{"id":178,"date":"2009-08-17T08:00:36","date_gmt":"2009-08-17T15:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/35.225.155.113\/blog\/index.php\/2009\/08\/17\/open_software_versus_closed_proprietary_software\/"},"modified":"2019-10-13T13:11:25","modified_gmt":"2019-10-13T20:11:25","slug":"open-software-versus-closed-proprietary-software","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/2009\/08\/open-software-versus-closed-proprietary-software.html","title":{"rendered":"Open Software versus Closed (Proprietary) Software"},"content":{"rendered":"

The project is a go. The decision has
\nbeen made. Because of the strategic nature, a significant investment
\nwill be made to optimize and support a critical business function
\nwith the development of new software<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

For many a key question requires
\nanswering, does the organization develop this new software in-house
\nor outsource it to a specialized development firm? Quite an array of
\nfactors can go into deciding this question. In other cases, the
\nquestion might be simple to answer.<\/p>\n

\n

Increasingly however an additional
\nquestion comes into play when deciding how to move on the question of
\nsoftware development, go with an open source<\/a> solution or a closed,
\nproprietary solution? Open and closed systems, like anything else,
\nhave advantages and disadvantages.<\/p>\n

\n

For example if software development is
\ndone in-house proprietary software can provide legal protections for
\nany intellectual property built into the functionality of the
\nsoftware that the organization considers critical to its great
\nbusiness success.<\/p>\n

\n

On the other-hand. an in-house system
\nthat either is developed internally and then opened or built
\ninitially on an open source codebase can reduce development costs and
\noverhead.<\/p>\n

\n

These days, for many, the virtues of
\nopenness has an strong appeal. Consider the example of a little
\nproject I undertook a few years ago to connect an Apple \/\/c to a Mac
\nmini<\/a>. At the heart of the hardware connection is the bridge between
\nthe old-school RS-232<\/a> standard to the currently ubiquitous USB<\/a> standard. To many the success of the project is seen in the very open
\nnature of the two standards. While I was able to purchase all the
\nparts I needed, “off-the-shelf”, many, not doubt would note that,
\nif the key product didn’t exist, I could have taken to building my
\nown cabling, by looking up the published documentation on the two
\nstandards.<\/p>\n

\n

But a standard, just like software,
\ndoesn’t have to be open to be well documented. Now a days
\nthe use of Microsoft Word or Excel goes without much forethought. If
\nconsiderations are made it is with the eye toward wide support,
\ncompatibility and availability. Thus, while every organization,
\nsoftware or individual might not be highly compatible with latest
\nversion of Microsoft’s productivity software, the high adoption rate
\nmeans at least a high rate of basic support and compatibility for the
\nsoftware and its document formats.<\/p>\n

\n

In fact, opened or closed, standard or
\nsoftware, the importance for many is not about the technical or legal
\nrisk. From a business perceptive, more than anything else, the question ends up being about support and compatibility.
\nIf one invests a large amount of money into software to manage a critical business function the concerns and ideals of open
\nor close take on a lot less importance . What does take on
\nimportance are questions about return on investment or on-going cost
\nto support, manage or improve upon the solution, in the short and\/or
\nlong term.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

This is why people talk about communities, development networks, ecosystems and adoption rates.<\/span> Because these pieces of information present a larger picture about market conditions. For if software and the standards the software adopts are largely adopted then chances are good for the long term viability of the software.<\/p>\n

\n

Market position and investment costs, also explain why, more times than not,
\nmarket leaders such as Twitter<\/a>, will favor closed systems over open<\/a>
\nones whereas disruptive challengers, such as Oracle<\/a> back in the day,
\nwill champion openness over close-knit systems<\/a>.1<\/sup><\/a> For if the “micro-blogging” format becomes an open standard then Twitter loses out on their investment scaling up their infrastructure. Whereas Oracle, with the open SQL standard, provided a challenge to the proprietary hardware\/software lock-in of IBM, the success of their challenge directly dependent upon their investment in get SQL standardized with high adoption.<\/p>\n

\n

In other words the division between
\nopened and closed<\/a> software is hardly as cut and dry as many try to
\nmake it out to be.<\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n

1<\/a> It
\nalso explains why some companies, such as the Oracle example, might
\nchange their position over time, while others, like Microsoft, might
\nhave conflicting positions depending on the goals of a specific
\ndepartment\/product.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The project is a go. The decision has been made. Because of the strategic nature, a significant investment will be made to optimize and support a critical business function with the development of new software. For many a key question requires answering, does the organization develop this new software in-house or outsource it to a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[92,117,118],"tags":[204,7,43,166,146],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":738,"href":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178\/revisions\/738"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.weinstein.org\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}