The open core transparency test

Earlier this year Jason van Zyl from Sonatype raised the question as to why so many open core software vendors hide the pricing details of their proprietary enterprise editions, pointing out that it was in their best interests to be transparent:

    “Potential customers who start out as your Open Core users need to see exactly what they get and how much it costs. If they can make all the decisions by easily trying your commercial product and comparing features then you have a viable company.”

The theme was taken up this week by Roman Stanek, founder and CEO of Good Data. Roman’s post had more to do with embarrassing his competition than forwarding best practices, in my opinion, but he makes some good points nonetheless:

    “COSS companies should openly publish their price list and clearly mark what’s free and open and what’s paid and closed. Otherwise OSS is just a bait-and-switch to a familiar proprietary software tactic of customer lock-in.”

I previously argued that transparency is key to the success of the open core model, noting that:

    “Potential customers don’t like feeling confused or misled and it is vital that the marketing makes it clear that the community version is open source and the enterprise edition is not.”

And would agree that transparency about pricing is key to the overall success. So how do some of the highest profile open core vendors compare when it comes to transparency? I took a tour of the following companies’ web sites in search of three key pieces of information:

  • a comparison of the core and enterprise features
  • licensing details available in the comparison, or at least elsewhere
  • details of pricing for the enterprise version

I spent no more than five minutes on each site, on the basis that if I couldn’t find the information in that time it may as well not exist. Here’s the results:

Vendor Edition comparison Licensing details Pricing details
Alfresco Yes Elsewhere No
Compiere Yes Yes Yes
Consursive Yes Elsewhere Limited info
EnterpriseDB Yes Yes Yes
GroundWork Yes Elsewhere Yes
Hyperic Yes Elsewhere Request a quote
Intalio Yes Elsewhere Yes
Jaspersoft Yes Yes Contact us
KnowledgeTree Yes Yes Yes
Mulesoft Yes No Contact us
Pentaho Yes No Request a quote
SugarCRM Yes No Yes
Talend Yes Yes Inquire now
xTuple Yes Yes Yes

Notes:

  • Intalio has a huge amount of information available, but it is very difficult to find. It only just made the five-minute deadline.
  • The quickest to navigate through all three pieces of information was KnowledgeTree.
  • I was asked to add Alfresco to the list, so I did. Any other requests?

Conclusion: Most of the open core vendors in this study make it easy to find information comparing the open core and enterprise editions, and most also do a good job of providing information about the licensing as well (although in many cases there is room for improvement even when the information is available). Only about half of those involved in this straw poll provide information on pricing for the proprietary edition.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 comments ↓

#1 Twitter Trackbacks for 451 CAOS Theory » The open core transparency test [the451group.com] on Topsy.com on 11.18.09 at 10:20 am

[…] 451 CAOS Theory » The open core transparency test blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/11/18/the-open-core-transparency-test – view page – cached An open source blog by The 451 Group. […]

#2 Computer Internet and Technology Articles. » Blog Archive » 451 CAOS Theory » The open core transparency test on 11.18.09 at 11:04 am

[…] Read more here:  451 CAOS Theory » The open core transparency test […]

#3 uberVU - social comments on 11.18.09 at 11:13 am

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by caostheory: New post: The open core transparency test. http://bit.ly/3RucBF

#4 Antonio de las Nieves on 11.26.09 at 7:02 am

We miss Alfresco on this study, how come it’s not there?

#5 Matthew Aslett on 11.26.09 at 8:14 am

Good point Antonio. I just included the vendors that immediately sprung to mind, and Alfresco has only relatively recently adopted an open core approach. I’ll look into it.

#6 Andrea Gioia on 04.08.10 at 11:55 am

I will also add “transparency about roadmap” in the test. In particular is important for a customer to exactly know what features are going to be implemented and in what version of the product they will be added. What do you think?

#7 451 CAOS Theory » Let he who is without proprietary features cast the first stone on 04.09.10 at 5:14 am

[…] customers with the promise of open source while delivering traditional licensing. Our recent transparency test indicated that for the most part open core vendors are clear about what features are in which […]

#8 451 CAOS Theory » Open core is not a crime on 07.02.10 at 11:45 am

[…] we found with last year’s open core transparency test, most vendors have improved their communication in order to avoid confusion (which is in their own […]

#9 451 CAOS Theory » The open core issue (part two) on 01.06.11 at 9:54 am

[…] differences between the open source core and the proprietary version in the past, but our previous transparency test indicated that they have got a lot better in that […]

#10 If it’s free and you can’t use it, it’s crap! at Open Source Integration Software Blog - Talend on 06.13.11 at 12:46 pm

[…] project or a vendor-led project, transparency is key.  The 451 Group released a while back their open core transparency test, and out of the 14 open core vendors surveyed, not a single one had failed to clearly indicate the […]