(Updates at bottom)
āEnterprise software vendors who leverage open source, subscriptions and grid computing to meet customer needs will emerge as next-generation industry leaders. ā ā says John Loiacono, EVP, Sun Microsystems.
Jeff Nolan recommends caution: ā⦠open source and subscription licensing, two completely separate trends that often get lumped together, are not silver bullets for emerging companies.ā His post is well worth reading, and I agree with most of his logic, which refers to the traditional Open Source ābusiness modelā, if there is such a thing (weāll come back to this later):
- Open Code
- Broad Support Community
- Paid Sales & Marketing staff
- Paid core Engineering
- Product Available free
- Revenue from support / training / consulting⦠i.e. services
He then rightly concludes that this model is basically a service business, so investors should beware, when we peel the hype layer away, they donāt find the hypergrowth software business there.
Yes ⦠but ⦠this may just have been the ābeta versionā of an Open Source business model ā if we can even say that. In fact we really shouldnāt: Open Source is not a business model, itās a software production model (and philosophy), says Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL (via Jeff Clavier). Absolutely.
The two examples Jeff uses, SugarCRM and Compiere could not be further away from each other ā not only in terms of their product offering, but mostly their business model.
Compiere, for all I know is closer to that ābeta modelā of ātrying-to-make-a-buckā on Open Source, or, if I may say, the idealistic, altruistic (?) Open Source company that makes ALL itās products ( full ERP & CRM for the SMB sector) available for free, source code included. They even let Consulting/ Implementation Partners rebrand the product under their own name. They are the ānice guysā barely making a buck on support. (Sorry, Jorg, if I am mistaken.)
SugarCRM, on the other hand is not even a purely Open Source company, itās a hybrid. (Hey, hybrids are popular nowadays
). ā It didn’t take me long to realize that there is a HUGE part missing in the open source version ā says Simon Romanski, director of information systems at Fulfillment America, quoted by ZDNet. The title says a lot: Commercial open source, a misnomer? Well, not a misnomer, but definitely commercial software: SugarCRM sells the Pro and Enterprise versions of their product, and also charges for the On-Demand version. Even the Open Source version can be āupgradedā by paying for extensions, e.g. the $39.99/user Outlook Plugin. Hm, I would not put my Sales Organization, no matter how small, on a CRM system without Contact synchronization. By the time we configure the basic needs of a small Sales Team, chances are pricing is on par with a truly commercial software company, e.g. 24SevenOffice .
So is SugarCRM using Open Source as a marketing gimmick, riding the fashion wave? I donāt think so. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with the business model⦠perhaps a little heavy on the hype, like the other guy selling software using the āNo Softwareā slogan. SugarCRM is a successful hybrid thatās partly Open Source (development, support community, viral marketing) yet generates itās revenue from selling software like any other company.
Only to prove Marten right.
Update (9/01): ZDNetās SaaS blog has a good follow-on article on SugarCRM: āOutwitted by its own ecosystemā
Update 2 (9/01) The “Commercial Open Source” story reverberates; ZDNet’s Dan Farber follows on quoting Marc Fleury, CEO of JBOSS.
Update 3 (9/28): The Next Little Thing Isn’t Free by Sam Ramji
Update 4 (11/16) But is it really free? CIO Magazine
Hybrid Open Source Business Models by Zack Urlocker
Tags: 24sevenoffice, ASP, Compiere, crm, Enterprise Software, erp, MySQL, On-Demand, Open Source, SaaS, salesforce.com, SugarCRM