Business survival and the ethics of Open Source
The following is representative of the kind of business advice I've been getting lately. I'd be interested in your opinions (any direct mention of competitors in your replies will be removed -- no free advertising for them on this forum).
It is commercial madness for the XXX guys to keep getting free source code for all your ongoing software improvements. Dealing with this is critical for your survival.
As I have mentioned previously, I would like to see you get (new Kiwi feature) working real soon now and freeze the source code on GitHub. Plenty of others do this and the flack is minimal (jks: emphasis mine). In fact, the majority of existing Kiwi owners will support this move, particularly when they learn that your future depends on it.
This is a matter of urgency as every day they are selling more product that is riding on your code. They are quite a bit behind at the moment. For example, I can see that there is no (recent Kiwi feature).
Every sale they make could have been a Kiwisdr sale. They have sold XXX in the last two weeks that I can see on (web retailers). If you don’t deal with this you are just working for them.
You can slow their sales by announcing that the source code is frozen and the reason why, plus the fact that their radios talk to servers in China.
Stop being nice!
Comments
Personally, I prefer FOSS and I think you're doing the world a favor. But you have to know if it works out for you at the end of the day. I mean, if the future really depends on it, then there's no question about it.
Poor Richard. And Linus T. for that matter. You can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs..
This is a thorny subject, and I could write a thesis on it. I have already made my position clear to John, but I'll raise a few points here to further the discussion.
Open-source / FOSS is generally a great concept, kids these days like having stuff for free. Music streaming is perhaps one of the best examples. However, the problem is how to make money from it, and many small artists are still arguing about that one.
The principle of collaborative free software is good, as long as everyone contributes, less so when one person does the work, and everyone else sits back and makes use of it. In the workplace, most people know who is actually doing the bulk of the work, and who is just doing the bare minimum, or "clock watching".
John is in a difficult position, where the Opensource software, supports hardware, which he sells to make an income.
When you buy a KiWi you also get for free, a superb level of support from its enthusiastic developer (John), and unfortunately competing products like this, building on his work, but sold at low cost, for short term gain, will impact the long term survival of his business, including the other services he provides, such as TDoA, which run on his servers, at no additional cost to users.
By contrast, most of the previous KiWi clones have fallen by the wayside, despite assurances from the companies producing them, that they would not stop supporting their products. They try to make a quick "buck", then loose interest as sales decline.
The current competitors have used the KiWi code, and introduced some innovations in their own product, but these really only benefit the competing hardware, they do not directly feedback into the KiWi code, product or features. Their software is flaky, and response to significant bugs is usually patchy at best.
I don't think John can compete on the hardware side. Designing, building and selling hardware will always be difficult when competing against certain regions of the world. Low production costs, scale of manufacturing, circumventing import taxes and duties when shipped to other countries, and lack of respect for IPR, all add into the mix.
However, the time and effort he has put into developing the KiWi, since it's original fork from OpenWebRX, needs to be rewarded in some way, and I don't think that in future that can be achieved through the manufacture and sales of the hardware. Some way needs to be found to protect his IPR, provide a source of income, and cover the costs of him providing aftersales support, software updates, and the running costs of the services he provides for free such as TDoA and proxies etc. A subscription for support services, could be one way of achieving this, but in the meantime, protecting the parts of his code that he can, without infringing the Opensource parts, should definitely be considered.
Personally I'd risk doing this, and wait to see what happens, if someone objects then just fix the bit that is problematic, but in many cases it would be "the pot calling the kettle black", so I don't think it would be a major issue.
I'm all for respecting the law, and various formal or informal Open source agreements, however this shouldn't allow an individual to be taken advantage of, especially if they are good-natured and willing to go above and beyond what is required to make a profit, for the benefit of the community as a whole.
That is not fair, and should not be accepted by anyone with a social conscience, or sense of justice.
I could say an awful lot more, but this summarises my position, and I hope it will lead to a more meaningful debate.
Regards,
Martin
Emphasize the continued top tier support you've offered for the Kiwi for the past 8-something years. One of the risks in buying these "clone" units is you never know how long updates and support will be made available, and to what extent support will be given. Whereas here on this forum, you can see the personal level help that is offered to users, and updates that are promptly issued when new problems are reported. Past clones have already come and gone.
I'd also suggest emphasising the "works straight out of the box" aspect of the KiWi.
One competitor is making an attempt at this, so far unsuccessfully, but the majority of previous competitors have not been able to achieve this. Other options, such as OpenWebRX (moderate pain) or PhantomSDR/Plus software (really painful), are still in their infancy, and require a fairly extensive knowledge of Linux to get running initially, and then update and maintain.
Regards,
Martin
I wonder if crowdfunding might be a realistic method to support Johns work.
There could be funding for new features, depending on the time it takes to implement them. Or/and donations. Owners of "kiwi-compatible" devices could be involved too, since they can expect these new features be implemented by their supplier.
I mean, we rarely get any new feature for any other product that we already own. So asking for a compensation for that work would not be out of place.
I struggled with this question with all the projects I've created. I tried giving away the HW and relying on donations to pay for it. It turned out that this did work pretty well, I essentially broke even for out-of-pocket expense.
What didn't work was all the time it took to be a vendor. That meant order taking, processing, packaging, shipping and email and 'warranty'. I gave up with the give-it-all-away HW approach not because of financial loss but because I couldn't produce new designs AND also support the existing ones.
Where I stand now is providing all the IP for free but requiring the buyer/user actually build HW and install FW. It's his/her kit project, not mine. I get no money and don't desire any but I have (most of) my lost time back to continue doing what I like.
Once there is required transfer of money is there not an implicit expectation of some kind of return value - whether in support or something else? If it's a business, the exchange is inherently two-sided. If it needs to be a for profit business then somebody else, somewhere has to fulfill the expectations.
It's agreed that knock-off HW doesn't and perhaps can't supply this. Nobody knows the baby like the parent.
Not pretending to have an answer...
Glenn n6gn
I agree with Glenn,
Most small companies eat into their profits, by providing after sales support. It takes up valuable development time, delays the launch of new products and the additional income stream they can provide.
New products are required to maintain income, especially in areas such as technology, which is fast moving, and existing products depreciate fast. However, owners generally expect some degree of after sales support, unless they are pre-conditioned into buying or "upgrading" to the next "latest" model, instead of sorting out any issues with their current one. Mobile phones being the most obvious example I can think of.
A "throw away" society, is also why certain economies prosper, they don't bother about building up long term trading relationships, or providing any after sales support, it's all about making money now. People buy cheap, accept that it may not work entirely as advertised, and then throw it away, and buy a replacement when a successor is released. Then it's back into the same cycle again. This works with fast moving goods such as clothing and consumer electronics, but not so well in other market spaces.
Glenn posed the question, "Once there is a required transfer of money, is there not an implicit expectation of some kind of return value" This depends upon your mindset. I would say yes, which I why I don't seek donations towards the running of my web sdr's. I don't want to be hassled to go out during dark, wet and windy, Winter nights to fix something, because it's stopped working. It's my kit and I want to retain control of it. But in practice, it's only my personal belief that make me think this, if people want to donate, some will have an expectation and others will not. Likewise, I could choose to honour an implied commitment, or not.
The problem for John, is that he is basically providing development effort and aftersales support for his competitors, under the guise of Open Source. But this is a very one-sided arrangement, and presents a moral dilemma, when one side decides to go well beyond the bare basics of an agreement, for the good of the community as a whole, and the other-side barely respects the basics, if indeed they can be bothered to comply with any part of it. Sometimes profit trumps morals, as we all know to our cost.
I think, as John's original correspondent stated, "Stop being nice!" That doesn't mean being horrible, but at the same time don't give things away just to feel good. The competition, are exactly that, competition, and they won't think any the better of you for being the nice guy. If anything, they will just continue to trade on whatever you give them for free. There needs to be a levelling up, or a change of emphasis on what you can make money from.
Just my thoughts...
Martin
Sorry, I'm not fluent in English, I hope this won't be too confusing.
I think if you open source code, someone will take it at some point and make a business out of it.
M0NKA made a good SDR transceiver about 10 years ago, a Chinese company cloned it and sent their own customers to it for support and updates...
Some guys made uSDR, the code was open source, a Chinese company cloned it. And there are many other examples.
As someone said earlier: you don't have to support it. I agree: you can freeze the code on github, that's the only way. If they're competent, they'll figure it out.
PS: I was in charge of promoting a web sdr for my radio club, so I installed an openwebrx at home with an sdrplay and my own kiwisdr for demonstration, because I know that one of the interest of kiwisdr is to be able to be used at the same time by different people.
After the demonstration everyone agreed that kiwisdr was the way to go. But they have since seen information about the other one, and they prefer this one now! I am really frustrated about this.
Stephan.
Ah, a typical radio club, where the minority of members who actually do things, get criticised by the majority who do nothing, except pick holes in the various initiatives.
Been there, done that...
My personal experience of the alternatives, is that they are either not stable enough, or too complicated to maintain. If you are the one who is tasked with the operation and maintenance, both of these factors are VERY important, especially if, like myself, you are not a Linux Guru.
If other folks in the radio club wish to set up something else, let them get on with it, but it will probably never happen.
Bottom line - the KiWi works, continues to keep working, has good support from John, and is relatively hassle-free. The others are not.
If you would like more detailed information regarding my experiences, send me a PM.
Regards,
Martin
"PS: I was in charge of promoting a web sdr for my radio club, so I installed an openwebrx at home with an sdrplay and my own kiwisdr for demonstration, because I know that one of the interest of kiwisdr is to be able to be used at the same time by different people.
After the demonstration everyone agreed that kiwisdr was the way to go. But they have since seen information about the other one, and they prefer this one now! I am really frustrated about this."
This is a multifaceted problem, and certainly not a new one.
Overseas companies have been riding on the backs of other lesser companies since the dawn of capitalism. (ironically, those overseas companies have mainly been from a communist country)
We are wired to do good (most of us anyway) and that leaves room for others to exploit that. At some point in that less than ideal situation, and we reach a point where we are left with a few options.
One might be to cut off the blood supply to the leech. (I think that has been mentioned by making your Git privte, and only open to contriubitors, where, you and others can then equally profit from the collective efforts of updating your code base.
You could sell the business to the leech. This would likely anger your loyal following and result in lost future business, and not feel very good at all.
You could possibly ask the leech to use its cheaper manufacturing resources in return for access to your code.
Marketing accounts for a lot. Getting more notice in social media, and a web presesnce, SEO, etc can make a difference too.
Diversify, as in sell other items on your web store, such as power supplies, antenn, even professional services and items that members here might build and would like to sell through the online store to add value to the KiWi.
Communitiy - get people interested.(walks hand in hand with marketing) The art of radio has a finite shelf life( be it SWL, or HAM). The same applies to the likes of audio / hi-fi. The new generations are simply not interested in setting things up. I see it. I'm 50 and have a 14 and 11 yr old (that makes me two and three generations apart from them) Their interest to the workings of a "thing" under the hood is limited. Many of us here are likely the people, are the first thing we do when we get a new toy home, like a car, or electronics, is open the bonnet, take it apart and uinderstand how it works. Both mine are interested in why I do ( I work in IT) and like listening to those distant stations in the evening, however the catch is, someone else is doing it for them. Thats a broad brush stroke, however its more common than we like to think.
With respect to Open Source - Some context - we run a WISP here in the Hawkes Bay. Its by no means small. A couple of years ago we embarked on a project to rid the network of proprietary software that was costing $000/mth and replace it with something else.
We went down the OS route. To list some:
LibreQOS - this is the key to our network, and we contributed to the code base, and paid for support. Win Win.
Unimus - We pay for licences - but the code is FOSS.
MongoDB
Proxmox
Key Cloak - for Auth
FreeRadius
All of which we either paid something, or contributed to. We maintain our private Git, where our code is safe.
Anyway - enough rambling from me - time to get to work.
You make some good points.
The company I worked for moved across to Open Source at the behest of the developers, as at the time, it was becoming "the next big thing".
However, they didn't have the responsibility of maintaining the end product, that was running live customer systems.
Stability of the OS was a key issue, so as a compromise we ended up going down the Red Hat route.
In the end, I suspect that we actually didn't make any savings as a result.
You often just seem to trade one set of problems, for a different new set.
But, that being said, Red Hat seem to have somehow bridged the Open Source and commercial worlds, and made money in the process.
Regards,
Martin