分类 想法 下的文章

继上篇讨论开源软件的程序员怎么赚钱之后,我又总结了一下,开源软件无非以下几种盈利模式,当然,这和这个具体的开源软件本身是什么、面向的客户群体也有关系,而且一般不是仅仅一个盈利点,而是多种多样的盈利模式混合在一起的。

1、Linux Kernel等基础设施类open source project:

由于类似Linux Kernel这样的基础设施软件如此之重要,所以肯定没法成为某一个人、某一个公司私有,必须有成为公器的觉悟,所以肯定是成立基金会的形式了,比如著名的Linux Foundation。

想一下,如果这个Linux Kernel是阿里巴巴或者腾讯或者百度私有,他们来维护和运营,你敢用吗?

这种情况下,没所谓盈利不盈利了,基金会嘛,不以盈利为目的,但对于参与的个人,待遇肯定不错了。比如Linus Torvalds,Linux Foundation在2016年支付给他1.6M美元(160万美元),而且很多公司都赠送给他股票的,比如Redhat。据说现在他的身家已经达到1.5亿美元了。虽然比不上盖茨乔布斯什么的,但已经非常可以了。他自己也对此非常满意。

这一类也显然也包括Apache Software Foundation, OpenSSL, OpenBSD等,都属于核心基础设施。除了接受各种捐款,或者邀请企业成为会员(会员费),也没什么好办法了。

2、 Vuejs,Vuetify等热门开源软件:

这也可以归结于基础设施类,毕竟很多公司的产品都是基于这些东西来开发的。因此,他们需要这样的好东西能持续改进、持续运营下去。所以会捐款。
所以Evan You能够成为独立开发者,拿到各种捐款,比如公开的数据是,2018年时,Evan的Patreon账号每月获得16K美元的赞助。
而且Evan出席很多会议,在会议上演讲,我相信是有演讲费的。
当然了,给他们赞助了,也会在网站上显示出自己的logo,也是很划算的。

这些优秀的独立开发者们,显然也会提供商业支持的,只要你给钱,都OK的。比如Vuetify在README里就搞了一个badge,要雇佣他们,150美元一小时。

当然,对于财大气粗的Reactjs和Angular,是不需要搞外块赚钱的。然而,正是因为Reactjs和Angular后面有Facebook、Google等大公司,那么其他大公司在使用这俩库的时候,也不是没有顾虑的。上次Reactjs闹出来的license事件,可以说明这个问题。

3、Freemium模式:适用于很多不是那么热门,但也足够实用的开源软件

这一类已经不算基础设施了,可以理解为重要的实用功能,

  • 例如wildfire Chat这个开源IM软件,
  • 或者某些开源的电子商务软件,
  • 某些开源Blog程序等

这一类,基本上就是利用开源吸引人气,卖商业支持服务,面向business卖license,或者卖生态周边,比如theme,plugin等。不是大热门,但能够让开发者生活得很好了。

开源版本,提供基本的功能;Pro版本,提供高级功能。 Nginx、OpenResty也是这样的,你可以用开源免费版本,他们也有商业公司,提供收费的商业支持服务。然而这里有个矛盾,就是你的开源版本,到底做到什么程度。比如Nginx由于开源版本做的如此之好,以至于只有很少人购买他们的商业服务。虽然最终卖身成功,但显然Nginx Inc不是一个成功的商业公司。

显然,如果你开源版本提供了太少的功能,也就没人愿意去尝试了。

Jekyll Pay目前属于这一类,暂时考虑定位于这个层次,也面临类似的问题。

4、本身自己不开发开源软件,但基于热门开源软件的周边生态来开发

  • 最著名的显然是Redhat了,Linux Kernel是免费的啊,可以随便用,但你不会维护啊,所以我来帮你啊,这就是卖subscription,卖的是服务。
  • 再比如说,Wordpress那么流行,你就可以开发一套主题,一个插件,而且是freemium的模式,就是说这主题或者插件免费给你用,但也提供pro版本,要收费的。
  • Vuetify其实就是Vuejs的周边生态
  • 其实VueMastery也是Vuejs的周边,似乎和Evan You关系不错,应该大概率是有参股的
  • WordPress的host服务,其实这个属于云服务范畴了,但现在似乎开源软件和云服务供应商之间的矛盾越来额越多了

5、混的比较惨的开源项目也不少。

  • OpenSSL,在HeartBleed漏洞爆出来之前,其实混得挺惨的,当初几个核心维护者甚至日常还是给别人做IT咨询赚钱,都快经营不下去了。后来这个漏洞让他们终于在业界引发了一些讨论,再加上来自罗永浩的捐款,还是让他们好过了很多。
  • 所以技术和钱之间没有必然关系。而且如果不能通过技术赚钱,这个技术其实就很难继续投入资源去改进。

首先因为要去洛杉矶中国大使馆取新换的护照,所以就决定开车去LA。然后一切OK,然后就继续开车出发,前往拉斯维加斯。

事实证明,这是一个极其错误的决定。

从LA出发的时候,Google Maps显示只要4个半小时即可,但显然时间越拉越长。先就不说路上要停下来休息一下,加个油,喝个水,上个厕所什么的。就说堵车吧,显然我们在15号上堵了很久。终于花了6个小时才开到拉斯维加斯。

办理入住,休息一会,然后去餐馆吃饭,纪念10周年。然后继续出门逛街。真的累坏了。

第二天早上多睡了一会,去吃了一个brunch,吃到1点,然后继续逛,把附近的几个酒店都逛了。然后回去休息。然后晚上出来吃饭,吃了一个Luke's lobster,吃完了继续逛。

回家睡觉。

起床后出发。又花了6个半小时。

累坏了。

首先,关于发行版的问题,完全合理合法。
其次,核心还是围绕电商,比如说,以推荐为核心的电子商务,可以类似写个文章,然后推荐一通,然后给一个购买按钮。这样就不是那种经典的电商了,纯粹奔着购物去的。所以可以考虑以wordpress和typecho为基础,做一个发行版,专注于这个小型的领域。

其实做CMS,是我的一个梦想吧,但是这个梦想,如果钱途不明,还是不要去做好了。

到现在,自从我写下第一行Hello World,已经第4个年头了。现在是美国某小型物流公司的前端程序员,用Vuejs写一个内部物流管理系统的前端web app。

我一个写PHP的程序员,怎么开始写Vue了呢?

好的,上面的都是闲话,基本上可以认为,我转行是成功的,不是说走向人生巅峰啊,而是说,我成了一个有人要的程序员。而且努力刷leetcode,准备跳槽。

我最近自信增长很快。

一方面,努力了很多天,终于在packagist上发布了一个库ArchPHP/Doraemon,过程还是很曲折的,并非技术原因。写这个库的过程中,进一步加深了对PHP的理解和掌握。

- 阅读剩余部分 -

Content is where I expect much of the real money will be made on the Internet, just as it was in broadcasting.

The television revolution that began half a century ago spawned a number of industries, including the manufacturing of TV sets, but the long-term winners were those who used the medium to deliver information and entertainment.

When it comes to an interactive network such as the Internet, the definition of “content” becomes very wide. For example, computer software is a form of content-an extremely important one, and the one that for Microsoft will remain by far the most important.

But the broad opportunities for most companies involve supplying information or entertainment. No company is too small to participate.

One of the exciting things about the Internet is that anyone with a PC and a modem can publish whatever content they can create. In a sense, the Internet is the multimedia equivalent of the photocopier. It allows material to be duplicated at low cost, no matter the size of the audience.

The Internet also allows information to be distributed worldwide at basically zero marginal cost to the publisher. Opportunities are remarkable, and many companies are laying plans to create content for the Internet.

For example, the television network NBC and Microsoft recently agreed to enter the interactive news business together. Our companies will jointly own a cable news network, MSNBC, and an interactive news service on the Internet. NBC will maintain editorial control over the joint venture.

I expect societies will see intense competition-and ample failure as well as success-in all categories of popular content-not just software and news, but also games, entertainment, sports programming, directories, classified advertising, and on-line communities devoted to major interests.

Printed magazines have readerships that share common interests. It’s easy to imagine these communities being served by electronic online editions.

But to be successful online, a magazine can’t just take what it has in print and move it to the electronic realm. There isn’t enough depth or interactivity in print content to overcome the drawbacks of the online medium.

If people are to be expected to put up with turning on a computer to read a screen, they must be rewarded with deep and extremely up-to-date information that they can explore at will. They need to have audio, and possibly video. They need an opportunity for personal involvement that goes far beyond that offered through the letters-to-the-editor pages of print magazines.

A question on many minds is how often the same company that serves an interest group in print will succeed in serving it online. Even the very future of certain printed magazines is called into question by the Internet.

For example, the Internet is already revolutionizing the exchange of specialized scientific information. Printed scientific journals tend to have small circulations, making them high-priced. University libraries are a big part of the market. It’s been an awkward, slow, expensive way to distribute information to a specialized audience, but there hasn’t been an alternative.

Now some researchers are beginning to use the Internet to publish scientific findings. The practice challenges the future of some venerable printed journals.

Over time, the breadth of information on the Internet will be enormous, which will make it compelling. Although the gold rush atmosphere today is primarily confined to the United States, I expect it to sweep the world as communications costs come down and a critical mass of localized content becomes available in different countries.

For the Internet to thrive, content providers must be paid for their work. The long-term prospects are good, but I expect a lot of disappointment in the short-term as content companies struggle to make money through advertising or subscriptions. It isn’t working yet, and it may not for some time.

So far, at least, most of the money and effort put into interactive publishing is little more than a labor of love, or an effort to help promote products sold in the non-electronic world. Often these efforts are based on the belief that over time someone will figure out how to get revenue.

In the long run, advertising is promising. An advantage of interactive advertising is that an initial message needs only to attract attention rather than convey much information. A user can click on the ad to get additional information-and an advertiser can measure whether people are doing so.

But today the amount of subscription revenue or advertising revenue realized on the Internet is near zero-maybe $20 million or $30 million in total. Advertisers are always a little reluctant about a new medium, and the Internet is certainly new and different.

Some reluctance on the part of advertisers may be justified, because many Internet users are less-than-thrilled about seeing advertising. One reason is that many advertisers use big images that take a long time to download across a telephone dial-up connection. A magazine ad takes up space too, but a reader can flip a printed page rapidly.

As connections to the Internet get faster, the annoyance of waiting for an advertisement to load will diminish and then disappear. But that’s a few years off.

Some content companies are experimenting with subscriptions, often with the lure of some free content. It’s tricky, though, because as soon as an electronic community charges a subscription, the number of people who visit the site drops dramatically, reducing the value proposition to advertisers.

A major reason paying for content doesn’t work very well yet is that it’s not practical to charge small amounts. The cost and hassle of electronic transactions makes it impractical to charge less than a fairly high subscription rate.

But within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel, you won’t be writing a check or getting a bill in the mail for a nickel. You’ll just click on what you want, knowing you’ll be charged a nickel on an aggregated basis.

This technology will liberate publishers to charge small amounts of money, in the hope of attracting wide audiences.

Those who succeed will propel the Internet forward as a marketplace of ideas, experiences, and products-a marketplace of content.