web-archive-it.com » IT » C » CONECTA.IT

Total: 359

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • How to analyse an OSS business model - part three « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    on the contrary especially when the code is wholly owned in terms of copyright assignments it is potentially a valuable asset for some examples look at JBoss or MySQL Even when the code is cooperatively owned as in a pure GPLv2 with multiple contributors like Linux the default place is valuable in itself and it is the reason why so many companies try to make sure that their code is included in the main kernel line thus reducing future integration efforts and sharing the maintenance activities Other examples that are relevant for the OSS case are trademarks that are sometimes vigorously defended brand name the external ecosystem of knowledge for example all the people that is capable of using and managing a complex OSS offering creating a networked value that grows with the number of participants in the net People becoming RedHat certified for example increases the value of the RedHat ecosystem other than their own One of the most important resource is human the people working on your code installing it supporting it Most of those people in the OSS environment are not part of your company but are an extremely important asset on their own thanks to their capability of contributing back time and effort In exchange these resources need to be managed and that s why you need sometimes figures like community managers an excellent example is my friend Stefano Maffulli community manager extraordinaire at Funambol because exactly as you have a financial officer to check your finance another essential resource you should have a community manager for the community To properly analyse your key resources we can extend the network model created for the channel analysis the actor action model and extend it a little bit including the missing pieces For example we mentioned that a potential customer may be interested in our product Who makes it Of course as any good OSS company you have some pieces coming from the outside other OSS projects part coded by your developers and part coming as contribution from external groups All of them are resources the other OSS projects are key resources themselves simply obtained without immediate cost but managed by some developers that are themselves a key resources your internally developed source code is another key resource and if you have large scale contributions from the outside those should be considered resources too maybe not key resources but important nevertheless The main concept is a resource is key if without it your company would not be able to operate and whenever you have a key resource you should have a person that manages it with a clearly defined process Next cost structure open source OSS business models This entry was posted on Monday March 1st 2010 10 03 am and is filed under OSS business models You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2 0 You can leave a response or trackback from your own site Comments 2 Trackbacks 3 1 by Stefano Maffulli

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/how-to-analyse-an-oss-business-model-part-three/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive


  • 01 « March « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    asset for some examples look at JBoss or MySQL Even when the code is cooperatively owned as in a pure GPLv2 with multiple contributors like Linux the default place is valuable in itself and it is the reason why so many companies try to make sure that their code is included in the main kernel line thus reducing future integration efforts and sharing the maintenance activities Other examples that are relevant for the OSS case are trademarks that are sometimes vigorously defended brand name the external ecosystem of knowledge for example all the people that is capable of using and managing a complex OSS offering creating a networked value that grows with the number of participants in the net People becoming RedHat certified for example increases the value of the RedHat ecosystem other than their own One of the most important resource is human the people working on your code installing it supporting it Most of those people in the OSS environment are not part of your company but are an extremely important asset on their own thanks to their capability of contributing back time and effort In exchange these resources need to be managed and that s why you need sometimes figures like community managers an excellent example is my friend Stefano Maffulli community manager extraordinaire at Funambol because exactly as you have a financial officer to check your finance another essential resource you should have a community manager for the community To properly analyse your key resources we can extend the network model created for the channel analysis the actor action model and extend it a little bit including the missing pieces For example we mentioned that a potential customer may be interested in our product Who makes it Of course as any good OSS company you have

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/03/01/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 17 « March « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    or community interest in a project and so my idea was to see if there was a difference between the percentages obtained with only the amount of projects listed under a license and the number of committers using a license The result is this license projects committers projects committers blackduck gpl2 49 15878 52 1 62 9 48 83 lgpl 8 2286 8 5 9 1 9 35 mit 6 1668 6 4 6 6 4 bsd 8 1150 8 5 4 6 6 26 gpl3 3 988 3 2 3 9 5 5 php 2 730 2 1 2 9 0 24 cddl 1 673 1 1 2 7 0 32 mpl 2 655 2 1 2 6 1 22 apache 10 557 10 6 2 2 4 02 boost 1 266 1 1 1 1 epl 2 241 2 1 1 0 0 46 python 1 133 1 1 0 5 cpl 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 56 The result is interesting first of all by looking in terms of contributors the GPLv2 has an higher percentage of committers than that of projects that is there are more committers per project under the GPLv2 in respect to the normal share The percentage of projects obtained is similar to that from BlackDuck 52 1 versus 48 83 so I think that there is not too much bias in the choice of projects The LGPL has more or less its fair share of committers on a par with the number of projects and the results from BlackDuck MIT is slightly higher both in projects and commits while the GPLv3 is under represented probably because the sample is too small and in the project selection the new projects under the GPLv3 simply were not among the first 100 or

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/03/17/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • How to analyse an OSS business model - part one « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    the directly contacted customer more or less profitable than the one acquired through an indirect channel How much do we lose by going through an intermediary So let s imagine that our widgets inc is selling directly and through a reseller network Resellers are providing additional reach thanks to their own marketing efforts so we have at least 3 different segments users of the community edition users of the enterprise edition that have a direct relationship with widgets inc and users of the enterprise edition that are managed by a partner There is a potential fourth segment that is users of a potential community enhanced edition for example a commercial offering by an independent vendor that enhanced the community edition and that is selling that in a form similar to our enterprise offering What can we say of these segments The enterprise edition users are paying us of course and the profitability of each customer depends on the cost of servicing it that changes if we follow it directly or through a partner a reseller will require a percentage of revenues but on the other hand it handles some of the support costs and covered some of the expenses for getting the customer in the first place The community users are not paying us but can be leveraged in several ways as a reference for example GE is an Alfresco user even if it was not paying for the enterprise edition and this can be a reference with a commercial value and by conversion In fact community users may become enterprise users with a conversion ratio that is quite low from 0 5 to 3 depending on the kind of software but that can become substantial if the user base is large enough MySQL is a good example of such conversion by numbers Sometimes segments are interlocked in what are called multisided markets An example is a merchant like eBay that needs a large number of buyers and sellers to guarantee the fluidity of the market itself it may charge sellers buyers or both charge only on trade performed on publication or not at all for example using advertising to recover costs A common segmentation is also that based on size or revenue assumptions so you get something like an SME offering and a large company or administration offering Thanks to data from eBusinessWatch an observatory of the European Commission we know that the average precentage of revenues spent for ICT in companies is roughly the same for small and large companies but this does also imply that smaller companies do have a smaller available budget while larger companies may have a much longer and costlier procurement process Value proposition the reason why someone would want to come to widgets inc in the first place because we solve a problem or satisfy a need In our case we have two separate propositions one for the community edition and one for the enterprise edition The community edition may solve a practical

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/how-to-analyse-an-oss-business-model-part-one/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 17 « February « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    In a lot of situation this is perceived as a useless effort especially if the company offers a single product But separating customers across all the different variables allows for something similar to sensitivity analysis for example is the directly contacted customer more or less profitable than the one acquired through an indirect channel How much do we lose by going through an intermediary So let s imagine that our widgets inc is selling directly and through a reseller network Resellers are providing additional reach thanks to their own marketing efforts so we have at least 3 different segments users of the community edition users of the enterprise edition that have a direct relationship with widgets inc and users of the enterprise edition that are managed by a partner There is a potential fourth segment that is users of a potential community enhanced edition for example a commercial offering by an independent vendor that enhanced the community edition and that is selling that in a form similar to our enterprise offering What can we say of these segments The enterprise edition users are paying us of course and the profitability of each customer depends on the cost of servicing it that changes if we follow it directly or through a partner a reseller will require a percentage of revenues but on the other hand it handles some of the support costs and covered some of the expenses for getting the customer in the first place The community users are not paying us but can be leveraged in several ways as a reference for example GE is an Alfresco user even if it was not paying for the enterprise edition and this can be a reference with a commercial value and by conversion In fact community users may become enterprise users with a conversion ratio that is quite low from 0 5 to 3 depending on the kind of software but that can become substantial if the user base is large enough MySQL is a good example of such conversion by numbers Sometimes segments are interlocked in what are called multisided markets An example is a merchant like eBay that needs a large number of buyers and sellers to guarantee the fluidity of the market itself it may charge sellers buyers or both charge only on trade performed on publication or not at all for example using advertising to recover costs A common segmentation is also that based on size or revenue assumptions so you get something like an SME offering and a large company or administration offering Thanks to data from eBusinessWatch an observatory of the European Commission we know that the average precentage of revenues spent for ICT in companies is roughly the same for small and large companies but this does also imply that smaller companies do have a smaller available budget while larger companies may have a much longer and costlier procurement process Value proposition the reason why someone would want to come to widgets inc in

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/02/17/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 18 « February « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    based upon trust in people you already know and knows what you may be interested in the flash mob success of some online games on Facebook is a slightly modified version of this principle In channel analysis the various actors in a company try to imagine or list all the possible ways someone from the outside may interact with the company or its products How can a potential customer discover about widgets inc products What actions need to be performed to be able to evaluate or buy To help in this mapping exercise you can perform what is called the actor actions mapping In this activity you start by listing all the actors that may be potentially interacting with you your users potential or not people that may talk about your product Everything You start with a simple table listing the actors and the possible actions that they may want to perform As an example unaware user casually finds out about widgets inc through advertising word of mouth email campaign potential user wants more information Can go to the web site download from a mirror site ask friends look for reviews of the product user wants support Contact through email phone web based system if there is a physical part may ask for replacement of something user wants a different contract As before can use email phone a CRM system journalist may ask for information to write a review The idea is to try to map all the roles all the actions and list all of them along with a sort of small description Then imagine yourself while performing the action listed within who do you interact with What are the precondition for performing such action As for the customer segmentation you repeat this exercise until nothing changes and at this point you have a nice complete map of all the in out relationships of widgets inc with the outside world At that point you add a value to each channel in terms of what does it costs to maintain it and what potential advantage brings to you It is important to bring to the table all potential value even negative value or intangible because for open source software a large part of the channel network will not be directly managed by widgets inc but will be handled by third parties that cannot be directly influenced So a very simple example Acme corp takes the community edition of our software adds some bells and whistles and creates a nice service business based on that Is it a value or not It does have a positive value enlarges the use base may provide additional contributions on the other hand it competes directly in at least part of the user base The decision on how to act the strategy part depends on what we want to optimize and is something that is inherently dynamic so as an example what is good in the beginning when dissemination of information and adoption is more

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/02/18/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The H264 codec problem, or: we should find a better way « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    fact I believe that Theora in its more recent implementations can provide comparable quality to H264 as was shown by Greg Maxwell but the encoders still need to demonstrate that the excellent quality demonstrated in Greg s encoding are maintained for a wide range of material in this sense I am quite sure that in the next few months the quality differential will become very small up to the point where Theora and H264 are more or less technically equal The problem is all the material already encoded as H264 that will need to be converted And this means that it will never happens as the cost of doing so is higher than the cost of buying a license for H264 What will happen is that if Flash continues to be developed outside of the main browser code more and more content providers will prefer to use HTML5 and the open standards because this way it will be easier to provide a better quality to end users increasing the number of potential viewers This does not means that Flash will go away as much as I would love to as most of the functionality that is offered outside of video is not directly replicable in a sensible way through other means Gordon is capable of render level 1 codes Gnash has some level 7 codes but in general there is no realistic way to ask for all the websites and content developers to throw out all their flash toolchests and start using something else And there is no chance in hell that Adobe will open source their plugin due to IPR issues mainly What HTML5 can do at the moment is still not sufficient to replace ActionScript and the advanced graphics features of Flash my hope is that the advantage

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/the-h264-codec-problem-or-we-should-find-a-better-way/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 26 « January « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    added cost will probably be very low but more important is the overall greater maturity in terms of encoder and decoders In fact I believe that Theora in its more recent implementations can provide comparable quality to H264 as was shown by Greg Maxwell but the encoders still need to demonstrate that the excellent quality demonstrated in Greg s encoding are maintained for a wide range of material in this sense I am quite sure that in the next few months the quality differential will become very small up to the point where Theora and H264 are more or less technically equal The problem is all the material already encoded as H264 that will need to be converted And this means that it will never happens as the cost of doing so is higher than the cost of buying a license for H264 What will happen is that if Flash continues to be developed outside of the main browser code more and more content providers will prefer to use HTML5 and the open standards because this way it will be easier to provide a better quality to end users increasing the number of potential viewers This does not means that Flash will go away as much as I would love to as most of the functionality that is offered outside of video is not directly replicable in a sensible way through other means Gordon is capable of render level 1 codes Gnash has some level 7 codes but in general there is no realistic way to ask for all the websites and content developers to throw out all their flash toolchests and start using something else And there is no chance in hell that Adobe will open source their plugin due to IPR issues mainly What HTML5 can do at

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/01/26/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive