Post on 29-Nov-2014
description
Open Source in Mobile
twitter @savs
asavory@apache.org
andrew.savory@limofoundation.org
http://www.andrewsavory.com/blog/
Hi, I’m Andrew.
The dim & distant past
The dim & distant past
19982002 2006
1983
The dim & distant past
19982002 2006
2005 2007
1983
$
The future
$
The future
Investment
$
The future
Investment
Value Creation
$
The future
Investment
Value Creation
$
The future
Investment
Value Creation
We are here
The present
3 Mobile OSS Economic Drivers
Reduced cost ofacquisition of software
3 Mobile OSS Economic Drivers
Reduced cost ofacquisition of software
Reduced cost ofaccess to innovation
3 Mobile OSS Economic Drivers
Reduced cost ofacquisition of software
Reduced cost ofaccess to innovation
Reduced cost ofownership of
software
3 Mobile OSS Economic Drivers
GeoClue
... collaboration with OSS projects for maintenance of community software ...
... reduced cost of ownership ...
Maintenance is the biggest cost in the TCO of Community Open Source Software
!"#$%&'($)"#*+
&,-.#
/0$0-
1
21)#1
)0-1$
,-++'10)3&"-*.+*($
21)#"1*4&"-*.+*( !01*4&"#4#*$#
!"#$%&,-.#
"#4#*$#.
5($)"#*+5($)"#*+
.#6#4-(+#1).#6#4-(+#1)
74(%* 8#)*
9#4#*$#&(
4*1
9#4#*$#&$--1:&"#4#*$#&-;)#1
<==&'($)"#*+&"-*.+*($
<==&"-*.+*(<(#1<(#1
.#6#4-(+#1).#6#4-(+#1)
21)#"1*421)#"1*4
.#6#4-(+#1).#6#4-(+#1)
8'>$
!##.?*,@
A-1)"0?')0-1$
'($)"#*+
8'>$&B&!0C#$
Forking
ForkingUpstream open source
ForkingUpstream open source
Product code
ForkingUpstream open source
Internal “fork”
Product code
ForkingUpstream open source
Internal “fork”
Product code
=
FAIL
S/W£10.5m
1™ White Paper
Mobile Open Source Economic Analysis
LiMo Foundation White PaperAugust 2009
™
Where an open mobile platform is already using key
open source projects of critical importance, there is direct economic value in
constructive engagement with the corresponding open
source communities.
blog.limofoundation.org/index.php/LiMo-Foundation/Mining-of-Open-Source-Code-to-Understand-the-Economics-of-Using-Open-Source-Within-Mobile.html
www.google.com/search?q=limo+blog+mal+economic+analysis
Upstream open source
Internal “fork”
Product code
Maintenance is the biggest cost in the TCO of Community Open Source Software...
Upstream open source
Internal “fork”
Product code
“unleveraged potential”
Maintenance is the biggest cost in the TCO of Community Open Source Software...
• •
made at this point
The four merge strategies
• Here we define merge as bringing upstream open source changes back into internal code lines,
and contribute as the process of offering internal feature enhancements and bug fixes back to
the relevant open source community
• Merge Never: Develop in isolation and never resync with upstream development
• $40 million/283 FTEs per year
• Merge Late Contribute Late: Acknowledge technical debt and resync at end
• $20 million/141 FTEs per year
• Merge Early Contribute Later: Continuous resync with upstream, commit later
• $10 million/70 FTEs per year
• Merge Early Contribute Early: Continuous resync with upstream and commit
• $3.3 million/24 FTEs per year
• In increasing order of potential for long-term cost reduction BUT with a catch:
• Also increasing sophistication in organisation of integration infrastructure
• Or “investment in absorptive capacity”
Product development cycle approx 2 years
Cost of
upstream
resync
Time
Community open source
development codeline
Software selection decision
made at this point
Resync
(merge)
with
upstream
MLCL
MECL
MN
With ME, the
vendor’s internal
dev branch is OSS
MECE
Contribute
upstream later
Product shipment
made at this point
Closer integration with
upstream innovation
Greater sophistication
required to manage
integration activity
Working with open source is a sophisticated supply chain management problem ...
... not rocket science.
(benevolent) dictator
technical steering group
committers
contributing developers
contributing users
users
evaluators
Meritocracy
Increasinginvolvement
The future
Convergence
Platforms
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nielsvk/258859545/
Developers
Thank you!