Who Cares About Open Source In The Cloud

Yesterday I wrote about the issue of vendor lock-in regarding cloud-based services and how I think developers should think about it. In that discussion, I touched on the open source strategy of cloud computing company 10Gen. After thinking about it I begin to believe that such a strategy may be a serious liability for cloud-based services.

Then, this morning I read an article By Nick Carr where he discussed the significance of open source to buyers. His thesis is that what is most important are the meat and potatoes issues around reliability security, etc. Specifically, Carr says:

We can (and will) have debates about the relative openness of Azure and AWS and Force.com and all the other "cloud platforms" that are available or will be available. And those will be important debates. But in this early stage of the cloud’s development, openness means little to the buyer (or user). The buyers, particularly those in big companies, are nervous about the cloud even as they are becoming increasingly eager to reap the benefits the cloud can provide. What they care about right now is security, reliability, features, compatibility with their existing systems and applications, ease of adoption, stability of the vendor, and other practical concerns. In the long run, they may come to regret their lack of stress on openness, but in the here-and-now it’s just not a major consideration. They want stuff that works and won’t blow up in their faces.

This is very much in line with my thinking from yesterday. Azure is a big deal. No one is going to care about the fact that it is not open source. Basic hosting is going to become a commodity business very quickly, with Microsoft, Amazon, and Google (MAG) competing in the game of creating highly scalable services that use traditional development methodologies. Microsoft is now ahead in that game from a technology perspective. Amazon is ahead in customers, and Google, for now, is left in the dust but can obviously catch up. But I don’t see any of these guys making any of their cloud technology open source, and I don’t think it matters.

I liken open source in this space to DRM in the music business. Its one of those things that a small number of people complain about but will later be proven totally irrelevant to the rank and file buyer. We now have statistics to prove that DRM was irrelevant in terms of sales, and we are beginning to see the outlines of the irrelevancy of openness in the cloud.

The real issue here is that small companies are not going to be able to compete selling basic “get your applications into the cloud” type services. MAG is going to own that business. I think that 10Gen and other companies providing baseline services are going to have a rough time playing that game.

Startups who wish to compete in the cloud business will have to provide great value added services that facilitate unique new application categories sitting on top of one or more of the MAG clouds. The services will have to be hard to copy and/or narrow enough to not attract the attention of MAG.

Given the need to innovate in some unique way, and the need to be interoperable with MAG clouds, I am not at all clear how you can create innovate cloud platform services using an open source business model in a money making way. Being open source in this space is akin to what it might be like if Apple made OSX open source and optimized it to run on standard Intel PCs. Good karma perhaps. Good profits, not so much.

Of course many open source businesses hang their hat on services, consulting and support. I personally hate time and materials type businesses masquerading as scalable software businesses, but my opinions aside, these are by and large tough businesses to succeed at.

In short, while being open source may be politically correct, I fear it may be a grave hindrance towards providing a defensible, unique, money-making offering in the cloud.

This article was authored by Hank Williams who is a New York-based entrepreneur who explores the tech marketplace from 10,000 feet at Why Does Everything Suck?.

RSS Feed
RSS
1 COMMENTS
  1. Randall says:

    Hey Allen,

    The elimination of vendor lock-in completely is impossible, but vendors of cloud products can make their systems less prone to lock-in by allowing customers to get their data out easily and constructing their platforms to be infrastructure neutral. Look at Mosso as an example. We do need to write special code for them, but our strategy has been to make that special code work other places as well so the binaries can run anywhere.

    I wrote a lengthy post about the vendor lock-in issue here: http://www.qrimp.com/blog/blog.The-Open-Cloud—-the-future-of-cloud-computing.html

    Some things we @ Qrimp have done to help our customers leave us if they need to include the ability to:

    1) Download a full Microsoft SQL Server backup of their database they can restore locally.
    2) Allow customers to download SQL INSERT and CREATE scripts so they can move their data to MySQL or Oracle or any other ANSI compliant DBMS.
    3) Keep customization functionality limited to standard technologies: HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and SQL
    4) Allow the platform to run on nearly any Microsoft system including: laptops, cloud services like Mosso now and EC2 and Azure (coming soon), VPS, colo, even shared hosting at GoDaddy.

    Of course, even with these capabilities, if they want to leave Qrimp, they’ll have to re-write all the code that the Qrimp platform does for the developer natively, but they are stuck with us if they want to leave. Even open source platforms have a certain level of lock-in. If you build a site on Drupal and want to move it to Joomla, how do you do that? Are you locked-in to Drupal? You aren’t paying for Drupal, but Drupal does cost you money if you have to pay someone to extend it or it doesn’t do things quickly or easy enough. Time is money.

    Decisions like ours to do our best to eliminate lock-in are very counter-intuitive to the business community. MBA’s want lock in so customers can’t leave, but lock-in prevents them from coming at all. Our strategy is to make it easy to come into and leave Qrimp, but make them love it so much they want to pay us whether they use it or not. We want our customers to want us to succeed, not resent us for making their lives harder 1 or 2 or 3 years from now.

    Point is, the elimination of vendor lock-in is impossible when your cloud platform automates anything. If you leave, you have to manually do the automated features or rebuild them somewhere else.

    If you love your customers, set them free. If they come back, they are yours forever.

    - randall

    CTO, http://www.qrimp.com
    http://www.qrimp.com/blog

Leave a Reply

Become a sponsor

SPONSORS

CloudContacts
Clicky Web Analytics
ProofHQ
maxtango
Advertise here - $100/month

PARTNERS

read centernetworks anywhere!

STARTUP NEWS

OTHER STUFF

twitter