Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed to Make Money

Re:Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed ... by phoe-krk on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @02:43PM (#19434136)

...but that is generally regarded to be economically irresponsible in itself preventing you from leveraging the best features available in each cloud.

This is only true as long as the costs of maintaining a cloud provider abstraction layer are greater than the costs of being locked in to a single vendor. I believe that some businesses, once they are armed with an abstraction toolkit like this, will be able to employ arbitrage between the cloud vendors for themselves, and sell that toolkit to other companies who want the same kind of freedom.

And then somebody creates a free software alternative, and will maintain it and keep it up to date.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed ... by petra on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @03:07PM (#19434432)

Speed to product, risk, and access to talent(via other people's code) matters much more than cost, for most software business.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed ... by SpicyLemonZest on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @04:41PM (#19435590)

The problem of leaky abstractions can't be solved by slapping yet another abstraction on top. The best case is that you become locked into your cloud provider abstraction layer instead of the cloud providers themselves - and then what stops them from becoming just as monopolistic?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open Source Doesn’t Make Money Because It Isn’t Designed ... by chii on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @07:51PM (#19437431)

> locked into your cloud provider abstraction layer instead of the cloud providers themselves

but the assumption is that this layer is free (due to OSS), and the "owners" of this layer cannot pull the carpet under you by raising prices.

[ Parent | on HN ]