« OSA Takes First First Step in OSS Solutions Market Growth | Main | SCO vs. Novell: I Didn't See the Words "Open Source Software" in the Judge's Rulings »

I know I'm getting my blog-post and research points across about "open choice" between the Microsoft and the open source software (OSS) communiites when I get zinged from both sides. This blogger's comments ask what brand of grass I'm smoking because he perceived I said something positive about Microsoft. And this one thinks I'm in the tank for OSS.

I never thought I'd be accused of having drunk the OSS Kool-aid (and I assume when he talks about "sauce" that the second blogger didn't know me when I was in my 20s and 30s). He took sentences from my article out of context to make his point (I generally agree with his point but not with taking things out of context). So let me clarify my ideas about the fate of ESBs in case I was (as is likely) unclear.

I had written here (in the middle of a long research article): "ESBs are especially interesting because they may turn out to be the first category of software code that was OSS from the get go." That sentence was immediately followed by this sentence: "Progress, Cape Clear and Fiorano would argue with that characterization but my point is that OSS communities and sponsoring suppliers jumped in quickly with OSS ESBs."

It is the "jumped in quickly" that is key. I am a market researcher and what I look at are sales/market-dynamics trends. I believe the pure ESB play is going to trend like the web server opportunity did, bundled into stacks, with very little chance for a separate market to develop. This trend will occur, as did the web server trend, because of early movement into ESB functionality by the OSS community.

The large-supplier ESBs mentioned in the "sauce" blog post as a counterpoint to my finding actually prove my point. All are sold already as part of the supplier's stack (just as the Apache web server is also sold in IBM's and Oracle's stacks). BEA and IBM may have separate ESB prices on their price lists but that is not how they sell their ESBs. The ESB on Oracle's price list is bundled with the Integration Server (where it has been for years, only it was called Interconnect). And of course Sun's ESB is OSS already.

My article did not say that this means that OSS ESBs will be wildly successful in the market. Just the opposite, suppliers like Mulesource and Iona have to find ways to make sure their ESB efforts are not looked at as commodities. As discussed in my Talking to... series, wso2 is already beginning that process.

Understanding commoditization in IT market dynamics is not a matter of picking sides between Microsoft and OSS, or among large or small suppliers, or in favor of stacks or mix and match pureplay products. It's a matter of community and sponsor survival. If you enjoy the OSS games, you need to make sure there will be enough people around to keep your game going in the long term.

Posted by dennisb in OSS Culture |Digg This|Add to del.icio.us

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ebizq.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1986

Posted by: Steve Craggs at August 10, 2007 12:35 PM | Permalink