Adobe already does embrace Foss. The issue really seems to be, Should Adobe open source key products? And the answer is: unless it has a specific reason to, and a good plan on how, and the funds to implement it, no.
It's not hard to come up with good reasons. One being that the open source community of developers and users is an excellent complement to traditional marketing, especially when the market long dominated by the vendor is under pressure from more modern technologies. In this scenario, by open sourcing, say, Flash, or whatever, Adobe keeps itself relevant to those opting now for alternative technologies, including those promoted by Apple.
But the problem of open sourcing proprietary technology lies less in the mechanics of license than in staying ahead of competitors. What would be gained, in terms of sales, revenue, profit, by open sourcing Flash? Is an uncertain expansion of the market sufficiently compensatory? Would it--could it--lead to proprietary licensing revenue? That would imply that any open sourcing of X makes sense only if there is proprietary X' in the wings for those willing to pay for it or if there is a license condition triggered by commercial but not personal usage.
I tend to think that this argument, or nest of them, is not sufficient. I'd rather propose the development of technologies that can take advantage of the evolving forms. Right now, it's not entirely clear what technologies will come out on top, and it's by no means clear that Adobe should position itself as the leader.
Look to Apple, in this case, for a model. It refrained from leaping into the smartphone jungle (and earlier, into the mp3 one) until the trend of technology was clear. Then it entered with style. And consumers then only had to choose among style options--not technology options. (That is, it was not a choice among incompatibilities, as mp3 plays everywhere, but among the style of devices, with the quality adding a frisson of goodness but in and of itself determinative. Indeed, Apple's earbuds infamously suck, and it's not unusual to find oneself having bought a device whose glass shatters, whose phone capability is woeful, and so on: quality takes a second seat to style, and oddly becomes relevant as a testament only when it is good; when it is bad, its not there at all.)
So, I'd suggest to continue with the status quo while meanwhile developing open technologies that can leapfrog over the morass of the present to keep Adobe relevant for future users, where "future" simply means, "next year or 2013." (Once, the future was the year 2000, but that now is so last century, and there is no future left to replace what we've lost, there's only the inevitability of what we know will happen.)
No comments:
Post a Comment