reading 09: the magic cauldron

The “services instead of software” business model feels strange in light of companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe. I think part of what keeps consumers using iOS and Windows is the vast network of other people who use the same software and the fact that they don’t want to invest their time learning something else. In other words, they’ve grown accustomed to it and understand it more than the alternatives. But considering the boom in smartphone technology that has happened during my lifetime, I feel as though the improvements are slowing down. It seems like the main difference between subsequent iPhone releases nowadays is an increase in the number of cameras and minor cosmetic changes like new colors or useless buttons. What really keeps Apple at the top is their domination of the smartphone market early on which attracted tons of users and led to iPhone-user bubbles. Every iPhone user freaks out when that one person uses Android and they either have to accept text messages being green instead of blue or switch to some third-party app like WhatsApp or GroupMe. I don’t think Apple will ever become open-source because they have absolutely no pressure to do so.

However, I do believe that software products like Adobe Photoshop will eventually become open-source because they aren’t tightly bound to a specific physical product like iOS is bound to the iPhone. There are alternatives to Photoshop that are open-source, and I think that people will eventually shift towards open-source software like DaVinci Resolve. Or maybe open core is something that we might begin to see more frequently. The peer review aspect of open source allows for much greater improvement, but unless companies really feel the pressure to shift, will they ever do it? Mozilla clearly had a motive when they became open-source, but it’s hard to say what might persuade companies to make a product open-source.

The idea of large service providers taking open source code to power their infrastructure without making financial contributions is a little sad to me. It’s like asking your friend to borrow his car and then taking it cross-country for your job and expecting him to change the oil, brake pads, and tires when they go bad. It only makes sense to pay him something out of gratitude for enabling you to perform your job. And, in the case of open-source software, there are often improvements upon the old software that make it even better. So it’s as though your friend is constantly adding new features to your car and even buying a new one for you now and then.

The open source business model still makes sense and has power, but it seems like funding is problematic. Every time I open Wikipedia or Thunderbird, there are advertisements asking for small donations. I guess I should probably give something to the open-source applications that I’m so fond of. I’m criticizing large companies, but I think everyone should try to promote the software they love in some way, shape, or form. The developers give up their most valuable resource–time–and simply ask the rest of us for a little cash. I’ve become numb to the ads over time, but I think a better campaign for donations could go a really long way.