VC Summit 2006 - Port 25: The Open Source Community at Microsoft
< Back to Blogs
VC Summit 2006 by admin on May 17, 2006 02:05PM

VC Summit 2006

Last week I attended the Microsoft VC Summit at our Silicon Valley campus.  Before Microsoft and IBM, I helped to build four start-ups, three in the Bay area, so spending a day with a couple hundred VC folks talking about industry trends and business models and in general networking with some great people, was a lot of fun.  I did a Q&A onstage with Scott Sandell from NEA on Microsoft, Open Source, our strategy and the relationships to the venture capital community.  One of the questions that we spent a good deal of time discussing was the impact of open source software to the venture community.  It was an interesting discussion about defining and measuring a successful open source software company.  In my opinion, many of these companies are either evolving or starting out with business models that incorporate open source ‘components’ with commercial components (Greenplum is a good example of this), largely because selling support and services for non-differentiated commodity software is not proving to be a sustainable revenue generating model for most of the commercial OSS companies.

Steven Weber’s ‘The Success of Open Source’ discusses this in detail, and Stephen Walli and Matt Asay have been blog-debating this recently as well.  I’m interested in business models and I’m interested in analyzing the history of business models.  I think one aspect that is often left out of this discussion is that some of these OSS companies have been around for a while, so there is a reasonable history to look back at and measure.  Red Hat and MySQL were both founded around 1995 (if memory serves me), and many others can be tracked back six, seven plus years as well.  So the question that was discussed at the VC Summit, as well as just this week in the blogosphere, is what qualifies a commercially successful OSS company, and (importantly for investors) how do they rank comparatively to other commercial software companies that VCs may be considering as a potential portfolio company?  These venture specific conversations were, of course, very much focused in benchmarking revenue and profitability.  I talk a lot about the evolution of commercial and open source models and I think this type of analysis will influence the evolution as vendors, customers, and the investment community start to take a realistic look at the pros and cons of the model.  For more information on the VC summit, Don Dodge has a good summary here.

Comments RSS
  1. einhverfr said:

    Bill, you write:

    "In my opinion, many of these companies are either evolving or starting out with business models that incorporate open source ‘components’ with commercial components (Greenplum is a good example of this), largely because selling support and services for non-differentiated commodity software is not proving to be a sustainable revenue generating model for most of the commercial OSS companies."

    This is nothing new.  Fully open source Linux distros, for example, have always been the exception rather than the rule.  But Red Hat has been as successful as they have been because of their aggressive policy towards expanding open source software.

    Best Wishes,
    CHris Travers

    posted at 05:06PM 05/17/2006
  2. billhilf said:

    Hey Chris, I would disagree with some of this - first some of the fully OSS distros have been very, very popular (Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu).  Red Hat's model and their current revenue streams are from subscription/support/services to their Enterprise Linux product.  -Bill

    posted at 01:53PM 05/18/2006
  3. Deric said:

    Hey Bill,

    I tend to agree with you, at some point companies need to show a possibility of profit to attract VC.  But the line blurs as you talk about "what qualifies a commercially successful OSS company".  What actually qualifies a company as an OSS company?

    A company that "gives" software away, but relies on a service model for profit? RedHat? or even IBM?  

    Most often it's not the pure OSS companies which benefit financially from their hard work, but other companies which leverage the technology either through infastructure, or adding value to it by combining it with their own work.

    Deric Horn

    posted at 07:23PM 05/18/2006
  4. billhilf said:

    Deric, good to see you here.  I agree, many 'traditional' IT companies benefit from OSS, either through hardware or services (IBM, Sun, HP, Oracle, etc.), not through a pure-play commercial OSS model.  I think this is becoming more apparent every day, as customers realize why these companies are really interested in OSS (i.e., WebSphere Portal or Oracle 10g are not open source as these are core revenue assets).  I think you are spot on.  -Bill

    posted at 01:20AM 05/19/2006
  5. VCs still have to walk a very fine line here - I'd venture to say that some are still more likely to go for a more pure OSS model than a more conservative model that leveraged OSS components.

    OSS as a model is still being worked out, although at this point a lot of the paths have shown to be dead ends.  That doesn't restrict the possibility that there is a good workable (and profitable) path, though, and VCs seem to be doing their job in keeping all paths to revenue open.

    They're also built to go for the long shots - they only need one good shot to really pay off, and that will pay for the rest. That's why a lot of the more middle of the road companies that primarily leverage aren't a good match. They do fine and are profitable, but don't have that combination of long odds and high payoff that VCs tend to go for. That's been my experience in one of those 'leveraging' companies.

    posted at 09:25AM 05/23/2006
  6. clcarroll said:

    Red Hat was the exception to the rule until they purchased Jbsoss, now they are becoming the rule.  As RedHat moves further up the solution stack they will begin a blancing act between "software as service" and "commercial components" that wille extend revenue opportunities. If they can capitalize on such an approach I believe you will see more VC/Enterprise's into this arena.

    Just my 2 cents!

    Clint Carroll

    posted at 03:51PM 05/23/2006
  7. einhverfr said:

    Debian, Ubuntu, and Gentoo have been generally successfun in some markets (ISPs, hobbyists, etc), but my point was that Red Hat started pushing open source very early on from a commercial perspective.  Compared to Caldera, Mandrake, SuSE, and many of their early competitors, they were able to marry a business strategy to the ability to push open source software.

    Red Hat has always made their money in the services industry and have seen software as a complimentary market that ought to be commotized.  Hence they have aggressively pushed the opening up of software, and the Red Hat Directory Server is just the most recent example of this.

    More recently Novell has made some strides in this area, but they have moved back to the hybrid open/closed software business model.

    Separately, Ubuntu, Debian, and Gentoo have had some success but they have not been the commercial successes that Red Hat has been.

    Best Wishes,
    Chris Travers
    Metatron Technology Consulting

    posted at 06:13PM 05/24/2006
Post a Comment
*
*