Just because Firefox is free and open source doesn’t mean developers aren’t cashing in on the popularity of the Mozilla Foundation’s new browser.
Firefox fortune hunters
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
One of the comments I saw on the ZDNET comments section of this story is that this is proof that you really can make money with open source.
To that I do not dispute, however, it only works in situations like this when the program in question is geared towardds personalized/custom solutions. I can only wonder how many Thunderbird fortune hunters are out there
Doesn’t seem there would be a lot of money in custom email program solutions, where you could potentially make a killing by writing a closed-source email program that rocked.
“Doesn’t seem there would be a lot of money in custom email program solutions, where you could potentially make a killing by writing a closed-source email program that rocked.
”
sure. proprietary software might get killed but as a end user I will let the market decide that.
firefox is not the only place to earn money with open source
there is jboss,mysql,trolltech,redhat, collabnet and so on
sure. proprietary software might get killed but as a end user I will let the market decide that.
No, that’s not what I meant
What I meant was that in genres of apps like email programs, you would probably make more money by making a closed-source app and selling it than you would taking an existing open-source app and customizing it for clients.
And yes, I know there are lots of ways you can make money with open source. Only thing I’m saying is that neither model really covers all the bases. Open source is probably better when you have apps that can be heavily tweaked for customized solutions, but closed source is probably better for shrink-wrapped apps that rarely or never need to be changed.
Gmail springs to mind. A FREE mail app, that ROCKS. Sure, its not opensource, but I’m not currently being charged to use it. Kind of the best of both worlds.
theKompany.com has contributed several open-source projects and yet they have an email client, aethera, that is kind of closed — in the sense that certain plugins are not free.
However, I am yet to see them rock the universe with their email client as far as making money is concerned.
Your thoughts on companies reaping large amounts of money through closed-source stuff probably comes from a monopoly’s idea of selling software — and there you may be right.
I know its out of context here but has someone tried the links browser. I am talking about a graphic browser that flies. Its text rendering is good too.
why?
I just don’t get it. Why? Why does everyone love freaking webmail? It’s terrible. It’s hideously slow, a pain to use and gives you absolutely and utterly nothing that the free email account you get from your ISP doesn’t. Every ISP I know of now offers a webmail interface for the 1% of the time you want to read your email and you’re not either at your own computer or at another computer with a perfectly serviceable dedicated email client, which can do more stuff in less time than any webmail system ever.
webmail. WHY?! In the name of holy Cookie…
“Every ISP I know of now offers a webmail interface for the 1% of the time you want to read your email and you’re not either at your own computer or at another computer with a perfectly serviceable dedicated email client, which can do more stuff in less time than any webmail system ever. ”
obviously you have never been in Asia, peru, brazil, mexico or anywhere similar
what about changing your isp? like, every year, whatever is cheaper/faster/more reliable etc?
change your e-mail address every year?
obviously you have never been in Asia, peru, brazil, mexico or anywhere similar
What’s the difference? I’m from Brazil, and I use the same software as you do. I read my mail with Opera browser, I almost never use a webmail application, I think it’s slow and unproductive.
” just don’t get it. Why? Why does everyone love freaking webmail? It’s terrible. It’s hideously slow, a pain to use and gives you absolutely and utterly nothing that the free email account you get from your ISP doesn’t. Every ISP I know of now offers a webmail interface for the 1% of the time you want to read your email and you’re not either at your own computer or at another computer with a perfectly serviceable dedicated email client, which can do more stuff in less time than any webmail system ever.”
Universal access, no need to worry about accounts remaining on a guest computer, integrated services (Such as passpotr or yahoo)
Sony relies on the gcc-toolchain – binutils, gdb, etc. for their platform.
Then middleware companies like snsys.com takes where Sony is, and makes even better suited debuggers, linkers, etc. again based on gcc, but Win32 based. The funny thing is that GPL ties them only when statically(or dynamically LGPL) linking with GPL code, but not when a GPL, or non-GPL code excutes other app, that might be still GPL, or non-GPL. In the case of their toolchain (extended modified win32/gcc based of the Sony one) their gcc-driver is a closed-source program, which checks for the license (it also has other name), this program starts cpp.exe, cc1.exe, cc1plus.exe, which are GPL programs (and they distribute the source code), then it starts their own custom linker (you can choose to use the standard one if you want), and that linker checks again for the LICENSE
They also have more customized, and platform specific debugger, overall better than what GDB, or whatever else GDB-like clients can offer. The same things they are doing and for gamecube, and probably for gameboy advance.
And their tools are not that cheap
– but better offering than what have Codewarrior to offer (that’s the other alternative if you want to do something commercially with PS2 or NGC).
And.. Mac OS X – that thing is built hevaily with open-sourced products, being controlled by one lead (Apple) they can choose to customize it well, and make it work better. Funny that Apple decided to use KHTML. On some specific pages there is big slowdown, and running the Sampler shows lots of recursive code – some repaint() function from Qt. Anyway, it’s improving with great speed!
On the linux though, not having central authority (as Apple), leaves a bit trouble. I, for example, am having problems with my newly installed SuSE 9.1 and GNOME not working well, because some other X system, or KDE busted it’s fonts (I’ve fixed it, but I went through much trouble). Also i had to go and manually configure lots of things, read man-pages, and such. Then again linux might be as well as it is – a breeding ground for tons of good open source stuff – a bit messy, colorful, but in abundance of new ideas, people, and most importantly code
Gah… and why SuSE is not updating their MoziilaFirefox, I’m stuck with rpm from 0.93 release, and I don’t want to install a /usr/local/bin, or ~/firefox one from the mozilla site. I want to be updated by the SuSE 9.1 team
– and start feeling as normal user.
This is partly based on the article and partly based various users opinions. I have seen a few folks (trolls) comment on the fact that open source is bad for the economy and IP. But according to the article:
“”Business is pretty crazy right now,” said Pete Collins, who last year founded the Mozdev Group in anticipation of demand for private Mozilla development work. “With the popularity of Firefox and the economy rebounding, we’ve been swamped. We don’t even advertise–clients find us and provide us with work.””
Looks like a services based business model. Sounds like a capitalist idea to me.
“The Mozdev Group is still a small shop–seven employees scattered around the globe, including two new hires. In response to demand, Collins intends to hire two more workers in January, and hourly rates, which range between $75 and $100 per hour depending on volume, are going up.”
Uhhh… pretty decent cash in todays economy. Nice business venture.
Sorry all about the slightly mis-leading subject. But case in point, OSS / Service Oriented business can be an effective business model. It just a different way of leveraging your assets.
Disclaimer: Born and bread capitalist and OSS enthusiast.
Sure, this is a new chance for developers to make money and get “discovered” with FF. The question is: does FF have a future in the consumer mass-market? Or, will FF be pointed to corporate/enterprise/government applications exclusively? I predict that FF will evolve into the OS/2 of web browsers and will have pretty much the same mass-market impact.
Even if the MS “threat” were real, keep in mind that MS has a decent track record with developer tools, and they can be a very fast follower in the tools market, not to mention the fact that they still dominate the consumer mass-market desktop.
You read your email with a browser and you don’t use a webmail application? Are you sure?
Sorry all about the slightly mis-leading subject. But case in point, OSS / Service Oriented business can be an effective business model. It just a different way of leveraging your assets.
I don’t think anybody is arguing that fact, but I’m simply saying that using open source to make money works better in some cases than it does others. I contend that for shrink-wrapped packages where there’s rarely (if ever) a need for any service-oriented business is not a good fit for open source. Of course, there are a lot of free open source apps that make commercial shrink-wrapped apps unecessary, but this is a good thing because if you want people to buy your closed-source app in favor of free ones, you’re going to have to develop something of high quality, so I think everybody benefits in the long run, except for companies who develop shoddy products and charge a fortune for them
@ AdamW
Haven’t you used Gmail? It’s a whole other ballgame compared to the rest of the webmail. It’s really fast.
The team/person that invented gmail needs a trophy for this outstanding acheivement.
“The funny thing is that GPL ties them only when statically(or dynamically LGPL) linking with GPL code, but not when a GPL, or non-GPL code excutes other app, that might be still GPL, or non-GPL.”
careful here, with the GPL your code becomes GPL when staticly or dynamicly linked. with the LGPL you can dynamicly link and still keep your code. with your line it sounds like the GPL only covers static linking and LGPL covers both.
Opps… Okay, without mentioning LGPL, but just GPL, I just wanted to say, that it’s possible to create say two applications – one GPL based, the other one strictly commercial, one calls the other, or vice versa, and still you need to distribute the source code only of the GPL part. You don’t need to do that with the other one.
That way compiler developers can take benefit of only parts they need – as cc1.exe, cc1plus.exe which is the code generator, and do the rest of themselves in commercial way.
I just wanted to give example of how you can benefit from OSS, without the need to always show all of your source code (just because some of it might contain code for checking the LICENSE for example, and you don’t want that exposed, even if it’s easy to crack).
I understand that LPGPL is a bit less restrictive by giving you the option to dynamically link to a LGPL library, without the need to expose the source code.
Okay that one at me: By saying commercial, I wanted to say closed-source – of course it can be commerical and open sourced, or non-commercial but closed source.
You are better off with calling it proprietary software instead of “closed source” which is a rather misleading term
But doesn’t propriatary also means that it might be not free or at least private to some body in some way (like internally developed tool for your company).
For example if someone writes shareware or freeware product, but does not long to give the source code out, but likes also to use some GPL code. He can then have the GPL code isolated as a separate executable with his installation, and makes sure that it does not call that utility by linking, but strictly by executing (even if it’s executable it can still have import symbols). Off course he has to make sure to make sure that the source code to that GPL utility can also be download from somewhere.
say SomeSoundFileConversionLibrary is GPL, not LGPL licensed, but you want to use for conversion of some specific format. You also do not want to rewrite that code, as you’ll lose the support (new versions of that library) – it may relieve you from the GPL somehow, but you lose the support (or you have to manually update here and there).
So you can’t link dynamically to it, and it might be not that easy to use – you can’t directly call a function from it, so now you have to use higher interface – through pipes, which might be slower (and might be not at all) – but at least works.
Off course you don’t need to do that, if you do propriatery tool to be used only in your company. As long as you make sure that everyone who gets the tool, gets the source code (that’s okay, as long as that code stays in the company).
Now if you decide to license that tool outside, and people see that you are using GPL code, but it’s linked, not executed – and you are not giving them the source code (say external gamedev studio) – then things would be bad.
Anyhow, thhat’s my understanding
If you look at the facts, open source is failing
in all areas.
>Open Source fails to make any money
Open-Source software was not invented to make money but to make GOOD software.
“I don’t think anybody is arguing that fact, but I’m simply saying that using open source to make money works better in some cases than it does others. ”
Well, sometimes there are claims that OSS is bad for an economy. I just wanted to get my .02 cents and re-affirm that there is money to be made in OSS. The only people that have to worry about OSS are the makers of shoddy software, I am in 100 % agreement with you Darius.
Well, I have to add one addendum to the shoddy software statement; overpriced software.
I forgot..
Open-Source software was not invented to make money but to make GOOD software wich is accessable for everyone.
Why ? Because only a few big name companies are making money selling oss based products ? This sector is still very young compared to traditional software development.
But oss is making money for plenty of people : companies that support linux or host websites using Apache, comapnies that include oss software to add value to their own offering, etc
All this talk about Gmail and I STILL don’t have an account… Stupid invite system.
Anonymous (IP: —.lan.sify.net): You are better off with calling it proprietary software instead of “closed source” which is a rather misleading term
malkia: But doesn’t propriatary also means that it might be not free or at least private to some body in some way (like internally developed tool for your company).
Well, one problem with calling “closed source software” “closed source” is that actually some programs can have open source code but not follow the strict definitions of what it means to be “open source” or “free software”. (As far as I know there is no term for this type of software.) Of course most “closed source” software really is “closed source” though.
One example of a “closed source” license where the source is actually “open”, that I know of, goes something like this:
You may use the source however you like except that you may not distribute the source code we have licensed to you to other parties. However, you may distribute your own source code however you wish.
(Note that this not fit the official definition of “open source”, because it does not allow redistribution of the licensed source code in source code form.)
Deletomn: One example of a “closed source” license where the source is actually “open”, that I know of, goes something like this:
You may use the source however you like except that you may not distribute the source code we have licensed to you to other parties. However, you may distribute your own source code however you wish.
I probably should have added this:
You may do what you whatever you wish with the binaries.
In my opinion, it’s best not to exclude any options. As much as some people might believe that one or the other is bad, the fact of the matter is that both probably fit different situations.
From my own experience in dealing with “opposing ideas” in other areas, it would appear that it is not really a question of which idea is “better” than the other, it’s more of a question of which idea suits the current situation and environment better.
Also, as time progresses, some things can change as well. Sometimes, things even “revert” as time progresses. As a result, “open source” may well be the future, but “closed source” may be the future after that and then it may revert to “open source” again and so on.
Also from my experience, when one “opposing idea” obliterates another “opposing idea” it tends to frequently cause problems of one form or another. At best it creates a number of misconceptions about the losing idea, which causes people to not trust the other idea at all, even if it may be appropriate for the situation and environment. (For example: If open source “fails” because a number of companies never make any money and as a result the industry ends up going all closed source, a misconception which may arise is that it is impossible to make money with open source. This is quite obviously not true, but the majority of people may end up believing it to be true simply because it “failed”.)
As if this weren’t enough, I’ve also seen that pretty much any idea can be abused or handled in a stupid manner. How this can be done and what the exact effects are vary not only from idea to idea, but also from one environment to another. (For example: In the event of open source failing, it may be that the given companies which couldn’t make money were just being stupid with how they went about business and yet, in this example open source software gets the blame.)
So in a nut shell, I think you can make money either way. I also think you can be “moral” either way. (Which is a concern for some people) The big question is how you handle it and what you are applying it to. I also think it’s best to try to keep your options open, so you can always switch if nessecary.
Somehow, I think, if World War III happens, open-source will become negative, or at least would be avoided.
Open-source, by itself, implies freedom of ideas, communication, work, and the spirit of preserving that freedom. In war that changes… people tend to concetrate to one particularly strong idea (freeing the country, conquering the enemy), and freedom might distract people from the goal.
Interrestingly enough, if my intuition about that is right, it’s exactly during war time, when the most profound ideas are discovered. For example using the plane as bomber, the enigma decoding machine, the supersonic plane, nuclear power. Even the cold war, in race for competition put man on the moon, and first man in space, while in open-source you have the opposite – collaboration between diverse modules & devices from all over, compared that to the collaboration now happening in space – russian, chinese and american fixing the space station together.
To close the cycle, inventions are mainly happening in “war” time, and innovations in the “free”. Compared with the open-source – most of the inventions were happening on the closed-more-concentrated-way-of-thinking, while most innovations in the open-source.
Well.. something is wrong here..
hehehe
Get an alias and forward it. They’re easy enough to get. I have one free from my old university which is always forwarded to whatever ISP I happen to be using at the time. And besides, you can generally keep old email addresses around if you want to – the one I use here on OSNews is from an ISP I haven’t used in years, I pay ’em a quid a month to keep the address going.
it’s fast compared to hotmail, yes. That’s like saying that Mussolini was only a little bit evil, compared to Hitler…
@ AdamW
Hitler and Mussolini = Socialist Dictators.
Hotmail and Gmail = Free Webmail Services.
You can’t compared those. Webmail is there because someone needed it. Socialist Dictators are there because of hatred of the religious (nazis and commies.)
Webmail, like Gmail, is great because it frees you from your Personal Computer. You can check your emails at work, girlfriend, parents, friends, etc…