>so they can get a unique look. In other words, such customers get
<br>positive value from high prices, because they are a barrier to entry
<br>to the *customers'* rivals. So you can sell the font under a free
<br>license because in general the customer is not going to want to give
<br>the font away.
<br><br>What you can do, then is sell the font "cheaply" with a free license
<br>(which the customer will value in case of defects, or a need to adjust
<br>paramters for scaling that was not originally envisioned, etc), and
<br>then charge them for exclusivity.
<br><br>Of course in that case you'll want to have the contract say something
<br>like "you get a free license, but *I* won't sell it to anybody else
<br>for 2/3/5 years". Eventually you want it to be not just free, but
<br>available to the public, as well.
<br><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23620399Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-19T10:00:40Z2009-05-19T10:00:40Zdavelab62009/5/19 Rich Bodo <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=23620399&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">richbodo@...</a>>:
<br>>
<br>> 1) Widget Frosting++
<br>>
<br>> Create and maintain free software that fills a gap in the GNU domain,
<br>> and package it with hardware and support services.
<br><br>As <a href="http://www.digium.com" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.digium.com</a> did, right?
<br><br>> 2) Training
<br><br>> Less frequently mentioned is that most people who write free software
<br>> consider it a profit center because they become recognized experts,
<br>> which increases their income potential.
<br><br>My biggest problem isn't fully proprietary font developers, but
<br>freeware loss leaders like Jos B; freeware fonts get just as much
<br>cheap publicity/exposure as libre fonts, I think.
<br><br>> All this feels a bid pedantic since you seem to feel there is an
<br>> opportunity with great potential in the font industry, the mechanics
<br>> of which you understand, that is yet to be capitalized on.
<br><br>I don't think I'll understand free software business until I'm running
<br>a successful one :-)
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23620193Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-19T09:49:20Z2009-05-19T09:49:20Zrichbodo>> As someone looking to improve free software fonts,
<br>>
<br>> I am not looking to maximize profit above all other concerns;
<br>>
<br>> Since I'm committed to free software fonts, I think it would be
<br>> counterproductive to run a font business with free software fonts
<br>> upselling proprietary ones in this way.
<br><br>Welcome!
<br><br>Since you are interested in unrelated models...
<br><br>For the sake of argument, any going concern that makes money, enriches
<br>free software developers and spreads free software, is an FSB in my
<br>book. I'll only comment on my experiences with FSB models that create
<br>and sell exclusively free software:
<br><br>1) Widget Frosting++
<br><br>Create and maintain free software that fills a gap in the GNU domain,
<br>and package it with hardware and support services. Creating your own
<br>free software is an unnecessary complication of basic widget frosting.
<br> This model may work better with some capital up front, but generally
<br>a great business model that bootstrappers with tech expertise can
<br>handle.
<br><br>2) Training
<br><br>Hire experts in the use of a Free Software to sell that knowledge to
<br>others. Not so much of an FSB. Only works well if you keep fixed
<br>costs to almost zero and have unique, high-quality, high-demand
<br>products.
<br><br>After those two, I decided to sell shovels to the miners for a while.
<br><br>Less frequently mentioned is that most people who write free software
<br>consider it a profit center because they become recognized experts,
<br>which increases their income potential.
<br><br>All this feels a bid pedantic since you seem to feel there is an
<br>opportunity with great potential in the font industry, the mechanics
<br>of which you understand, that is yet to be capitalized on.
<br><br>--
<br>-Rich
<br><br><a href="http://rbodo.blogspot.com" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://rbodo.blogspot.com</a><br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/complete" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.linkedin.com/in/complete</a><br><br>Skype: richbodo
<br>irc: irc.freenode.net, icltlfatppl
<br>Yahoo IM: rsb_mv
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23619870Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-19T09:29:47Z2009-05-19T09:29:47Zdavelab6Hi Don!
<br><br>2009/5/19 Don Marti <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=23619870&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dmarti@...</a>>:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> begin Dave Crossland quotation of Tue, May 19, 2009 at 03:55:42PM +0100:
<br>>
<br>>> As someone looking to improve free software fonts, there are two
<br>>> routes open to me: Find a way to get people who don't demand
<br>>> proprietary-font-developer wages to publish free software fonts, or
<br>>> find a way to pay font developers who currently work in a proprietary
<br>>> software business model with a free software business model.
<br>>
<br>> The first business model in this area is likely to be
<br>> (1) hire people to make quick-and-dirty "good enough
<br>> for web" clones of proprietary fonts
</div><br>Generally professional type designers, while not so wedded to
<br>proprietary monopolising that they won't work on libre fonts at all
<br>(there are some exceptions...) are not so mercenary that they don't
<br>care what they work is as long as they are getting paid: They have a
<br>principled objection to cloning others' designs.
<br><br>While we may or may not agree to their principle of divine creators'
<br>rights, we can see that if they clone proprietary fonts without
<br>permission from the proprietors, their economic ability to win
<br>proprietary job contracts will diminish (AKA, ruin their professional
<br>reputation.)
<br><br>There are also legal problems with this: the USA has no copyright on
<br>type designs, just 14 year design patents, but, the UK has the normal
<br>artistic work copyright on type designs as do other jurisdictions I
<br>imagine. I need to research this in more detail because clearly there
<br>needs to be free versions of "classic" designs (eg, Gill Sans, from
<br>1926) but its cousin Johnston was "licensed" recently -
<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnston_%28typeface%29" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnston_%28typeface%29</a><br><br>> Commoditize the Complement
<br>> The idea is that you release the software to help
<br>> you get some other business,
<br><br>This is my immediate business plan: Modifiable fonts' complement is
<br>the knowledge-transfer of how to modify them. (its also the tools and
<br>the textbooks, but they ought to be free too, right :-)
<br><br>So I'm going to move out to Kerala where living expenses are cheap and
<br>work on a curriculum, and then travel the globe teaching commercial
<br>2-5 day font-making workshops to anyone I can market them to. I have a
<br>friend who teaches Ericksonian Hypnosis in this way and he earns
<br>plenty (although he also sells proprietary textbook materials...)
<br><br>> Sell Options on Future Support
<br><br>Fonts tend not to need much support. However, like software, "a font
<br>is never done" so perhaps options on future development can work.
<br><br>My understanding of Red Hat's business is that they do indeed offer
<br>support, but, they also do more development of free software (as such,
<br>ie "upstream," rather than dumping free KLOC over the wall) than
<br>anyone else, and their business model can be viewed as such:
<br><br>Find 2 people (or "legal persons") who want a feature added to a free
<br>software program and would be willing to pay 100% of the cost for an
<br>exclusive implementation, and offer them both a 30% discount for a
<br>non-exclusive implementation. 70% + 70% = 140% of cost. Find 10
<br>people? Offer them an 80% discount for 200% of cost. Then convert them
<br>to a subscription for regular development (as Red Hat do today) which
<br>benefits them as they have predictable development costs and benefits
<br>you because you have a predictable revenue stream to pay salaries
<br>with.
<br><br>I believe I might be able to transfer this to fonts, but I'm not quite sure.
<br><br>Do you know any examples of much smaller "boot strapping" companies
<br>working in these ways?
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23619523Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-19T09:10:47Z2009-05-19T09:10:47ZDon Martibegin Dave Crossland quotation of Tue, May 19, 2009 at 03:55:42PM +0100:
<br><br>> As someone looking to improve free software fonts, there are two
<br>> routes open to me: Find a way to get people who don't demand
<br>> proprietary-font-developer wages to publish free software fonts, or
<br>> find a way to pay font developers who currently work in a proprietary
<br>> software business model with a free software business model.
<br><br>The first business model in this area is likely to be
<br>(1) hire people to make quick-and-dirty "good enough
<br>for web" clones of proprietary fonts (2) put up an
<br>"Are your Web Fonts Licensed?" page to crawl people's
<br>sites for proprietary fonts (3) offer to sell them
<br>the clones.
<br><br>> So I'm very interested to hear the business models that work
<br>> for free software, so I can try to roll them out for fonts.
<br><br>Besides just charging for services, it seems that
<br>there are two basic business models for free software:
<br>Commoditize the Complement and Sell Options on
<br>Future Support.
<br><br>Commoditize the Complement
<br> <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html</a><br>The idea is that you release the software to help
<br>you get some other business, like Mozilla releasing
<br>a free browser to get ad revenue from Google,
<br>or Cypress Semiconductor releasing Linux driver
<br>code to sell USB chips. The software doesn't have
<br>to be Free free--Adobe does the same strategy with
<br>Acrobat Reader--but you might as well make the source
<br>available to signal quality and possibly attract an
<br>outside contribution.
<br><br>Sell Options on Future Support
<br> <a href="http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/07/21/software_pricing.html" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/07/21/software_pricing.html</a><br>Customers are willing to pay for the option to get
<br>support in the future, even if they might not use it.
<br>This is how Red Hat can survive selling software
<br>subscriptions that aren't a complement to anything
<br>else it sells.
<br><br>There are many other reasons to release free software,
<br>but those seem to be to be the two basic ones that
<br>count as business models. There are other ways to
<br>connect Free projects to markets, but they aren't in
<br>use as software business models yet.
<br><br> <a href="http://zgp.org/~dmarti/software/development-market/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://zgp.org/~dmarti/software/development-market/</a><br><br>--
<br>Don Marti +1 510-332-1587 mobile
<br><a href="http://zgp.org/~dmarti/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://zgp.org/~dmarti/</a><br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=23619523&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dmarti@...</a>
<br>See you at OpenSource World: August 11-13, 2009 in San Francisco
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23619291Re: Free Software Business Models2009-05-19T08:59:32Z2009-05-19T08:59:32Zdavelab6Hi,
<br><br>Some clarifications:
<br><br>2009/5/19 Dave Crossland <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=23619291&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dave@...</a>>:
<br>>
<br>> So I thought I'd ask here about what free software business models
<br>> there are, exactly.
<br><br>I understand this might become a long thread, and not too helpful to
<br>me, but, I am interested in hearing a variety of business models even
<br>if they don't appear to have any direct application to me.
<br><br>> As someone looking to improve free software fonts,
<br><br>I am not looking to maximize profit above all other concerns; I am
<br>looking to improve free software fonts, and that could be done
<br>commercially or non-commercially, but commercially so I can hire
<br>existing trained professionals will be fastest.
<br><br>Almost all other type designers are profit-maximisers and therefore
<br>try to obtain the strongest, most restrictive monopoly they can find.
<br>The market for that kind of font is totally saturated. For newcomers,
<br>a less restrictive model seems to work well at breaking into the
<br>existing market, and Jos Buivenga is a excellent example of this. Here
<br>is his freeware EULA from
<br><a href="http://www.josbuivenga.demon.nl/delicious.html" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.josbuivenga.demon.nl/delicious.html</a> :
<br><br>"Font license information
<br><br> * This font is free for personal and commercial use
<br> * The font file/software may be modified to suit design of system
<br>requirements,
<br> but strictly for your own (personal or commercial) use. You may
<br>not sell or distribute it
<br> * Embedding (in PDF's, Flash files and programs) is allowed
<br> * You may use this font for Font-Face embedding, but only if you
<br>put a link to www.exljbris.nl on your page and/or put this notice /* A
<br>font by Jos Buivenga (exljbris) -> www.exljbris.nl */ in your CSS file
<br>as near as possible to the piece of code that declares the Font-Face
<br>embedding of this font.
<br> * This font may not be distributed or sold -not online nor on any
<br>media- without my permission
<br> * This font is and remains (even when modified) the intellecual
<br>property of Jos Buivenga
<br> * Exljbris (Jos Buivenga) is not liable for any damage resulting
<br>from the use of this font"
<br><br>He then sells fully proprietary fonts at
<br><a href="http://www.myfonts.com/browse/foundry/exljbris/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.myfonts.com/browse/foundry/exljbris/</a> and was one of
<br>MyFonts.com's most popular vendors last year, thanks to this
<br>freeware-loss-leader business model.
<br><br>Since I'm committed to free software fonts, I think it would be
<br>counterproductive to run a font business with free software fonts
<br>upselling proprietary ones in this way.
<br><br>Cheers,
<br>Dave
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-23618107Free Software Business Models2009-05-19T07:55:42Z2009-05-19T07:55:42Zdavelab6Hi,
<br><br>Over on the autonomo.us list, there's been an informal discussion
<br>about if there are better and more profitable business models in the
<br>Free Network Service space than in even the traditional Free Software
<br>one.
<br><br>So I thought I'd ask here about what free software business models
<br>there are, exactly.
<br><br>As someone looking to improve free software fonts, there are two
<br>routes open to me: Find a way to get people who don't demand
<br>proprietary-font-developer wages to publish free software fonts, or
<br>find a way to pay font developers who currently work in a proprietary
<br>software business model with a free software business model.
<br><br>CSS3 has a method for linking fonts to web pages -
<br><a href="http://www.css3.info/preview/web-fonts-with-font-face/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.css3.info/preview/web-fonts-with-font-face/</a> - and this
<br>appears to be the opening for free software business model applied to
<br>font development; most of the incumbent proprietary vendors are
<br>lobbying the W3C for a web font DRM format and refusing to serve the
<br>market until then.
<br><br>This situation will not last forever, so hiring existing professional
<br>type designers is going to be a lot faster than training up a legion
<br>of amateurs :-)
<br><br>So I'm very interested to hear the business models that work
<br>for free software, so I can try to roll them out for fonts.
<br><br>Cheers,
<br>Dave
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-21667781Selling free software to schools2009-01-26T07:50:03Z2009-01-26T07:50:03Zdavelab6Hi,
<br><br>Thought this might be of interest :-)
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------
<br>From: Lucy <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=21667781&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">lucybridges@...</a>>
<br>Date: 2009/1/25
<br>Subject: [Fsuk-manchester] Slides for Ian Lynch's Talk
<br>To: Manchester Free Software <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=21667781&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">fsuk-manchester@...</a>>
<br><br><br>Ian Lynch has kindly made his slides available from last Monday's talk.
<br><br>For those who missed it, Ian spoke about The Learning Machine Ltd
<br>(TLM), an awarding body for the INGOTs accreditation. The INGOTs are
<br>an innovative award that teaches children about IT while also making
<br>money using and promoting free software. In the talk itself Ian spoke
<br>of the ways to create a business involved in FOSS and how using FOSS
<br>can advantageously disrupt the status-quo.
<br><br><a href="http://manchester.fsuk.org/blog/2009/01/15/ian-lynch-setting-up-and-sustaining-a-global-foss-based-business-20th-january/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://manchester.fsuk.org/blog/2009/01/15/ian-lynch-setting-up-and-sustaining-a-global-foss-based-business-20th-january/</a><br><br><a href="http://manchester.fsuk.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/manchester-foss.odp" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://manchester.fsuk.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/manchester-foss.odp</a><br>(CC-BY-SA)
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20836312Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-04T07:54:58Z2008-12-04T07:54:58ZMichael R. Bernstein<br>On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 23:13 -0500, Seth Johnson wrote:
<br>> I've often speculated that one might be able to sell the *quality* of
<br>> information -- its accuracy, its completeness, its timeliness, its
<br>> usability in terms of attributes available for whatever uses one
<br>> needs, common understanding of its specifications and "business
<br>> terms", its scalability and flexibility generally in terms of
<br>> nonredundancy and reuse.
<br><br>I've had some time to think about what you're saying here.
<br><br>Of the two industries I've been using as examples in this thread, fonts
<br>are closest to having objective measures of the quality of the
<br>information, specifically flexibility ansd adaptibility:
<br><br>At a bare minimum, fonts are only required to have a few hundred glyphs
<br>for the alphanumeric characters and punctuation. But beyond that, they
<br>may have italics, multiple weights, alternate characters, swashes,
<br>titling numerals, lining numerals, kerning pairs (to make typeset text
<br>flow better) ligatures (specially drawn character pairs such as 'ti'),
<br>small caps, and probably a few others that don't come to mind at the
<br>moment.
<br><br>Of course, all this is over-and-above the more subjective measures of
<br>quality such as aesthetics, but it is usually a pretty good bet that a
<br>font that has had that much extra work put into it's objective measures
<br>will look good based on the subjective ones as well.
<br><br>Objective measures such as these may be possible for the new content
<br>type / data format that I have envisioned, but they certainly don't
<br>exist yet.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> You'd have to establish a context of
<br>> measurement of these characteristics, perhaps advertising your quality
<br>> rates in an open way that allows verification of the integrity of the
<br>> measure, perhaps hooked up to usage contexts that happen to
<br>> problematize particular characteristics -- like some sort of context
<br>> where successful outcomes depend on accurate information, or complete,
<br>> or whatever. So maybe there could be independent actors measuring
<br>> various providers of information, or maybe there could be "discovered"
<br>> or "intuited" quality in circumstances where providers don't volunteer
<br>> measures.
</div></div>There is probably some room for measuring social activity around the
<br>relative use/popularity of the new content (how many people are using a
<br>particular file, as well as how much it is being used), but there are
<br>also privacy concerns.
<br><br>> You seem to want to create some sort of uniform data architecture for
<br>> consumer network services, and some aspect of it you seem to think
<br>> would be salable
<br><br>No. That's not even close. It is *much* less impressive than that.
<br><br>> -- yet it would seem to me that the adoption/uptake
<br>> would be predicated on its universality/generality or adaptibility or
<br>> simplicity, or somesuch.
<br><br>Short-term uptake will be predicated on trendiness and social popularity
<br>(but uptake as an *art form* may be determined by simplicity and
<br>adaptibility of the format). Long term uptake may depend on
<br>applicability and utility for branding and marketing (both personal and
<br>corporate).
<br><br>- Michael
<br><br /> <div class="small"><br/><img src="http://old.nabble.com/images/icon_attachment.gif" > <strong>signature.asc</strong> (196 bytes) <a href="http://old.nabble.com/attachment/20836312/0/signature.asc" target="_top">Download Attachment</a></div><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20818722Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-03T10:23:13Z2008-12-03T10:23:13ZMichael R. Bernstein<br>On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 10:24 -0700, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
<br>> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 15:51 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
<br>>
<br>> I'd have to get a pretty savvy investor to
<br><br>Sorry, I meant to complete that though as "I would need a pretty savvy
<br>investor to have the resources to get file for a patent before there was
<br>much evidence of a market. Particularly in the current investing
<br>environment."
<br><br>- Michael
<br><br /> <div class="small"><br/><img src="http://old.nabble.com/images/icon_attachment.gif" > <strong>signature.asc</strong> (196 bytes) <a href="http://old.nabble.com/attachment/20818722/0/signature.asc" target="_top">Download Attachment</a></div><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20818577Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-03T10:14:47Z2008-12-03T10:14:47ZMichael R. Bernstein<br>On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 17:42 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> Ben Tilly writes:
<br>>
<br>> > I think you're drawing a needless distinction. The data and formats
<br>> > are complements of each other. If he thinks he can make money from
<br>> > creating data, then he has a revenue incentive to create the
<br>> > format.
<br>>
<br>> Sure. But the original post presented only the issue of the format.
<br>> It turns out that the format is not interesting (except that a war of
<br>> proprietary formats might kill the market).
</div></div>Exactly. While future evolution of the format might *become*
<br>interesting, an initial naive implementation (which is all that is
<br>really necessary to get this market going) wouldn't be.
<br><br>> > There is a critical difference here. Tom created a distributed
<br>> > version control system (arch), but never tried to make money by
<br>> > supplying data that people would want to put *into* arch.
<br>>
<br>> Sure. My point is that being the creator of the format has nothing to
<br>> do with making money from it, except that if you are going into the
<br>> distribution business, you can hope to avoid the mistake of killing
<br>> the goose with a proprietary format by starting with a dominant, open
<br>> format.
<br><br>Thanks. That's my analysis as well.
<br><br>> > If he has the skills and talents to deliver the content successfully,
<br>> > I don't think he needs any more of a first mover advantage than being
<br>> > the name associated with the project, who created the free samples
<br>> > that everyone first sees. (Which, if they are good enough, will
<br>> > probably continue to be standard examples for some time.)
<br>>
<br>> True. However AIUI, he doesn't believe that he personally can create
<br>> excellent content. He wants to be the guy with his hand on the valve
<br>> for others' excellent content.
<br><br>Ah. Well, I think I have the talent and skills necessary to great *good*
<br>content, but perhaps not not excellent content (we'll have to see).
<br><br>I also do not have the skills and training that would intuitively seem
<br>most naturally applicable to this new medium, but it *is* a new medium,
<br>and I don't think that matters quite as much as it might seem at first
<br>blush. While sign painting could be considered a relevant skill for
<br>typeface design by a layman, the relationship breaks down under any
<br>close examination.
<br><br>I think I have the talent to make a pretty good try at pioneering this
<br>area artistically, and then capitalize on it. I could be fooling myself,
<br>though.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> > [T]he fact that he's thinking about [the content that he wants to
<br>> > deliver] means he's already doing something better than Tom ever
<br>> > did.
<br>>
<br>> You misunderstand Tom. Tom *did* think about content delivery,
<br>> although he was never able to make the content he had in mind concrete
<br>> enough to convince others. Nor was he willing to go into the
<br>> distribution business to prove his point. GNU Arch, we hardly knew
<br>> ya. RIP.
<br>>
<br>> > > Why would a premium content provider pay you, rather than use your own
<br>> > > free format as a threat to support charging you a franchise fee as a
<br>> > > distributor for their content? More fearsome yet, do you think you
<br>> > > can beat Amazon, iTunes, and Rhapsody at this game if the format is
<br>> > > free for them to use?
<br>> >
<br>> > The content providers are not his target audience.
<br>>
<br>> No, they're the suppliers of the premium content that is going to
<br>> provide for his kids' college education. Their price is the marginal
<br>> cost of his product.
</div></div>Let me see if I can clear this up. There is no existing content for
<br>conversion. Content for this format can be developed for existing
<br>brands, but costs will not be any lower than developing completely new
<br>content for new brands.
<br><br>To a certain extent brands will drive consumer demand for the new
<br>content though, so licensing those brands or a revenue split is
<br>appropriate, but there is no shortage of smaller independent brands to
<br>approach if the big boys won't play ball, and in any case early adopters
<br>would be more likely to be attracted to independent brands.
<br><br>> If the format is free, then competition with the
<br>> second-movers is going to jack up that cost, and is greatly to the
<br>> advantage of second-movers because he pays the cost of original
<br>> development of the format and they don't.
<br><br>I don't expect the format development cost to be very high.
<br><br>> Furthermore, he now has to
<br>> play innovation leapfrog with them, unless he gets it really right the
<br>> first time.
<br><br>Well, my first attempt will be sufficiently sophisticated for the first
<br>several years of the market at least (in some ways, it really is an
<br>obvious idea). Possibly longer, given the inertia markets can exhibit. I
<br>don't think innovation at the format level will be particularly
<br>compelling for some time.
<br><br>If the market grows enough to warrant it, developing a more
<br>sophisticated follow-on format is probably something that would end up
<br>happening in a standards organization.
<br><br>> The only example I know of of getting the data format right the first
<br>> time is git, and even there Linus cheated.
<br><br>Well, I don't think I'll get it right the first time, but it will be
<br>*good enough*.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> > The copyright on your implementation of how to access the data.
<br>> > However I must admit that if the format is designed for easy exchange
<br>> > of data, it would be easy to reverse engineer and that wouldn't be a
<br>> > very good barrier to entry.
<br>> >
<br>> > > > Part of why I'm being coy is that it actually won't be particularly
<br>> > > > difficult to devise a format for this new purpose
<br>> > >
<br>> > > Ah, so it's not about the format after all. It's about the content.
<br>> >
<br>> > He said that several paragraphs ago.
<br>>
<br>> Yeah, but he never repudiated his original post where he said it was
<br>> about the format.
</div></div>Hmm. Here is what I said:
<br><br> "So, I think it is possible this new data format could create
<br> it's own network effects, and thus create an ecosystem and minor
<br> industry."
<br><br>To be completely explicit, I expect it to create a minor *content*
<br>industry. Or, perhaps not so minor.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> > As natural as that seems to you, it took some time for the shareware
<br>> > market in desktop themes to go away. A temporary opportunity of that
<br>> > size could easily repay the effort of creating the market.
<br>>
<br>> And a fizzle could leave one in substantial debt. The theme and
<br>> screen saver formats were volunteer efforts, and the business free
<br>> rode on the format. Micheal is talking about investing in creating a
<br>> format, then investing in a service of connecting content providers to
<br>> users. Seems very risky to me.
<br>>
<br>> I'd take out a patent, first. ;-)
</div></div>I'll reiterate that I don't think the format creation itself will be a
<br>major investment. A much larger investment is the web service that
<br>interprets the format.
<br><br>> > I'd agree with that. This sounds to me like it would create a
<br>> > probably transient business opportunity. But if he's good at creating
<br>> > this kind of content, he should be able to transfer to other kinds of
<br>> > content creation.
<br>>
<br>> Again, he already said that content creation is not his bag. He wants
<br>> to get a share of the profits from the distribution channel.
<br><br>To make this work I have to create both the content *and* the
<br>distribution channel. I think I can parlay pioneering the new medium
<br>into a longer term distribution business, but I could be wrong. In any
<br>case I do not believe that I could create a durable *monopoly* position
<br>in the market I create, though I think I have a shot at a reasonably
<br>large, even dominant one. Disney comes to mind, but that seems
<br>grandiose, as I don't think the market is *that* big.
<br><br>- Michael
<br><br /> <div class="small"><br/><img src="http://old.nabble.com/images/icon_attachment.gif" > <strong>signature.asc</strong> (196 bytes) <a href="http://old.nabble.com/attachment/20818577/0/signature.asc" target="_top">Download Attachment</a></div><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20817498Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-03T09:24:33Z2008-12-03T09:24:33ZMichael R. Bernstein<br>On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 15:51 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
<br>> Michael R. Bernstein writes:
<br>> > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 18:15 -0800, Ben Tilly wrote:
<br>> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Michael R. Bernstein
<br>>
<br>> > > Am I being *too* coy?
<br>>
<br>> Yes.
<br><br>Sorry. I'll try to do better, without giving away the actual idea.
<br><br>> That's how you monetize the data, by providing a format in which it
<br>> can flow. How do you monetize the format?
<br><br>I'm not sure I can, and it may be foolish to try.
<br><br>> > I don't expect that market to be winner-take-all, but I do expect to get
<br>> > a healthy slice of the new ecosystem by virtue of having helped created
<br>> > it.
<br>>
<br>> That's a path to poverty. Search the FSB archives for posts by Tom
<br>> bellyaching about how he created the distributed VCS industry but got
<br>> no money or respect for his contribution. The facts are as he states
<br>> them; it's his expectation of being rewarded for his contribution that
<br>> was faulty.
<br><br>No need to search the archives. My participation in this list goes back
<br>over four years, so I've followed those conversations at the time.
<br><br>> IOW, "by virtue of" is meaningless here. You need to point to
<br>> concrete first mover advantages that you can argue will accrue to the
<br>> innovator of a data format suitable for this genus of content.
<br><br>That's a good point. I think I'll get a critical mass of early adopters
<br>quite quickly and be able to create considerable brand-equity as a
<br>destination for this content.
<br><br>There is also the matter of developing institutional expertise in
<br>creating content for this new format. It is *not* a matter of conversion
<br>of existing assets.
<br><br>Whether I can parlay that into a more durable barrier to entry is an
<br>open question.
<br><br>> > I've had some more time to think about this, and I believe that
<br>> > operating a free consumer service where users can use free content as
<br>> > well as purchase access to premium content for use *with* the service,
<br>> > may be the way to go.
<br>>
<br>> Why would a premium content provider pay you, rather than use your own
<br>> free format as a threat to support charging you a franchise fee as a
<br>> distributor for their content?
<br><br>Existing content providers mostly have *brands* as relevant assets, not
<br>actual content.
<br><br>I don't really expect to go after the large content providers
<br>immediately, as there are many smaller brands and artists that would be
<br>more tractable and have rabidly loyal fan-bases.
<br><br>> More fearsome yet, do you think you
<br>> can beat Amazon, iTunes, and Rhapsody at this game if the format is
<br>> free for them to use?
<br><br>That, is a *very* good question. I am not sure, except that I think it
<br>will take time for the largest players to move in.
<br><br>Yet, even though this is an area more closely related to their existing
<br>offerings, you don't see any of those players trying to create a market
<br>in MIDI files, for example.
<br><br>Here is one strategy I have been mulling:
<br><br> 1) The webservice is primed with some CC-BY-SA content to make
<br> it immediately useful to users.
<br>
<br> 2) I expect *some* users to begin creating their own modified
<br> content and uploading it to be shared (obviously under the same
<br> terms).
<br>
<br> 2a) There *may* be a crowdsourcing angle here for content
<br> production, I haven't worked that out just yet.
<br>
<br> 3) I create some 'premium' content, that the user must pay to
<br> access (something on the order of a ringtone fee). The user can
<br> try before they buy.
<br>
<br> 4) Once paid, the user can use the content. They can also
<br> actually download the file under a noncommercial (probably
<br> CC-BY-NC-ND, but perhaps CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-NC-SA) license,
<br> giving the user data portability and freedom to move to another
<br> service (and remember, the service itself is a F/OSS
<br> application), but prevents a competing service from charging for
<br> the premium content I've created/provided.
<br>
<br>Some consequences and twists I expect:
<br>
<br> 1) Some large media brands will set up their own competing
<br> services with their branded offerings, but will likely have to
<br> give it away. To the extent that large brands have experimented
<br> with the antecedents of this medium at all, it has always been
<br> as free giveaways for promotional purposes (and no thought for
<br> portability).
<br>
<br> I may wait util some of these free offerings exist (indicating
<br> critical mass) before I launch the premium offerings I mentioned
<br> above.
<br>
<br> 2) Competing services could create their own premium content, of
<br> course, and license it under terms that prevent me from making
<br> equivalent use of it, but I'm betting that disabling portability
<br> (either by disabling downloads or via too-restrictive
<br> licensing), will lead to shunning (or piracy) by users. IOW, I
<br> think I can create a social norm for content portability.
<br>
<br> 3) I would fully expect free public sites that are mere
<br> aggregators to spring up, and for that matter for these files to
<br> show up on bittorrent. To use those files, a user would have to
<br> find it, download it, and then upload it to a service (say the
<br> one I operate). These files are not necessarily small. So the
<br> access fee I charge is really for the convenience of immediate
<br> gratification.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> > > Depending on what you're doing, other models may work. For instance
<br>> > > Sleepycat built a pretty good business around offering a free product
<br>> > > which you had to pay to incorporate into proprietary products. And
<br>> > > for many years Aladdin made money from Ghostscript by having a
<br>> > > proprietary product that they would open source old versions of. Both
<br>> > > of those models require that you maintain ownership of the copyright
<br>> > > though.
<br>>
<br>> Er, what copyright? Once you allow people to access the interface
<br>> freely, you're dead. You'd have to proprietize the interface itself
<br>> here, as I understand it. I think you really need a patent to get any
<br>> mileage from the data format itself.
</div></div>I'd have to get a pretty savvy investor to
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> > [snip discussion of fonts, desktop themes, and screensavers]
<br>>
<br>> I think it's pretty easy to see the difference in hindsight, and you
<br>> should take advantage of that hindsight to refine your estimates.
<br>>
<br>> Desktop themes are *background*. They should not be obtrusive, and
<br>> once you've got a pleasant one, there's little reason for most users
<br>> to change. They're also easy to create on the hobbyist level.
<br>> Finally, distribution takes place in the open source context, openly
<br>> over the internet.
<br>>
<br>> Screen savers are even more so.
<br>>
<br>> Ring tones, on the other hand, are part of the way you present
<br>> yourself to the world. They're heavily tied to your self-image, and
<br>> to fashion. Many (most?) popular ring-tones are currently popular
<br>> music themes, which are backed up by heavy handed titans like RIAA,
<br>> and they have a natural proprietary distribution channel.
<br>>
<br>> That last contrast (distribution) should worry you. The others will
<br>> help you gauge opportunity.
</div></div>Thanks for this. I believe that the service I intend to provide will
<br>*definitely* tie into self-image, perhaps more so than ringtones do,
<br>though perhaps not for as broad an audience.
<br><br>Distribution *does* worry me. I think I basically have two choices,
<br>neutralize incumbents' distribution advantages, or try to create my own.
<br>I think the former is a more viable approach.
<br><br>- Michael
<br><br /> <div class="small"><br/><img src="http://old.nabble.com/images/icon_attachment.gif" > <strong>signature.asc</strong> (196 bytes) <a href="http://old.nabble.com/attachment/20817498/0/signature.asc" target="_top">Download Attachment</a></div><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20816001Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-03T08:11:38Z2008-12-03T08:11:38ZMichael R. Bernstein<br>On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:58 -0800, Ben Tilly wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Michael R. Bernstein
<br>> <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=20816001&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">michael@...</a>> wrote:
<br>> >
<br>> > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 18:15 -0800, Ben Tilly wrote:
<br>> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Michael R. Bernstein
<br>> >
<br>> >> Am I being *too* coy? I was hoping for some feedback by now...
<br>> >>
<br>> >> My reason for not responding is that I don't see how you'd monetize a
<br>> >> free data format.
<br>> >
<br>> > Generally speaking, I expect the free availability of the format, and
<br>> > the availability of free/open data (or content) in that format, to
<br>> > actually create a market for proprietary/licensed data in the free
<br>> > format, as well as services related to aggregating demand and supply
<br>> > (free fonts and clip art help create demand for higher quality
<br>> > offerings).
<br>>
<br>> It sounds like you know your business model then. :-D
</div></div>Well, I *think* so, but the subsequent discussion on business models
<br>here has been pretty valuable.
<br><br>> In this case your goal is to get your format widely adopted. For
<br>> which you might want to use the BSD license. You should also aim to
<br>> get your product incorporated into existing products - for instance
<br>> make a Firefox plugin yourself.
<br><br>That's good advice. To the extent that other software supports similar
<br>existing services, I'll want to make sure my service is supported as
<br>well (not by a FF extension, but there are relevant equivalents).
<br><br>> > There may be some service and consulting revenue from companies that
<br>> > want to deploy the service internally, but I am actually not sure how
<br>> > soon any of that would materialize (could be a few years). [snip]
<br>> Well with the model you're aiming for, you want to make deploying as
<br>> fast and painless as possible. Which indicates that you won't get
<br>> much service and consulting revenue.
<br><br>Hmm. True. Or at least not much beyond the 'personal consulting
<br>business' level. Which could still be helpful in the short term.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> [...]
<br>> >> Depending on what you're doing, other models may work. For instance
<br>> >> Sleepycat built a pretty good business around offering a free product
<br>> >> which you had to pay to incorporate into proprietary products. And
<br>> >> for many years Aladdin made money from Ghostscript by having a
<br>> >> proprietary product that they would open source old versions of. Both
<br>> >> of those models require that you maintain ownership of the copyright
<br>> >> though.
<br>> >
<br>> > The Sleepycat model could work for the webservice, but the GhostScript
<br>> > model won't. Perhaps for libraries intended to be used by desktop apps
<br>> > though... Hmm... No, probably not.
<br>>
<br>> If your goal is adoption, you may not want to put up artificial
<br>> barriers to inclusion in proprietary products. Or perhaps you do. It
<br>> is hard to say.
</div></div>It *is* hard to say. In any case, there is a distinction to be made here
<br>between adoption of the service software and adoption of the file
<br>format.
<br><br>Adobe created a pretty hefty revenue stream off of Type1 fonts by
<br>licensing the format, but eventually their stranglehold drove Apple to
<br>creating TrueType as a functional equivalent.
<br><br>I don't think I could pull off what Adobe did in the first place. It
<br>would be too easy to create a functional equivalent format that was more
<br>open and easier to deal with existing tools, so I think the format I
<br>devise is going to have to be as easy to deal with and adopt as
<br>possible.
<br><br>That said, there *may* be a sleepycat-like model in licensing libraries
<br>specifically intended for the format.
<br><br>> The dynamic you've got to think about is whether the potential market
<br>> will grow too much faster than your ability to supply it. If it does,
<br>> you could create a huge market but never benefit much from it. For
<br>> instance if Microsoft likes your idea, then incorporates it into a
<br>> hundred million desktops in a year, everyone is going to look to
<br>> Microsoft for direction and you'll be forgotten.
<br><br>That is a distinct possibility.
<br><br>> If you haven't run a company before then you probably should find a
<br>> good mentor. Also read up on startups. Paul Graham has written a
<br>> number of potentially applicable essays.
<br><br>A good mentor is hard to find. So is a co-founder. I've got some feelers
<br>out. I haven't run a company before, but I've been reading up on
<br>startups (including PG) for years.
<br><br>This is the first time I've had an idea that feels this big and this
<br>obvious, as opposed to "yeah, I could make some money doing that" ideas.
<br><br>- Michael
<br><br /> <div class="small"><br/><img src="http://old.nabble.com/images/icon_attachment.gif" > <strong>signature.asc</strong> (196 bytes) <a href="http://old.nabble.com/attachment/20816001/0/signature.asc" target="_top">Download Attachment</a></div><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20808855Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-03T00:40:01Z2008-12-03T00:40:01ZStephen J. TurnbullBen Tilly writes:
<br><br> > I think you're drawing a needless distinction. The data and formats
<br> > are complements of each other. If he thinks he can make money from
<br> > creating data, then he has a revenue incentive to create the
<br> > format.
<br><br>Sure. But the original post presented only the issue of the format.
<br>It turns out that the format is not interesting (except that a war of
<br>proprietary formats might kill the market).
<br><br> > There is a critical difference here. Tom created a distributed
<br> > version control system (arch), but never tried to make money by
<br> > supplying data that people would want to put *into* arch.
<br><br>Sure. My point is that being the creator of the format has nothing to
<br>do with making money from it, except that if you are going into the
<br>distribution business, you can hope to avoid the mistake of killing
<br>the goose with a proprietary format by starting with a dominant, open
<br>format.
<br><br> > If he has the skills and talents to deliver the content successfully,
<br> > I don't think he needs any more of a first mover advantage than being
<br> > the name associated with the project, who created the free samples
<br> > that everyone first sees. (Which, if they are good enough, will
<br> > probably continue to be standard examples for some time.)
<br><br>True. However AIUI, he doesn't believe that he personally can create
<br>excellent content. He wants to be the guy with his hand on the valve
<br>for others' excellent content.
<br><br> > [T]he fact that he's thinking about [the content that he wants to
<br> > deliver] means he's already doing something better than Tom ever
<br> > did.
<br><br>You misunderstand Tom. Tom *did* think about content delivery,
<br>although he was never able to make the content he had in mind concrete
<br>enough to convince others. Nor was he willing to go into the
<br>distribution business to prove his point. GNU Arch, we hardly knew
<br>ya. RIP.
<br><br> > > Why would a premium content provider pay you, rather than use your own
<br> > > free format as a threat to support charging you a franchise fee as a
<br> > > distributor for their content? More fearsome yet, do you think you
<br> > > can beat Amazon, iTunes, and Rhapsody at this game if the format is
<br> > > free for them to use?
<br> >
<br> > The content providers are not his target audience.
<br><br>No, they're the suppliers of the premium content that is going to
<br>provide for his kids' college education. Their price is the marginal
<br>cost of his product. If the format is free, then competition with the
<br>second-movers is going to jack up that cost, and is greatly to the
<br>advantage of second-movers because he pays the cost of original
<br>development of the format and they don't. Furthermore, he now has to
<br>play innovation leapfrog with them, unless he gets it really right the
<br>first time.
<br><br>The only example I know of of getting the data format right the first
<br>time is git, and even there Linus cheated.
<br><br> > The copyright on your implementation of how to access the data.
<br> > However I must admit that if the format is designed for easy exchange
<br> > of data, it would be easy to reverse engineer and that wouldn't be a
<br> > very good barrier to entry.
<br> >
<br> > > > Part of why I'm being coy is that it actually won't be particularly
<br> > > > difficult to devise a format for this new purpose
<br> > >
<br> > > Ah, so it's not about the format after all. It's about the content.
<br> >
<br> > He said that several paragraphs ago.
<br><br>Yeah, but he never repudiated his original post where he said it was
<br>about the format.
<br><br> > As natural as that seems to you, it took some time for the shareware
<br> > market in desktop themes to go away. A temporary opportunity of that
<br> > size could easily repay the effort of creating the market.
<br><br>And a fizzle could leave one in substantial debt. The theme and
<br>screen saver formats were volunteer efforts, and the business free
<br>rode on the format. Micheal is talking about investing in creating a
<br>format, then investing in a service of connecting content providers to
<br>users. Seems very risky to me.
<br><br>I'd take out a patent, first. ;-)
<br><br> > > Screen savers are even more so.
<br> > >
<br> > > Ring tones, on the other hand, are part of the way you present
<br> > > yourself to the world. They're heavily tied to your self-image, and
<br> > > to fashion. Many (most?) popular ring-tones are currently popular
<br> > > music themes, which are backed up by heavy handed titans like RIAA,
<br> > > and they have a natural proprietary distribution channel.
<br> >
<br> > The ring tone market is heavily dependent on artificial barriers to
<br> > discourage people from making their own ring tones from mp3 files.
<br><br>Which is what I just said, except for the gloss "artificial". With
<br>said gloss I do somewhat disagree. ;-)
<br><br>I agree with your assessment that those of us whose taste in music
<br>froze in 1969 will within a few years be in a position to install our
<br>own MP3s in our handsets. However, (1) people who want their ringtone
<br>to be this week's Billboard #1 pop song will still often find it
<br>easiest to pay for it, and (2) the feature where *your* chosen
<br>ringtone plays on *my* phone will be controlled by the telcos
<br>indefinitely, if they want to.
<br><br> > I'd agree with that. This sounds to me like it would create a
<br> > probably transient business opportunity. But if he's good at creating
<br> > this kind of content, he should be able to transfer to other kinds of
<br> > content creation.
<br><br>Again, he already said that content creation is not his bag. He wants
<br>to get a share of the profits from the distribution channel.
<br><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20808307Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-02T23:51:10Z2008-12-02T23:51:10ZBen TillyOn Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=20808307&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">stephen@...</a>> wrote:
<br>> Michael R. Bernstein writes:
<br>> > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 18:15 -0800, Ben Tilly wrote:
<br>[...]
<br>> > Generally speaking, I expect the free availability of the format, and
<br>> > the availability of free/open data (or content) in that format, to
<br>> > actually create a market for proprietary/licensed data in the free
<br>> > format, as well as services related to aggregating demand and supply
<br>> > (free fonts and clip art help create demand for higher quality
<br>> > offerings).
<br>>
<br>> That's how you monetize the data, by providing a format in which it
<br>> can flow. How do you monetize the format?
<br><br>I think you're drawing a needless distinction. The data and formats
<br>are complements of each other. If he thinks he can make money from
<br>creating data, then he has a revenue incentive to create the format.
<br><br>> > I don't expect that market to be winner-take-all, but I do expect to get
<br>> > a healthy slice of the new ecosystem by virtue of having helped created
<br>> > it.
<br>>
<br>> That's a path to poverty. Search the FSB archives for posts by Tom
<br>> bellyaching about how he created the distributed VCS industry but got
<br>> no money or respect for his contribution. The facts are as he states
<br>> them; it's his expectation of being rewarded for his contribution that
<br>> was faulty.
<br><br>There is a critical difference here. Tom created a distributed
<br>version control system (arch), but never tried to make money by
<br>supplying data that people would want to put *into* arch. Given what
<br>arch does, that would not make sense to try, but still he didn't try
<br>it.
<br><br>Incidentally Tom is utterly wrong if he claims to have created the
<br>distributed VCS industry. BitMover began working on BitKeeper back in
<br>1997 and released it in 1998. Tom Lord began working on arch in 2001,
<br>and nothing arch ever did was as effective in promoting the idea of a
<br>distributed VCS as the adoption of BitKeeper for the Linux kernel in
<br>2002.
<br><br>> IOW, "by virtue of" is meaningless here. You need to point to
<br>> concrete first mover advantages that you can argue will accrue to the
<br>> innovator of a data format suitable for this genus of content.
<br><br>If he has the skills and talents to deliver the content successfully,
<br>I don't think he needs any more of a first mover advantage than being
<br>the name associated with the project, who created the free samples
<br>that everyone first sees. (Which, if they are good enough, will
<br>probably continue to be standard examples for some time.) It isn't a
<br>permanent advantage, but it could easily be enough to make the initial
<br>investment worthwhile.
<br><br>Of course this is dependent on his ability to deliver the content
<br>successfully. If he is not talented this way, then he'll be in Tom's
<br>boat. But that possibility notwithstanding, the fact that he's
<br>thinking about it means he's already doing something better than Tom
<br>ever did.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> > I've had some more time to think about this, and I believe that
<br>> > operating a free consumer service where users can use free content as
<br>> > well as purchase access to premium content for use *with* the service,
<br>> > may be the way to go.
<br>>
<br>> Why would a premium content provider pay you, rather than use your own
<br>> free format as a threat to support charging you a franchise fee as a
<br>> distributor for their content? More fearsome yet, do you think you
<br>> can beat Amazon, iTunes, and Rhapsody at this game if the format is
<br>> free for them to use?
</div><br>The content providers are not his target audience. And his target
<br>company size is small enough that he could be happy with the business
<br>opportunity while the market is way too small to interest Amazon,
<br>iTunes, or Rhapsody. And if it does become big enough to interest the
<br>big players, they can dominate the scene and still leave enough crumbs
<br>to keep a 5-10 person company in business.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> > > Depending on what you're doing, other models may work. For instance
<br>> > > Sleepycat built a pretty good business around offering a free product
<br>> > > which you had to pay to incorporate into proprietary products. And
<br>> > > for many years Aladdin made money from Ghostscript by having a
<br>> > > proprietary product that they would open source old versions of. Both
<br>> > > of those models require that you maintain ownership of the copyright
<br>> > > though.
<br>>
<br>> Er, what copyright? Once you allow people to access the interface
<br>> freely, you're dead. You'd have to proprietize the interface itself
<br>> here, as I understand it. I think you really need a patent to get any
<br>> mileage from the data format itself.
</div><br>The copyright on your implementation of how to access the data.
<br>However I must admit that if the format is designed for easy exchange
<br>of data, it would be easy to reverse engineer and that wouldn't be a
<br>very good barrier to entry.
<br><br>> > Part of why I'm being coy is that it actually won't be particularly
<br>> > difficult to devise a format for this new purpose
<br>>
<br>> Ah, so it's not about the format after all. It's about the content.
<br><br>He said that several paragraphs ago.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> > While the marketplace created by this format could be pretty darn big, I
<br>> > don't have *any* illusions about being able to corner it. Initial
<br>> > success will probably be marked by sustainable revenues that support
<br>> > 5-10 employees. How far the company could grow beyond that is anybody's
<br>> > guess depending on whether I'm right about the format leading to an
<br>> > explosion of creativity *and* demand for content, both consumer and
<br>> > corporate.
<br>> >
<br>> > For example, royalty-free clip-art is a pretty big business (though not
<br>> > as big as digital fonts) with both high end and low end offerings, but
<br>> > could you have actually *predicted* that with any certainty at the very
<br>> > beginning of the desktop-publishing revolution? Or the current market
<br>> > for cell phone ringtones as recently as a decade ago?
<br>> >
<br>> > On the other hand, desktop themes and backgrounds are a niche that few
<br>> > consumers have ever paid for, or pay very much, though some artists are
<br>> > able to make a living at it, and some aggregators have built successful
<br>> > businesses.
<br>> >
<br>> > And yet on a third hand, screen-savers were quite popular and profitable
<br>> > for a while, and then that market mostly dried up.
<br>>
<br>> I think it's pretty easy to see the difference in hindsight, and you
<br>> should take advantage of that hindsight to refine your estimates.
<br>>
<br>> Desktop themes are *background*. They should not be obtrusive, and
<br>> once you've got a pleasant one, there's little reason for most users
<br>> to change. They're also easy to create on the hobbyist level.
<br>> Finally, distribution takes place in the open source context, openly
<br>> over the internet.
</div><br>As natural as that seems to you, it took some time for the shareware
<br>market in desktop themes to go away. A temporary opportunity of that
<br>size could easily repay the effort of creating the market.
<br><br>> Screen savers are even more so.
<br>>
<br>> Ring tones, on the other hand, are part of the way you present
<br>> yourself to the world. They're heavily tied to your self-image, and
<br>> to fashion. Many (most?) popular ring-tones are currently popular
<br>> music themes, which are backed up by heavy handed titans like RIAA,
<br>> and they have a natural proprietary distribution channel.
<br><br>The ring tone market is heavily dependent on artificial barriers to
<br>discourage people from making their own ring tones from mp3 files. I
<br>don't think this situation is stable. In fact I strongly suspect that
<br>if we repeated this conversation in a decade, ring tones would join
<br>desktop themes and screen savers as things that were big for a while
<br>then went away.
<br><br>If that prediction is wrong, then I ascribe the continued success of
<br>ring tones entirely to efforts by cell phone carriers to maintain a
<br>market that is very profitable for them.
<br><br>> That last contrast (distribution) should worry you. The others will
<br>> help you gauge opportunity.
<br><br>I'd agree with that. This sounds to me like it would create a
<br>probably transient business opportunity. But if he's good at creating
<br>this kind of content, he should be able to transfer to other kinds of
<br>content creation.
<br><br>Cheers,
<br>Ben
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20807757Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-02T22:57:14Z2008-12-02T22:57:14ZStephen J. TurnbullSeth Johnson writes:
<br><br> > I've often speculated that one might be able to sell the *quality* of
<br> > information -- its accuracy, its completeness, its timeliness, its
<br> > usability in terms of attributes available for whatever uses one
<br> > needs, common understanding of its specifications and "business
<br> > terms", its scalability and flexibility generally in terms of
<br> > nonredundancy and reuse.
<br><br>Speculate no more: Alta Vista, Yahoo, Google. Of course,
<br>generalizing as you have indicated is more difficult, but we have one
<br>example of a multi-billion dollar business model based on selling
<br>quality of information, and the rapid turnover of the leaders
<br>demonstrates your thesis that it's hard to maintain leadership.
<br><br>Note also how the movement of the newsmedia onto the 'net has
<br>basically kicked their traditional business model (advertising) out
<br>from under them. They're still using it, but it's no longer capable
<br>of supporting what I consider high quality. Rather, more and more
<br>they're moving to selling subscriptions to either extreme timeliness
<br>(Bloomberg financials) or extreme completeness aka archive access
<br>(NYT, Economist).
<br><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20807687Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-02T22:49:16Z2008-12-02T22:49:16ZStephen J. TurnbullMichael R. Bernstein writes:
<br> > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 18:15 -0800, Ben Tilly wrote:
<br> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Michael R. Bernstein
<br><br> > > Am I being *too* coy?
<br><br>Yes.
<br><br> > > My reason for not responding is that I don't see how you'd monetize a
<br> > > free data format.
<br><br>This is the critical question, as posed by the OP.
<br><br> > Generally speaking, I expect the free availability of the format, and
<br> > the availability of free/open data (or content) in that format, to
<br> > actually create a market for proprietary/licensed data in the free
<br> > format, as well as services related to aggregating demand and supply
<br> > (free fonts and clip art help create demand for higher quality
<br> > offerings).
<br><br>That's how you monetize the data, by providing a format in which it
<br>can flow. How do you monetize the format?
<br><br> > I don't expect that market to be winner-take-all, but I do expect to get
<br> > a healthy slice of the new ecosystem by virtue of having helped created
<br> > it.
<br><br>That's a path to poverty. Search the FSB archives for posts by Tom
<br>bellyaching about how he created the distributed VCS industry but got
<br>no money or respect for his contribution. The facts are as he states
<br>them; it's his expectation of being rewarded for his contribution that
<br>was faulty.
<br><br>IOW, "by virtue of" is meaningless here. You need to point to
<br>concrete first mover advantages that you can argue will accrue to the
<br>innovator of a data format suitable for this genus of content.
<br><br> > I've had some more time to think about this, and I believe that
<br> > operating a free consumer service where users can use free content as
<br> > well as purchase access to premium content for use *with* the service,
<br> > may be the way to go.
<br><br>Why would a premium content provider pay you, rather than use your own
<br>free format as a threat to support charging you a franchise fee as a
<br>distributor for their content? More fearsome yet, do you think you
<br>can beat Amazon, iTunes, and Rhapsody at this game if the format is
<br>free for them to use?
<br><br> > > Depending on what you're doing, other models may work. For instance
<br> > > Sleepycat built a pretty good business around offering a free product
<br> > > which you had to pay to incorporate into proprietary products. And
<br> > > for many years Aladdin made money from Ghostscript by having a
<br> > > proprietary product that they would open source old versions of. Both
<br> > > of those models require that you maintain ownership of the copyright
<br> > > though.
<br><br>Er, what copyright? Once you allow people to access the interface
<br>freely, you're dead. You'd have to proprietize the interface itself
<br>here, as I understand it. I think you really need a patent to get any
<br>mileage from the data format itself.
<br><br> > Part of why I'm being coy is that it actually won't be particularly
<br> > difficult to devise a format for this new purpose
<br><br>Ah, so it's not about the format after all. It's about the content.
<br><br> > While the marketplace created by this format could be pretty darn big, I
<br> > don't have *any* illusions about being able to corner it. Initial
<br> > success will probably be marked by sustainable revenues that support
<br> > 5-10 employees. How far the company could grow beyond that is anybody's
<br> > guess depending on whether I'm right about the format leading to an
<br> > explosion of creativity *and* demand for content, both consumer and
<br> > corporate.
<br> >
<br> > For example, royalty-free clip-art is a pretty big business (though not
<br> > as big as digital fonts) with both high end and low end offerings, but
<br> > could you have actually *predicted* that with any certainty at the very
<br> > beginning of the desktop-publishing revolution? Or the current market
<br> > for cell phone ringtones as recently as a decade ago?
<br> >
<br> > On the other hand, desktop themes and backgrounds are a niche that few
<br> > consumers have ever paid for, or pay very much, though some artists are
<br> > able to make a living at it, and some aggregators have built successful
<br> > businesses.
<br> >
<br> > And yet on a third hand, screen-savers were quite popular and profitable
<br> > for a while, and then that market mostly dried up.
<br><br>I think it's pretty easy to see the difference in hindsight, and you
<br>should take advantage of that hindsight to refine your estimates.
<br><br>Desktop themes are *background*. They should not be obtrusive, and
<br>once you've got a pleasant one, there's little reason for most users
<br>to change. They're also easy to create on the hobbyist level.
<br>Finally, distribution takes place in the open source context, openly
<br>over the internet.
<br><br>Screen savers are even more so.
<br><br>Ring tones, on the other hand, are part of the way you present
<br>yourself to the world. They're heavily tied to your self-image, and
<br>to fashion. Many (most?) popular ring-tones are currently popular
<br>music themes, which are backed up by heavy handed titans like RIAA,
<br>and they have a natural proprietary distribution channel.
<br><br>That last contrast (distribution) should worry you. The others will
<br>help you gauge opportunity.
<br><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20807309Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-02T21:58:59Z2008-12-02T21:58:59ZBen TillyOn Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Michael R. Bernstein
<br><<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=20807309&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">michael@...</a>> wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>>
<br>> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 18:15 -0800, Ben Tilly wrote:
<br>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Michael R. Bernstein
<br>>
<br>>> Am I being *too* coy? I was hoping for some feedback by now...
<br>>>
<br>>> My reason for not responding is that I don't see how you'd monetize a
<br>>> free data format.
<br>>
<br>> Generally speaking, I expect the free availability of the format, and
<br>> the availability of free/open data (or content) in that format, to
<br>> actually create a market for proprietary/licensed data in the free
<br>> format, as well as services related to aggregating demand and supply
<br>> (free fonts and clip art help create demand for higher quality
<br>> offerings).
</div><br>It sounds like you know your business model then. :-D
<br><br>In this case your goal is to get your format widely adopted. For
<br>which you might want to use the BSD license. You should also aim to
<br>get your product incorporated into existing products - for instance
<br>make a Firefox plugin yourself.
<br><br>> I don't expect that market to be winner-take-all, but I do expect to get
<br>> a healthy slice of the new ecosystem by virtue of having helped created
<br>> it.
<br><br>Right.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>>> The most applicable business models would seem to be providing support
<br>>> and training for your system, or else making money off of proprietary
<br>>> tools built on top of your data format. Without details I can't guess
<br>>> whether either of those is viable.
<br>>
<br>> There may be some service and consulting revenue from companies that
<br>> want to deploy the service internally, but I am actually not sure how
<br>> soon any of that would materialize (could be a few years). Data-creation
<br>> (or content-creation) services may materialize sooner (think custom
<br>> typeface design). Proprietary tools (think fontographer) could be
<br>> lucrative, but I may simply have to cede that portion of the market to
<br>> someone else as it is not my area of expertise.
</div><br>Well with the model you're aiming for, you want to make deploying as
<br>fast and painless as possible. Which indicates that you won't get
<br>much service and consulting revenue.
<br><br>[...]
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>>> Depending on what you're doing, other models may work. For instance
<br>>> Sleepycat built a pretty good business around offering a free product
<br>>> which you had to pay to incorporate into proprietary products. And
<br>>> for many years Aladdin made money from Ghostscript by having a
<br>>> proprietary product that they would open source old versions of. Both
<br>>> of those models require that you maintain ownership of the copyright
<br>>> though.
<br>>
<br>> The Sleepycat model could work for the webservice, but the GhostScript
<br>> model won't. Perhaps for libraries intended to be used by desktop apps
<br>> though... Hmm... No, probably not.
</div><br>If your goal is adoption, you may not want to put up artificial
<br>barriers to inclusion in proprietary products. Or perhaps you do. It
<br>is hard to say.
<br><br>The dynamic you've got to think about is whether the potential market
<br>will grow too much faster than your ability to supply it. If it does,
<br>you could create a huge market but never benefit much from it. For
<br>instance if Microsoft likes your idea, then incorporates it into a
<br>hundred million desktops in a year, everyone is going to look to
<br>Microsoft for direction and you'll be forgotten.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>>> You also haven't said how difficult it will be to launch this project
<br>>> and what size of company you're looking to build on it. It is much
<br>>> easier to, for instance, come up with a business model around a niche
<br>>> product that will work for a personal consultancy than it is to come
<br>>> up with one that is keeping a several hundred person enterprise going.
<br>>
<br>> Part of why I'm being coy is that it actually won't be particularly
<br>> difficult to devise a format for this new purpose (though it could be
<br>> done well or poorly), create the supporting web service, and launch the
<br>> company, but my resources are slim at the moment, so it could still take
<br>> me a while.
<br>>
<br>> While the marketplace created by this format could be pretty darn big, I
<br>> don't have *any* illusions about being able to corner it. Initial
<br>> success will probably be marked by sustainable revenues that support
<br>> 5-10 employees. How far the company could grow beyond that is anybody's
<br>> guess depending on whether I'm right about the format leading to an
<br>> explosion of creativity *and* demand for content, both consumer and
<br>> corporate.
</div><br>If you haven't run a company before then you probably should find a
<br>good mentor. Also read up on startups. Paul Graham has written a
<br>number of potentially applicable essays.
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> For example, royalty-free clip-art is a pretty big business (though not
<br>> as big as digital fonts) with both high end and low end offerings, but
<br>> could you have actually *predicted* that with any certainty at the very
<br>> beginning of the desktop-publishing revolution? Or the current market
<br>> for cell phone ringtones as recently as a decade ago?
<br>>
<br>> On the other hand, desktop themes and backgrounds are a niche that few
<br>> consumers have ever paid for, or pay very much, though some artists are
<br>> able to make a living at it, and some aggregators have built successful
<br>> businesses.
<br>>
<br>> And yet on a third hand, screen-savers were quite popular and profitable
<br>> for a while, and then that market mostly dried up.
<br>>
<br>> I am quite simply not sure how big this new market will be, just that
<br>> there is, in fact, one waiting to be created.
</div><br>Uncertainty is part of life.
<br><br>Cheers,
<br>Ben
<br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20806903Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-02T21:04:43Z2008-12-02T21:04:43ZMichael R. Bernstein<br>On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 18:15 -0800, Ben Tilly wrote:
<br>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Michael R. Bernstein
<br><br><br><br>> Am I being *too* coy? I was hoping for some feedback by now...
<br>>
<br>> My reason for not responding is that I don't see how you'd monetize a
<br>> free data format.
<br><br>Generally speaking, I expect the free availability of the format, and
<br>the availability of free/open data (or content) in that format, to
<br>actually create a market for proprietary/licensed data in the free
<br>format, as well as services related to aggregating demand and supply
<br>(free fonts and clip art help create demand for higher quality
<br>offerings).
<br><br>I don't expect that market to be winner-take-all, but I do expect to get
<br>a healthy slice of the new ecosystem by virtue of having helped created
<br>it.
<br><br>> The most applicable business models would seem to be providing support
<br>> and training for your system, or else making money off of proprietary
<br>> tools built on top of your data format. Without details I can't guess
<br>> whether either of those is viable.
<br><br>There may be some service and consulting revenue from companies that
<br>want to deploy the service internally, but I am actually not sure how
<br>soon any of that would materialize (could be a few years). Data-creation
<br>(or content-creation) services may materialize sooner (think custom
<br>typeface design). Proprietary tools (think fontographer) could be
<br>lucrative, but I may simply have to cede that portion of the market to
<br>someone else as it is not my area of expertise.
<br><br>I've had some more time to think about this, and I believe that
<br>operating a free consumer service where users can use free content as
<br>well as purchase access to premium content for use *with* the service,
<br>may be the way to go.
<br><br>Unlike the 'font' ecosystem, there are no incumbents in this area with
<br>deep catalogs of analog content waiting to be digitized. The few
<br>existing analog precursors are simply not suitable. For this new format,
<br>new content will have to be created. I'll need to prime the pump with
<br>some free content which I'll probably release under a Creative Commons
<br>ShareAlike license (to make the free service immediately usable, and to
<br>serve as inspiration/example for independent artists), as well as
<br>possibly cut licensing deals with some existing media brands for
<br>creating premium content based on those brands.
<br><br>> Depending on what you're doing, other models may work. For instance
<br>> Sleepycat built a pretty good business around offering a free product
<br>> which you had to pay to incorporate into proprietary products. And
<br>> for many years Aladdin made money from Ghostscript by having a
<br>> proprietary product that they would open source old versions of. Both
<br>> of those models require that you maintain ownership of the copyright
<br>> though.
<br><br>The Sleepycat model could work for the webservice, but the GhostScript
<br>model won't. Perhaps for libraries intended to be used by desktop apps
<br>though... Hmm... No, probably not.
<br><br>> You also haven't said how difficult it will be to launch this project
<br>> and what size of company you're looking to build on it. It is much
<br>> easier to, for instance, come up with a business model around a niche
<br>> product that will work for a personal consultancy than it is to come
<br>> up with one that is keeping a several hundred person enterprise going.
<br><br>Part of why I'm being coy is that it actually won't be particularly
<br>difficult to devise a format for this new purpose (though it could be
<br>done well or poorly), create the supporting web service, and launch the
<br>company, but my resources are slim at the moment, so it could still take
<br>me a while.
<br><br>While the marketplace created by this format could be pretty darn big, I
<br>don't have *any* illusions about being able to corner it. Initial
<br>success will probably be marked by sustainable revenues that support
<br>5-10 employees. How far the company could grow beyond that is anybody's
<br>guess depending on whether I'm right about the format leading to an
<br>explosion of creativity *and* demand for content, both consumer and
<br>corporate.
<br><br>For example, royalty-free clip-art is a pretty big business (though not
<br>as big as digital fonts) with both high end and low end offerings, but
<br>could you have actually *predicted* that with any certainty at the very
<br>beginning of the desktop-publishing revolution? Or the current market
<br>for cell phone ringtones as recently as a decade ago?
<br><br>On the other hand, desktop themes and backgrounds are a niche that few
<br>consumers have ever paid for, or pay very much, though some artists are
<br>able to make a living at it, and some aggregators have built successful
<br>businesses.
<br><br>And yet on a third hand, screen-savers were quite popular and profitable
<br>for a while, and then that market mostly dried up.
<br><br>I am quite simply not sure how big this new market will be, just that
<br>there is, in fact, one waiting to be created.
<br><br>- Michael
<br><br /> <div class="small"><br/><img src="http://old.nabble.com/images/icon_attachment.gif" > <strong>signature.asc</strong> (196 bytes) <a href="http://old.nabble.com/attachment/20806903/0/signature.asc" target="_top">Download Attachment</a></div><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20806642Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-02T20:32:32Z2008-12-02T20:32:32ZSeth Johnson-2<br><br>Seth Johnson wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>>
<br>> I've often speculated that one might be able to sell the *quality* of
<br>> information -- its accuracy, its completeness, its timeliness, its
<br>> usability in terms of attributes available for whatever uses one
<br>> needs, common understanding of its specifications and "business
<br>> terms", its scalability and flexibility generally in terms of
<br>> nonredundancy and reuse. You'd have to establish a context of
<br>> measurement of these characteristics, perhaps advertising your quality
<br>> rates in an open way that allows verification of the integrity of the
<br>> measure, perhaps hooked up to usage contexts that happen to
<br>> problematize particular characteristics -- like some sort of context
<br>> where successful outcomes depend on accurate information, or complete,
<br>> or whatever. So maybe there could be independent actors measuring
<br>> various providers of information, or maybe there could be "discovered"
<br>> or "intuited" quality in circumstances where providers don't volunteer
<br>> measures.
<br>>
<br>> It seems to me that competition would be really, really hard, though.
<br>> Selling more accurate or complete, etc. information than your
<br>> competitors seems like hard work against rapidly escalating
<br>> improvements in technological and procedural approaches.
</div><br><br>(I think the above paragraph is a really good example of my general
<br>inability in this area. I think I'm trying to say that the techniques
<br>would become generally known very quickly, but I'm not sure that's any
<br>kind of a valid notion -- couldn't competitors keep their techniques
<br>to themselves? And now another idea comes to mind: how do you get
<br>from the world we're in, where people are generally happy with the
<br>information they come across, whatever its quality in any sense, to a
<br>world where they start to pay more than a pittance so real investments
<br>can be made into the production of quality information? Now I return
<br>to hiding, having rambled all of the notions I have that I think might
<br>be of some interest here. :-) -- Seth)
<br><br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> You seem to want to create some sort of uniform data architecture for
<br>> consumer network services, and some aspect of it you seem to think
<br>> would be salable -- yet it would seem to me that the adoption/uptake
<br>> would be predicated on its universality/generality or adaptibility or
<br>> simplicity, or somesuch. I have almost zero capacity to think clearly
<br>> about business/market/economic models (hence my almost complete
<br>> silence on this list), but my feeling is that competing would be
<br>> really hard. When I think about information freedom and the intrinsic
<br>> freedom of information, I always tend to bottom out with selling
<br>> quality as such.
<br>>
<br>> Seth
<br>>
<br>> "Michael R. Bernstein" wrote:
<br>> >
<br>> > Hi folks,
<br>> >
<br>> > I am considering launching a new venture, centered around a (to be
<br>> > written) consumer network service.
<br>> >
<br>> > My inclination is to license the software under the AGPLv3, and make it
<br>> > a 'Franklin Street Statement[1]' compliant Free Network Service.
<br>> >
<br>> > There are proprietary competitors in this space, but no dominant vendors
<br>> > (indeed, speaking of 'vendors' at all is somewhat misleading, most
<br>> > existing services are promotional rather than revenue-generating). The
<br>> > service itself does not have strong inherent network effects beyond the
<br>> > social and word-of-mouth kind, nor would independently deployed
<br>> > instances have much to gain by peering or federating with each other.
<br>> >
<br>> > However, by embracing data portability, I think I've identified an
<br>> > opportunity to add some interesting functionality and define a new data
<br>> > format. None of the existing services in this space give *any* thought
<br>> > to data import or export, and each is more-or-less built from scratch.
<br>> >
<br>> > So, I think it is possible this new data format could create it's own
<br>> > network effects, and thus create an ecosystem and minor industry. The
<br>> > potential size/importance of said ecosystem could end up being anywhere
<br>> > between 'Desktop Themes' (ie. a cottage industry at best, some
<br>> > opportunity for monetization through aggregation) and 'fonts' (whoah).
<br>> >
<br>> > Sorry for being somewhat coy at this stage, but can anyone suggest case
<br>> > studies or existing business models that would be applicable for the
<br>> > constraints I've laid out?
<br>> >
<br>> > - Michael Bernstein
<br>> >
<br>> > [1] <a href="http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/</a><br>> >
<br>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>> > Name: signature.asc
<br>> > signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature
<br>> > Description: This is a digitally signed message part
<br>>
<br>> --
<br>>
<br>> RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P!
<br>> <a href="http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc</a><br>>
<br>> DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
<br>>
<br>> New Yorkers for Fair Use
<br>> <a href="http://www.nyfairuse.org" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.nyfairuse.org</a><br>>
<br>> [CC] Counter-copyright: <a href="http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc</a><br>>
<br>> I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution
<br>> of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship
<br>> should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an
<br>> expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse
<br>> to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
</div><br>--
<br><br>RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P!
<br><a href="http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc</a><br><br>DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
<br><br>New Yorkers for Fair Use
<br><a href="http://www.nyfairuse.org" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.nyfairuse.org</a><br><br>[CC] Counter-copyright: <a href="http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc</a><br><br>I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution
<br>of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship
<br>should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an
<br>expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse
<br>to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
<br><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20806508Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-02T20:13:07Z2008-12-02T20:13:07ZSeth Johnson-2<br>I've often speculated that one might be able to sell the *quality* of
<br>information -- its accuracy, its completeness, its timeliness, its
<br>usability in terms of attributes available for whatever uses one
<br>needs, common understanding of its specifications and "business
<br>terms", its scalability and flexibility generally in terms of
<br>nonredundancy and reuse. You'd have to establish a context of
<br>measurement of these characteristics, perhaps advertising your quality
<br>rates in an open way that allows verification of the integrity of the
<br>measure, perhaps hooked up to usage contexts that happen to
<br>problematize particular characteristics -- like some sort of context
<br>where successful outcomes depend on accurate information, or complete,
<br>or whatever. So maybe there could be independent actors measuring
<br>various providers of information, or maybe there could be "discovered"
<br>or "intuited" quality in circumstances where providers don't volunteer
<br>measures.
<br><br>It seems to me that competition would be really, really hard, though.
<br>Selling more accurate or complete, etc. information than your
<br>competitors seems like hard work against rapidly escalating
<br>improvements in technological and procedural approaches.
<br><br>You seem to want to create some sort of uniform data architecture for
<br>consumer network services, and some aspect of it you seem to think
<br>would be salable -- yet it would seem to me that the adoption/uptake
<br>would be predicated on its universality/generality or adaptibility or
<br>simplicity, or somesuch. I have almost zero capacity to think clearly
<br>about business/market/economic models (hence my almost complete
<br>silence on this list), but my feeling is that competing would be
<br>really hard. When I think about information freedom and the intrinsic
<br>freedom of information, I always tend to bottom out with selling
<br>quality as such.
<br><br><br>Seth
<br><br><br><br>"Michael R. Bernstein" wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>>
<br>> Hi folks,
<br>>
<br>> I am considering launching a new venture, centered around a (to be
<br>> written) consumer network service.
<br>>
<br>> My inclination is to license the software under the AGPLv3, and make it
<br>> a 'Franklin Street Statement[1]' compliant Free Network Service.
<br>>
<br>> There are proprietary competitors in this space, but no dominant vendors
<br>> (indeed, speaking of 'vendors' at all is somewhat misleading, most
<br>> existing services are promotional rather than revenue-generating). The
<br>> service itself does not have strong inherent network effects beyond the
<br>> social and word-of-mouth kind, nor would independently deployed
<br>> instances have much to gain by peering or federating with each other.
<br>>
<br>> However, by embracing data portability, I think I've identified an
<br>> opportunity to add some interesting functionality and define a new data
<br>> format. None of the existing services in this space give *any* thought
<br>> to data import or export, and each is more-or-less built from scratch.
<br>>
<br>> So, I think it is possible this new data format could create it's own
<br>> network effects, and thus create an ecosystem and minor industry. The
<br>> potential size/importance of said ecosystem could end up being anywhere
<br>> between 'Desktop Themes' (ie. a cottage industry at best, some
<br>> opportunity for monetization through aggregation) and 'fonts' (whoah).
<br>>
<br>> Sorry for being somewhat coy at this stage, but can anyone suggest case
<br>> studies or existing business models that would be applicable for the
<br>> constraints I've laid out?
<br>>
<br>> - Michael Bernstein
<br>>
<br>> [1] <a href="http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/</a><br>>
<br>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>> Name: signature.asc
<br>> signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature
<br>> Description: This is a digitally signed message part
</div><br>--
<br><br>RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P!
<br><a href="http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc</a><br><br>DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
<br><br>New Yorkers for Fair Use
<br><a href="http://www.nyfairuse.org" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.nyfairuse.org</a><br><br>[CC] Counter-copyright: <a href="http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc</a><br><br>I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution
<br>of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship
<br>should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an
<br>expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse
<br>to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
<br><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20805465Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-02T18:15:54Z2008-12-02T18:15:54ZBen TillyOn Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Michael R. Bernstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=20805465&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">michael@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 11:42 -0700, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:<br>
><br>
> Sorry for being somewhat coy at this stage, but can anyone suggest case<br>
> studies or existing business models that would be applicable for the<br>
> constraints I've laid out?<br>
<br>
</div>Am I being *too* coy? I was hoping for some feedback by now...<br>
<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br>My reason for not responding is that I don't see how you'd monetize a free data format.<br><br>The most applicable business models would seem to be providing support and training for your system, or else making money off of proprietary tools built on top of your data format. Without details I can't guess whether either of those is viable.<br>
<br>Depending on what you're doing, other models may work. For instance Sleepycat built a pretty good business around offering a free product which you had to pay to incorporate into proprietary products. And for many years Aladdin made money from Ghostscript by having a proprietary product that they would open source old versions of. Both of those models require that you maintain ownership of the copyright though.<br>
<br>You also haven't said how difficult it will be to launch this project and what size of company you're looking to build on it. It is much easier to, for instance, come up with a business model around a niche product that will work for a personal consultancy than it is to come up with one that is keeping a several hundred person enterprise going.<br>
<br>So the best that I can say is good luck.<br><br>Ben<br></div></div>
<p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-20805252Re: Free *Network* Software Business?2008-12-02T17:52:32Z2008-12-02T17:52:32ZMichael R. Bernstein<br>On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 11:42 -0700, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
<br>>
<br>> Sorry for being somewhat coy at this stage, but can anyone suggest case
<br>> studies or existing business models that would be applicable for the
<br>> constraints I've laid out?
<br><br>Am I being *too* coy? I was hoping for some feedback by now...
<br><br>- Michael
<br><br /> <div class="small"><br/><img src="http://old.nabble.com/images/icon_attachment.gif" > <strong>signature.asc</strong> (196 bytes) <a href="http://old.nabble.com/attachment/20805252/0/signature.asc" target="_top">Download Attachment</a></div><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Free-Software-Business-f13718.html" embed="fixTarget[13718]" target="_top" >Free Software Business</a></p>