Open at Adobe

Somewhere in this this post there is an assumption that innovation == business.

What kind of business do you expect from something free?
In general the business is not created by the ones that created the software.
Geek types create the software, manager types create a business and take advantage.
Standard both in open source and in traditional ISVs.

So, is RedHat a business? I would say yes.
Does LAMP (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP) define a market? I would say yes.

But does Red Hat define a market? nope. Does LAMP provide anything that is unique to the open source world? nope. It may have technology advantages, but not market making advantages. Or are we really limited to the view that open source is a very fast market imitator, rather than a market maker?

And even if somehow you reject all examples, and it proves that open source did not enable any business, or does no define a market, is that a proof that there is no innovation?

Not the question I asked. I believe that there is innovation in the creation of open source products. (a chnage from my beliefs in 1999). What I'm asking is whaat are they. Your examples reinforce the idea that the successes in open source are in the fast-follower category.

Is there any product, project, business or category that "started" with open source?

Can you clarify what you mean by "defines a market or enables a new business"?

-James
Well, trying not to limit this too much, but. Say that the Content Management Software defines a new business. Is this uniquely powered by open source innovation? Or the RIA space?

The successes of open source (quick, name the top ten products in open source) seem to be following a commoditization trend. What I want to know (since I'm really tired of this Ivory tower view of the world I'm limited to right now), is what am I missing.

Slingbox ?

Nearly all open source is in a commodity market. So if commodity and innovation are inverse then yes, very few open source projects really innovate on a large scale. The reason this is true is probably just pure economics - it costs a lot of money to really innovate on a large scale and open source doesn't have the margins to sponsor that.

-James

Red5!

"Is there any product, project, business or category that "started" with open source?"
UNIX started as open source, and a lot of the concepts there.
TeX is still the golden standard for good quality typography, still winning on math equations editing.
And whole Internet started as open source (TCP/IP, most protocols on top of it, the first browser).
I would say that goes beyond imitation.

Zimbra could fall under that category. They've definitely been an innovator over the past few years.

BitTorrent might be a good example of open source innovation. I think the client has always been open source.

-James

RE: "assumption that innovation == business". From the work of Joseph Schumpeter, innovation is the "future source" of long term profits for any organisation. Innovation is not necessary for a business today, merely for a business tomorrow. This is wrapped up in the concepts of creative destruction. The assumption should be that "innovation == future business".

RE: "open source does not innovate". Innovation is the first attempt to put an idea into practice (Prof. Jan. Fagerberg). The licensing arrangements are hence irrelevant. However, open source does promote distribution of an innovation by reducing any barriers to adoption. This distribution results in further commoditisation (the movement towards more of a commodity) and hence the "commoditization trend" that you highlight. I provided a link to my talk at Web 2.0 which covers this, just in case it is of interest.

Open source therefore promotes commoditisation. However, new stuff (aka "creative destruction") is built upon existing commoditised services. Without commodity-like power (electricity), data processing (silicon chip) and communications (internet) there would be no Google. Hence open source promotes further innovation by accelerating the innovation process in much the same way that the internet, network effects and standards have.

The other effect that open source has, is to do with leveling the inequality between the distribution of ability and the distribution of opportunity. Rich companies and countries don't have a natural monopoly on ability, they just have more opportunity. So you can say "open source promotes innovation".

RE: "commodity and innovation are inverse". Yes, they are but they are also part of the same overall process.

So overall :

• "open source promotes innovation"
• "innovation == future business"
• "commodity and innovation are inverse and inter-dependent"

Ideally the question should really be: "Are there any profitable businesses which would not exist today if there was no concept of 'open source'?"