Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IPI Report: Why Open Source Can't Meet Mass Market Demands
releases.usnewswire.com ^

Posted on 03/29/2004 10:45:19 AM PST by chance33_98

IPI Report: Why Open Source Can't Meet Mass Market Demands

3/29/2004 12:22:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk, Business Reporter

Contact: Sonia Hoffman of Institute for Policy Innovation, 703-912-5742 or shoffman@ipi.org, Web: http://www.ipi.org

WASHINGTON, March 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Institute for Policy Innovation:

Is it possible that, despite all the hype, open source is not necessarily the best way to develop software? That it's not about to take over the software industry, and that it's no more a threat to Microsoft than were Netscape, the Macintosh or Word Perfect?

A report released today by the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) reveals why it's absolutely possible.

"While open source may fill a useful role in specialized computing environments, open source does not translate to the mass consumer market for software," says IPI report author Tom Healy, a research software engineer and policy researcher in Sydney, Australia.

"The mass consumer market is qualitatively different from other markets. It demands a much higher level of software engineering in order to provide the requisite ease of use, robustness and flexibility."

Mass Markets:

Many of open sources' famed "success stories" aren't relevant to the capturing the mass consumer market:

-- The computer game market dominates technological innovation. Yet this innovation is not developed not via open source models, but by commercial developers.

-- Most open source success evidence is cited in relationship to research outlets like academic and scientific computing developments. It is the research, not the software, which constitutes their primary output and is the criterion by which success will be judged. Thus actions that undermine competitive standing of software have little impact for academics, but can cripple software developers.

-- Academics gain nothing from protecting their source code, whereas commercial developers do. Why? Academics' pay comes from teaching or government or private grants while developers' pay comes from the software they produce.

-- Most open source projects are poor quality or unfinished and certainly not comparable to the commercial model.

-- Most open source conferences include firms that are not software developers at all. Rather, they are web developers whose products include little original intellectual property.

Continues Healy: "Pushing the open source concept too far into areas where it's not applicable will lead to universities and taxpayers shouldering the cost of software development for business, and doing it less capably than specialist software development firms."

The information in this press release is abstracted from IPI Issue Brief, "Has Open Source Reached its Limits?" by Tony Healy. For copies, visit http://www.ipi.org or contact Sonia Hoffman at shoffman@ipi.org.

---

The Institute for Policy Innovation is a non-partisan, public- policy organization.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: eggman
What exactly would be the purpose of developing open source solutions in this market?

Um -- wasn't Doom open-source?

That's like what, the technical grandfather for 2/3rds of the gaming industry? All first-person shooters and many, many 3d Virtual World games from sports to puzzle games?

And civilization was originally open-source. Civ clones are like another what, 1/3rd of the market?

Open-source and proprietary dev are two sides of the same coin, the work hand-in-fist together. MS and friends are so, so clueless. They want to control *all* development so badly they even consider hobbyist developers a threat.

Now that is big brother, at it's finest.

21 posted on 03/30/2004 9:38:18 AM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Um -- wasn't Doom open-source?

Nope. Doom IS open-source now, but it wasn't when it was first released.

I'm not so sure that having it open source at the time of its release would have been of significant benefit anyway. I do think that some specifications were made open, so that people could design their own map editors, but I don't believe that the entire source was opened up until well after the game's release.

Quake II was released under the GPL, though I'm not sure if it was GPLed right away, or if that was done later.
22 posted on 03/30/2004 1:38:21 PM PST by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Doom IS open-source now, but it wasn't when it was first released.

Ah, thanks, couldn't remember. And Quake, too. And Civ, originally.

Just as I suspected, the article is clearly 100% correct, open-source has no room in gaming. :-D

23 posted on 03/30/2004 2:41:45 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
And some of the most popular games only run on boxes that can only be used for games -- to the regret of MS.

Not at all. Some of those "most popular games" run on XBox... ;-p
24 posted on 03/31/2004 10:07:00 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Ah, thanks, couldn't remember. And Quake, too. And Civ, originally. Just as I suspected, the article is clearly 100% correct, open-source has no room in gaming. :-D

You just don't get it, Harr. Games development requires big bucks. Open source cheapskates can't sink those kinds of dollars into building games; hence, the only games that are open-sourced are those which are well beyond their prime.
25 posted on 03/31/2004 10:08:56 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TechJunkYard
Y'know, back in the old days, when everybody was a computer novice, people had to install DOS and install Windows manually

Back in my day we didn't have all these "fancy schmanzy" operating systems. When you wanted an OS we had to code it yourself in 0s and 1s on Hollerith cards...and we liked it...we loved it. </grumpy old man rant>

26 posted on 03/31/2004 10:16:42 PM PST by dfwgator (It's only knock and know-all, but I like it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Open source is expert friendly, but it's not novice friendly

Times have changed - my 80 year old father uses Linux with out any problems.

27 posted on 04/02/2004 4:19:33 PM PST by paulk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: paulk
The computer industry is old now, 80 year-olds aren't necessarily out of the loop.
28 posted on 04/03/2004 1:54:54 PM PST by discostu (but this one has 11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rit; adam_az
Just once it would be nice to see a real independent study. Clearly, this one does not meet that criteria.

Knott initially came to the District in 1984, after serving as Armey's manager for his first congressional race. He is a graduate of Auburn University, and has been involved with the Fund for American Studies, the Leadership Institute and the Institute for Policy Innovation.

So Microsoft hired a conservative guy (back in 1998!) who used to work for Dick Armey (and was also involved with IPI -- an org that Dick Armey founded in 1987)... and that's supposed to mean that IPI is biased in Microsoft's favor???

LOL!

Maybe if it was the other way around (IPI hiring an ex-Microsoft exec to write pro-MS articles), I'd see your point.

Show me the money! Otherwise, you've shown zilch.

29 posted on 04/04/2004 11:28:41 AM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheEngineer
You deliberately responded to me via someone elses post, not my post #9

heres a better explanation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/microsoft/stories/1999/microsoft101599.htm

"The same day, Microsoft lobbyist Kerry Knott, former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.), met with Rep. Dan Miller (R-Fla.), urging him to press for the lower funding level in negotiations with the Senate."

IPI staffers double as Microsoft lobbyists, and you still pretend that IPI is "independent?"

I can't show you the money until you take off your blinders.
30 posted on 04/04/2004 4:13:52 PM PDT by adam_az (Call your state Republican party office and VOLUNTEER FOR A CAMPAIGN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
IPI staffers double as Microsoft lobbyists, and you still pretend that IPI is "independent?"

Your article is dated 1999. Knott quit Armey/IPI for a job at Microsoft in 1998. Check out IPI's website. Knott isn't listed on their personnel page.

You deliberately responded to me via someone elses post, not my post #9

Well, you were both making the same point about Knott... but if a consolidated post offends your sensitivities, then I'll type separate posts next time.

Also, IPI's position in this article and your reference match its self-described mission statement:

About the Institute for Policy Innovation

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy "think tank" based in Lewisville, Texas and founded in 1987 by Congressman Dick Armey to research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today's public policy problems.

IPI's focus is on approaches to governing that harness the strengths of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. IPI emphasizes getting its studies into the hands of the press and policy makers so that the ideas they contain can be applied to the challenges facing us today.

IPI is engaged in an extensive publication program of policy studies, issue briefs, newsletters and books on public policy issues, all of which are available in electronic form at this site.

Today IPI's work concentrates on such issues as taxation and government spending, economic growth initiatives, and government regulation. Current areas of focus include tax cuts and tax reform, intellectual property, Internet taxes and regulation, pharmaceutical issues, Social Security privatization, and educational choice. We pursue these areas through our IPI Center for Tax Analysis, our IPI Center for Economic Growth, our IPI Center for Technology Freedom, and our IPI Center for Education Freedom.

Though IPI is a non-partisan organization, we approach policy issues from a consistent philosophical viewpoint of individual liberty and responsibility, free markets, and limited government.

IPI is a public foundation, supported wholly by contributions from individuals, businesses, and other non-profit foundations. In order to maintain its independence, IPI neither solicits nor accepts contributions from any government agency.

31 posted on 04/04/2004 8:57:38 PM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson