[thelist] RE: Template Monster [WAS: A Beginner Freelance Question]

[Ken Schaefer]

Hi Greg,

I'm sorry you don't understand what I'm trying to say :-) It may be
that I'm not explaining it very well.

> >As you allude - it makes it easier for you to get into areas that you
> >otherwise wouldn't be able to handle, but it makes it easier for everyone
> >else to (the same way HTML being so easy makes it easier for lots of
> >people to get into the business, and depress prices).
> 
> I hardly see how open source changes the equation.  You think that the
> developers in low wage countries are *buying* closed source software,
> for more than the cost of the CDRW?  The cost of closed source wasn't
> a barrier to entry (for them) anyway.

It seems you are talking about your own situation, where you have two options:
a) buy closed source software -or-
b) use FOSS

I think that's missing the point. In option (a), someone is being paid
for their closed source software, which is more lucrative for that
particular developer or firm. I'm *not* saying that this is a good
thing overall. In fact, it makes things more expensive for the end
purchaser.

By utilising FOSS, a company can lower their costs, make products
cheaper, and the end consumer benefits. HOWEVER, this doesn't make
life more lucrative for developers. It lowers the barriers to entry,
it makes the market place more competitive, it'll cut your margins. It
happened with HTML / CSS / Javascript. It'll happen in other areas as
well.

I am not saying that this is a bad thing. I'm just saying that I don't
think this is going to help the average developer in the US compete
with the average developer in India (or wherever).

> >but I think FOSS is going to make life /less/ lucrative for the average
> >developer.
> 
> Er, how?  It reduces my costs if I use open source software for a given
> purpose instead of closed source (yes, obviously, if there is an
> appropriate open source solution available for that given purpose).

Right - it reduces your costs. And it reduces the costs of every other
developer. And guess what, competition drives down the price you can
charge as well.

Furthermore, by lowering the barriers to entry, competition will
*increase*. No longer do you, as a developer, need to buy a $10,000
Solaris machine, and a $10,000 Oracle licence to run a decent dev
machine. Instead, you need a $1000 PC, and you can get free licences
for just about every DBMS. But so can 100,000 other developers now.
And someone is going to figure they can cut their prices to win more
business.

Cutting costs is only helpful in a business sense if you're the only
person doing it. If everyone's doing it, then the benefits flow to the
purchasers, not to the suppliers (excepting the "income" effect - by
cutting costs the overall purchasing pie will increase as the
purchaser's buck goes a bit further).

> 
> Nor would I see your point even if it did change the equation - what
> do you suggest, buying closed source and then wishing really hard that
> developers in low wage countries would too?  

I'm not suggesting that you buy closed source software. I'm just
saying that those producing closed source software are/were making
money. FOSS reduces the amount of money that those developers were
making.

> Open source is here and it isn't going away. 
> Those who use it wisely get a competitive advantage.
> You suggest that we in high wage countries forgo that advantage (or at
> least equalizer)?

Anyone who can use the tools available to them wisely will do well.
FOSS doesn't change that fundamental fact. If your company has some
kind of strategic advantage, then you can leverage that fact.

However, this is very different to /every/ developer somehow
benefitting from FOSS, or FOSS somehow allowing developers to compete
with cheap overseas labour.


I would like to comment on this:
> >The *end consumer* gets the benefits of Open Source (which I think is
> >a good thing - it makes us all a bit better off),
> 
> Hmm; a fascinating departure from your usual tack ;)  I'd love to
> explore this ...

If you think this is some kind of departure from "my usual tack" you
really don't know what I think at all. Now, I do a lot of work with
Microsoft products, and before that Novell stuff.

But, that doesn't mean I don't believe in efficient markers, free
trade and so forth. I believe that protectionism is self-defeating,
and an indirect tax on every other efficient industry. I believe that
IT users should decide what IT they should use based on what delivers
the best ROI for them. I have *consistently* stated (when asked
"should I use ASP or PHP or CF or whatever?") that one needs to look
at the existing infrastructure, in-house skills that exist and what
the existing code-base is.

Cheers
Ken


On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:57:10 -0400, Greg Holmes <greg.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken Schaefer wrote:
> 
> >d) I don't think Open Source is going to help you maintain your margins.
> >Open Source benefits the end consumer - they get their product (their DVD
> >players, their cars, their groceries) for less, since it reduces the
> >barriers to competition in the supply chain.
> 
> Slick, slipping this into the rest of your rant ;)
> 
> >Why get you to develop a bulletin board, when they can get one for free?
> >Or a shopping cart? Why get you to develop a DBMS when they can get one
> for free?
> 
> Those are not, of course, the choices.  Free (and often superior) bulletin
> boards and shopping carts have been around for years.  What really happens
> is: the customer asks for a bulletin board, or a shopping cart, and you
> can then use either closed or open source as part of the solution.  A small
> business owner (for example) is not going to install and set up Slashcode
> ;)  He's going to ask you for a bulletin board, and you decide what to use.
> 
> >Well, there's customisation, but every other developer can do that to.
> 
> In theory, perhaps.  But the coffee shop owner down the street is not
> going to hire some guy in China to set up his website (not anytime soon,
> anyway).
> 
> >The *end consumer* gets the benefits of Open Source (which I think is
> >a good thing - it makes us all a bit better off),
> 
> Hmm; a fascinating departure from your usual tack ;)  I'd love to
> explore this ...
> 
> >but I think FOSS is going to make life /less/ lucrative for the average
> >developer.
> 
> Er, how?  It reduces my costs if I use open source software for a given
> purpose instead of closed source (yes, obviously, if there is an
> appropriate open source solution available for that given purpose).
> 
> >As you allude - it makes it easier for you to get into areas that you
> >otherwise wouldn't be able to handle, but it makes it easier for everyone
> >else to (the same way HTML being so easy makes it easier for lots of
> >people to get into the business, and depress prices).
> 
> I hardly see how open source changes the equation.  You think that the
> developers in low wage countries are *buying* closed source software,
> for more than the cost of the CDRW?  The cost of closed source wasn't
> a barrier to entry (for them) anyway.
> 
> Nor would I see your point even if it did change the equation - what
> do you suggest, buying closed source and then wishing really hard that
> developers in low wage countries would too?  Open source is here and it
> isn't going away.  Those who use it wisely get a competitive advantage.
> You suggest that we in high wage countries forgo that advantage (or at
> least equalizer)?
> 
> Greg Holmes