Quote:
Give me one example of a product that is a market leader that is currently based on opened-source (in a category that is at least as mass-market as a portable MP3 player).


NetBeans (#1 platform independent IDE framework)
Apache WebServer (66% market share, 53% of secure installations).
Sendmail (#1, 42% share over Exchange 18%)
BIND (over 95% of reverse DNS lookups)
PHP (#1 server-side scripting language)

Quote:
Now how about one that turned around their market position by moving from closed to open?


Mozilla webclient. OpenOffice/StarOffice productivity suite.

I'm not claiming that simply opening the source will launch a product into a market leader position, but it certainly can work as a strategy to reverse a downwards trend: it can improve visibility and ubiquity especially when there are no other open-source products in the same space or the company considering opening the source already has a well-known brand.

The source for NetBeans and OpenOffice were both opened with the primary goal of image management (consisting of four sub-goals: improving ubiquity, visibility, corporate image and relations with developers).

NetBeans suffered a setback when IBM later put their PR machine into overdrive to get massive coverage for their open-source announcement for the Eclipse IDE, but continues to claw market share from Eclipse (in large part because it is technically better).

There is one overriding reason to do open-source: to level the playing field, to get the entire market to play on your terms. DNNA probably can't win against Apple using a closed source model because Apple has more money available to spend on advertising than DNNA does. By going open-source, DNNA force Apple (and everyone else) to focus on technical features, pre-sales and after-sales service, and price (rather than who can get the most marketing coverage). Plus, DNNA get to talk to lots of companies about collaborating on products that they probably wouldn't have otherwise.

Now, I'm not saying that DNNA should definately open-source their player - I'm simply suggesting that the original reason for not opening it is no longer valid and so the question should be re-evaluated. Now, it may be that DNNA have done this, came to the same conclusion for a different reason, and simply chosen not to tell us* - it doesn't really matter because my original post wasn't intended for Hugo and Co. but rather to try to get the community to think about what strategy is best for DNNA rather than what strategy is best for the community.

--
Michael

* heck, it may even be somthing they are constanly re-evaluating - and we certainly don't have any rights to be told the outcome of internal business decicions.


Edited by mdavey (03/01/2005 16:57)