PDA

View Full Version : Open source costs proper software companies $60 billion a year



madjr
April 21st, 2008, 10:16 PM
report claims that "Open Source software is raising havoc throughout the software market” and calls it “the ultimate in disruptive technology”.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/21/dodgy-report-open-source

so i guess piracy doesn't count... and our programs are not "proper software"

Blue Heron
April 21st, 2008, 10:25 PM
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/21/dodgy-report-open-source

realistic, but that is the way it goes.

MS and other companies had earned enough.

The IT Industry is a driving factor in the decadent downfall of the modern society.

Hard rise - hard fall.

smartboyathome
April 21st, 2008, 10:30 PM
Wow, we are costing all those desperate big companies so much money, that open source should be banned everywhere and all open source applications removed from the face of the earth! Then we can pay for that piece of software which has less functions, because that is better.

Seriously, this report is a bunch of FUD, imo.

smoker
April 21st, 2008, 10:33 PM
Open source costs proper software companies $60 billion a year

are they saying you cannot be a 'proper' software company if you open source?


what the report actually points out is that: open source is so popular, that fewer people are buying its expensive and often mediocre software counterparts

if proprietary companies produce decent software at fair prices, then people will buy it if they think it worth the price. it's up to them to produce the goods,

Kingsley
April 21st, 2008, 10:35 PM
Who wants to shell out $1000 and share the "report" with us?

Blue Heron
April 21st, 2008, 10:37 PM
this report is a bunch of FUD,

Saying something is FUD is FUD itself.
Anyway there is something dirty in Open Source - no price no taxes.

But who cares when MS suffers?

elamericano
April 21st, 2008, 10:41 PM
FOSS is saving software users $60 billion a year! News at 11.

Of course the numbers will be grossly inflated to pander to the people who might purchase such a study, but the higher the better, IMO.

Superkoop
April 21st, 2008, 11:24 PM
This is good news. People are giving less money to already rich people. =D

Although I have a hard believing it's $60 billion...=|

geoken
April 21st, 2008, 11:25 PM
Please tell me this study wasn't done using the RIAA methodology. The methodology where they count up all the downloads of an app, find out how much the commercial alternative costs, then come up with a dollar figure as if every person who downloaded Gimp would have otherwise shelled out hundreds for Photoshop.

Old Marcus
April 22nd, 2008, 03:24 AM
I guess this means that Open Source software can't be proper software, and is just a pirate copy of 'proper' overpriced software. That's just not cricket! Why didn't anyone tell me? :(

Bachstelze
April 22nd, 2008, 04:59 AM
Who does such trollish nonsense always have to come from The Inq ?

smartboyathome
April 22nd, 2008, 06:01 AM
I am guessing the majority of the $60 billion comes from microsoft not being sold for servers.

kelvin273
April 22nd, 2008, 06:54 AM
Obviously, when the report's authors call open source "disruptive," they mean disruptive to certain people, presumably the funders of the study and people who can afford to pony up $1000 to read it. Wait until they find out about the GNU Open Documentation License. People who charge for information the way these guys do would have a heart attack.

LightB
April 22nd, 2008, 07:40 AM
Yep, rich people complaining. Zzz.

karellen
April 22nd, 2008, 08:20 AM
I don't trust that source

Inferied
April 22nd, 2008, 08:34 AM
I am proud to say I have never paid more than five LVL for software... We had a guy with all the CDs and he installed everything for coffee, sandwiches and a few Ls, if we had them. And there were times when we didn't, and then he did it for free. Such a nice person. :)

insane_alien
April 22nd, 2008, 08:37 AM
i could argue that a little something called 'competition' is costing supermarkets billions of dollars each year as well but nobody would bat an eyelid as this is normal. the fact the software industry is kicking up a stink over this smells of 'monopoly' which IIRC is a very bad thing indeed.

i have no qualms about paying for software but i need to think it is worth it before i do. atm everything i have needed has got an open source alternative that is in some cases better. i won't shell out lots on an office suite when i have openoffice, photo editors when i have my beloved gimp(not counting the one in the closet :D).

its called economics and we can deliver cheaper and fster than they can. hence we win.

Bloch
April 22nd, 2008, 11:56 AM
Indirect economic impact: FLOSS, innovation and growth

Limited competition reduces innovation and FLOSS provides a boost to competition in the ICT
economy through an emphasis on open standards and interoperability.

FLOSS potentially saves industry over 36% in software R&D investment that can result in
increased profits or be more usefully spent in further innovation


http://stuermer.ch/blog/documents/FLOSSImpactOnEU.pdf

From this report on the ecponomic impacty of OSS, comissioned by several institutes in Europe.

As might well be imagined, OSS saves companies millions, increases productivity, and levels the field so small companies have a better chance against larger ones.

Seisen
April 22nd, 2008, 02:16 PM
Lets see 12 pages@$1000 would be $83 dollars a page thats some expensive paper, whats it's made out of gold. Lets create one and we can sell it for $999 and we will make 13 pages. :lolflag:

quinnten83
April 22nd, 2008, 02:29 PM
Who does such trollish nonsense always have to come from The Inq ?

Because they don't have a single competent, knowledgeable, unbiased journalist on staff. i don't even live in the states and even I know about the reputation of this magazine.

Besides i read this on a blog today (can' t find the link) and it clearly stated that OS software didn't even account for more than 6% of the amount of software used in businesses. The report itself might not be FUD, but the way it seems to presented here, certainly is.

atomkarinca
April 22nd, 2008, 02:38 PM
Saying something is FUD is FUD itself.
Anyway there is something dirty in Open Source - no price no taxes.

But who cares when MS suffers?

Man, I love you. I mean it. You can always come up with stuff like this and it's fresh, well sometimes at least.

fatality_uk
April 22nd, 2008, 03:55 PM
Sun buys OSS MYSQL

Foster Grant
April 22nd, 2008, 04:50 PM
I really wish madjr had quoted the entire lede in his post that started this thread ...


A VERY DUBIOUS NEW report claims that "Open Source software is raising havoc throughout the software market” and calls it “the ultimate in disruptive technology”.

The Standish Group International, who pompously call itself “the leader in spotting future trends”, and also claims to be the bearer of “reliable IT advice built on a solid foundation of primary research” has published a report that suggests the outfit is more like a bunch of corporate payrolled blue pinstripe suits.

The “study” claims that Open Sauce is causing “a real loss of $60 billion in annual revenues to software companies” on a yearly basis, as if to say that the thieving saucers snatched the money straight from the wallets of firms like Oracle, Apple, Adobe and the Vole. But to paraphrase in slightly more accurate terms than the Standish Group’s chairman, Jim Johnson, what the report actually points out is that: open source is so popular, that fewer people are buying its expensive and often mediocre software counterparts, making the corporate giants lose out on a tasty $60 billion a year slice of the market. Shame. Pass the tissues, sniff.

Their formatting and capitalization, not mine.

Had that entire section been quoted, perhaps we'd have seen less trashing of The Inquirer (not the same as the National one and the Philadelphia one) and more trashing of The Standish Group, whoever they may be. (Their official "about us" statement from their website is here (http://www.standishgroup.com/about/index.php). I do not feel particularly illuminated after reading it.)

I'm not going to call this report FUD; as noted previously, accusing something of being FUD is itself FUD. However, my opinion is that the number is not trustworthy.

And I think it behooves us to find out more about them and also find out who initially contracted with them to come out with this white paper. Maybe it will show up on Wikileaks at some point.