Twitter | Search | |
Avery @ #MDBW19 Apr 2
Rest of the article aside, this faulty logic. Something can't be a loss leader and have no dollar value - it's value is by definition what makes giving it away a loss.
Reply Retweet Like
Adam Jacob
Sure. What I meant was, in commercial deal terms, when you sit in front of a procurement officer and justify your price, they set all that in a bucket marked "free", "$0". :) It does have value - but to your customer, they set that value at "$0".
Reply Retweet Like More
Avery @ #MDBW19 Apr 2
Replying to @adamhjk
Then you need to keep your definition of "value" -- what a procurement officer thinks your offering is worth -- consistent, or you are engaging in rhetorical slight-of-hand. Further down, you write:
Reply Retweet Like
Avery @ #MDBW19 Apr 2
Replying to @adamhjk
"The value of the product is that software, plus the security, testing, build pipelines, sales, marketing, support, documentation, operational knowledge and content produced by Chef Software." What does a procurement officer think that's worth, when they get it for free?
Reply Retweet Like
Avery @ #MDBW19 Apr 2
Replying to @adamhjk
BTW, I'm not trying to attack your POV, I'm trying to harden it.
Reply Retweet Like
Adam Jacob Apr 2
Replying to @4BringingFire
They don't get it for free. They have to buy my product to get it. All of it. Or they can consume the project directly, or they can use a product built by someone else on top of the project. But if they want it from Chef, they'll have to buy it.
Reply Retweet Like
Adam Jacob Apr 2
Replying to @4BringingFire
I have to get used to saying "the product", not "my product", but 13 years goes out of fingers slowly.
Reply Retweet Like
msw Apr 2
Replying to @4BringingFire @adamhjk
I imagine it is similar when procurement is evaluating RHEL vs. CentOS? The dollar value of RHEL is on the tin...
Reply Retweet Like
Adam Jacob Apr 2
Replying to @4BringingFire
Sure, thanks. It is relatively hardened already, but I take the feedback.
Reply Retweet Like
Avery @ #MDBW19 Apr 2
Replying to @adamhjk
Heh, I hear you.
Reply Retweet Like
Avery @ #MDBW19 Apr 2
Replying to @adamhjk
Ok, I think I understand your point now. And I should be a little clearer when I'm, myself, harping on an issue with how you're expressing it.
Reply Retweet Like
Avery @ #MDBW19 Apr 2
Replying to @adamhjk
My problem is that the section I cited is worded in such a way that you're ascribing the motivations to the project/product creators -- that they are saying the free components of an open core product is without value. They're definitely not.
Reply Retweet Like
Avery @ #MDBW19 Apr 2
Replying to @adamhjk
And since you're using the term "value" in two ways, it merits making that clear. Because, again: "The value of the product is that software, plus the security, testing, [etc.]..." In that sentence, the value of "the software" is $0, by your definition.
Reply Retweet Like
Adam Jacob Apr 2
Replying to @4BringingFire
There is clearly a ton of value from the creators in their open source software. Even more in their full products. I sold open core software for the last decade - I know the argument you are making.
Reply Retweet Like