Why use downloads as an indicator of OSS success? - Port 25: The Open Source Community at Microsoft
< Back to Blogs
Why use downloads as an indicator of OSS success? by Brett Shoemaker on February 13, 2008 11:31AM

I continue to be surprised by the amount of weight given to downloads as a metric for OSS success. A topic Matt Asay also touched on recently over at The Open Road. Like Matt, I’m talking OSS at the product or company level (i.e., not OSS projects) and by success I mean sales.

For me, a high number of downloads only signals that people are willing to trial a product. Downloads do not equal actual use of the product, and trial is a far cry from success. If we take it as a given that consumers see value in the product, the company still has to convert those downloads into paying customers, and this challenge is where the problems of using downloads as an indicator of success become apparent.

The first problem is that not all downloads are created equal. If downloads are from commercial buyers who want to “try before they buy,” then increasing downloads is a good thing, whether open source or not (e.g., Microsoft’s Express Editions). However, if one’s downloads are largely by enthusiasts where no procurement channel exists, then the value of those downloads, beyond possibly generating demand for the product from the bottom up, is minimal when one is going after IT leaders who buy commercial products. It is the conversions that matter, and not the downloads.

Now, I realize that number of downloads will continue to receive attention as an indicator of success in open source. It is an easy metric to track, and while a less-is-more argument can be made in specific cases, I would rather see more downloads than not. That said, total downloads is still misleading.

Different products have different potential market sizes, so total downloads cannot be used to make comparisons across a number of products. Total downloads simply doesn’t provide a robust enough picture. It is the equivalent of saying that Company X is successful solely because it generates $250 million in revenue. Revenue doesn’t tell you anything about profitability, share, or rate of growth. Company X could be unprofitable with revenues declining at a rate of 20% a year. Revenue, like total downloads, is only part of the picture.

Sure, total downloads is worth knowing, but I am more interested the patterns and trends of those downloads. Are they steady/growing/declining? To what degree do they coincide with release dates? Etc. It is this second level of detail that starts to tell you whether a project is successful, not total downloads.

Hitting those total download plateaus, whether it be 25,000/month or 1,000,000 overall, is a great opportunity from a marketing standpoint to generate press and interest, but it doesn’t tell you whether or not an OSS product is successful or not. It’s just a small part of the equation.

Comments RSS
  1. Henaway said:

    Sorry, but I have several computers that Microsoft will tout as "sales" and tell the world how because I was forced into a license for Windows that it MUST be the world's greatest everything... but I take ONE DOWNLOAD, burn it to a CD, and install it on several of MY OWN computers, as well as some family and friends' machines ... so no, the download metic isn't necessarily good because 3 sales may equal ZERO used products, but ONE download could equal 7 or 8 installations and used products.

    I realize that working for Microsoft it's your job to tell us how Windows is the best, and all this open source/linux talk is all talk with no walk, but there are many out there like me who are SICK of the way Microsoft abuses us and have found a BETTER alternative that lets me do the things my computer is capable of doing without limits.

    posted at 09:51PM 02/14/2008
  2. Henaway said:

    Can't take the heat of letting through any comments that don't paint Microsoft in a glowing, Godly light, eh?  Why am I not shocked?

    posted at 05:10PM 02/15/2008
  3. Joe said:

    You've defined the problem in a way that yields only one answer.  But it is a misleading answer.

    You say "by success I mean sales".  By that measure, downloads as well as use of the free-as-in-beer software are worthless to the distributor.  But there are other sources of revenue, like advertising and services.  The Mozilla Corporation earns substantial fees from Google for driving search queries to Google.  In any situation where revenue is proportional to the number of users (as it is for Firefox) the number of downloads <i>does</i> correlate with  dollars.  Granted, there aren't that many good examples of this, but it does occur.

    posted at 09:56PM 02/17/2008
  4. mtz said:

    ..how many different ways can an open source project track its popularity? most companies will quote sales figures to show how popular their products are. how often are their products used after they are purchase? who cares as long as they keep on buying ..its the same thing with the open source ..the only way tp track popularity is from downloads and bug reports .. do you have any better ideas?

    posted at 09:02PM 02/18/2008
  5. drive said:

    Henaway, chill dude - learn Linux and ruby or Mac and ObjectiveC - What in the heck are you doing at a Microsoft Open Source site?  And where in the world did the OP even mention Linux (you ranted this: "I realize that working for Microsoft it's your job to tell us how Windows is the best, and all this open source/linux talk is all talk with no walk") I'm sure MS won't miss you (and did you even read the blog?).  MS OSS is OSI approved (see www.opensource.org/.../207).  I've got the code for more than a dozen or so great projects that are public open sourced from them.  As far as downloads being an indicator of success, sounds like a reasonable way to do it.  I don't want to phone home to someone's basement when I install their software.  It may be tolerable for Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and other established vendors to "activate" or "update", though I'm not happy about it.  So short of having every piece of OSS phoning home, downloads seems to be a reasonable measure.

    posted at 11:48PM 02/18/2008
  6. Fluke said:

    SourceForge (not to be confused with Microsoft “Source Fource”) seems to address several of your comments.  If knowing the total number of downloads is of limited usefulness then project page views is even less helpful.  Yet, all that Codeplex seems to provide is page views for the last 7, 30 and “all” days.  SourceForge provides graphs to check if it is “steady/growing/declining.”  If it is conversations that matter then the mature interface for mailing lists and forums that SourceForge provides is critical.  While Codeplex does provide for “comments/discussions,” it's interface not as polished.

    -----

    To Drive: Henaway appears to be at a Microsoft “Open Source” site to provide feedback.  The front page of Port 25 claims that “[Port 25] represents an open conversation dedicated Linux, Windows and open source interoperability.”  If instead MS would prefer the community to “chill” such that those which discontinue to provide feedback won't be missed then the mission statement of Port 25 is a lie.

    At the heart of Henaway's feedback is that there exist people that are upset with the misconceptions Microsoft claims about OSS.  The misconceptions he complains about is the type provided by “Get the Fact.”  But another popular Microsoft promoted misconception is that “MS OSS is OSI approved.”  Not everything that MS claims to be OSS honors the Open Source Defination provided by the OSI.  Instead, the OSI only approved *two* licenses.  That means so-called “MS OSS” covered by non-OSI approved licenses are *NOT* OSI approved even if MS chooses to call it “MS OSS.”  Bill Hilf has explained that microsoft.com/opensource “clearly outlines Microsoft's position on OSS.”   Part of that clear outline is a document stating that MSCompBio covered by the MSR-LA license is part of “MS Open Source.”  The OSI has not approved MSR-LA as open source and the MSR-LA violates requirements of the Open Source Definition.  Back in December Jamie Cannon of Port 25 fame had acknowledged the problem needed to be reviewed.  The document remains today to illustrate that the *clear outline of Microsoft position* regarding OSS is to *provide misconceptions and lies*.  Hence, rather than give Microsoft a pat on the bad for it's empty rhetoric, we continue to use the “open conversation” forum to bring up that Microsoft has fallen far short of being a F/OSS friendly company.

    posted at 03:44PM 02/20/2008
  7. wrowe said:

    Yes, downloads are an entirely useless metric.

    Open source is ... open.  Others are free to mirror it, and frequently do.

    So the total number of downloads is usually vastly understated ;-)

    posted at 02:35AM 02/21/2008
Post a Comment
*
*