Response to Don Park's Reaction to Mitch Kapor's Crazy Idea
The following will make almost no sense unless
you've read about Mitch
Kapor's venture,
and then Don
Park's reaction. Even then, you'll have to take your
chances.
Destroying Value
To Don: I think I see where you're coming from. You don't
want to see software given away like so many AOL CDs, because then
people will associate it with worthlessness. (AOL is constantly
trying to combat this by making their CDs appear more valuable,
disguising them in DVD cases and biscuit tins.) You go on to say
OSAF's path toward bundling free software "leads to the destruction
of value".
Too late! The programs are already free. Every new computer
and online service comes with mail software. (Outlook Express,
Apple's Mail.app, and the free web-based services are among the
many.) On the PIM side, Palm Desktop is free for download. These are
what end users see, and you can't dismiss them as "poor-quality open
source". Since you're talking about perception, note that even the
expensive email programs look free; for most corporate users, the
full Outlook client is preloaded before the computers hit their
desks. (To go further, you could even say that for the corporate IT
managers who actually buy Outlook, it comes as a kind of freebie
with Microsoft's Select agreement, as part of the deal to get a
better price on Office.)
So you can't complain that all of a sudden, OSAF will make
good software passé through wide distribution. There's
widespread free software already, before open source even enters the
picture.
If your argument is that OSAF's program is going to be
better than the ones already out there, that just sounds good to me.
More competition. The others will be pressured to get better
themselves.
Wishful Thinking
The three spells you would cast with your magic wand are
well-chosen. They would probably do a good job of starting a pure
market-driven economy in PIM software. People would research and buy
the best program, leading to competition and innovation. Generally,
this would help everyone by leading to better products and lower
prices.
You oppose OSAF because it doesn't fit into this world, and
thus prevents you from effectively using the wand (unless you also
used it for a fourth, anti-OSAF, spell).
But you don't even have the magic wand. None of us do. The
Justice Department had something close but passed up the opportunity
to use it.
You're trying to protect a fantasy. It's been widely
commented that no commercial company is going to try to launch and
sell a full-fledged competitor to Outlook or Office. So there is no
competitive market or "ecosystem" to destroy. The word
ecosystem itself is meant to mislead; it implies
something delicate. A true competitive market is all about companies
undercutting and outdoing each other, shaking things up instead of
protecting the status quo.
Making this kind of software free and bundling it ensconces
it as a basic service. It increases the standard of living for
everyone. Then the software market can move on to newer and better
things. Would you be happy if, 50 years from now, the software
market had not advanced, and companies were selling recognizable
email clients and PIMs as system add-ons for $40? I'd prefer it if
we found a way to treat the status quo as a baseline and focus our
efforts on moving up from there.
Even given the continuing existence of free software, even
given Mitch Kapor's $5 million jump-start (which would be nothing to
a large software company), if a new company can make a much better
product, then they can sell it. This is actually a good argument for
a BSD-style license (which rumor has it OSAF will use). The new
company could build just the new part, and their costs wouldn't
include re-implementing everything that had come before.
Since every company only has a finite amount of resources
that can be put into making a new product, a leg up to begin with
could also improve software in general, both free and commercial.
And allowing new competitors to enter the market more easily would
actually help start a real market after all. That, of course, is a
bit of open-source plus software-market utopia, but it's more
realistic than magic-wand plus software-market utopia.