Mission Penguin

This morning I received a phone call from the illustrious Bub. He was going on about his recent job prospects and a prior interview he had this morning. During the interview he asked what format would they like his resume in. Invariably Microsoft Word's ubiquitous .DOC was the reply. Bub quickly mentioned that he uses OpenOffice spurring much blank stares and confused expressions. Somewhat expecting this, Bub attempted to explain. Realizing that the interviewer did not care in the slightest he quickly stopped, only to vent to me later. Why is it that more people aren't aware of quality open source software?

I sort of dwell-ed on this question throughout the day. There are now a plethora of completely viable open source (and often free) alternatives to expensive proprietary software. Even so, I would say that the general guy on the street is unaware of their existence. Worse still some individuals are aware of open source alternatives, but would rather pay then use a free equivalent? I believe Bub coined this the Adam syndrome (I think I prefer Adamicis), as it is a trait frequently observed in our mutual friend.

The Question Lingers

Why pay for product X when product Y is virtually identical and free?

I have several theories, but first would like to disclaim myself. I realize that there is no true equivalence between disparate software offerings. For example;

Microsoft Office != Open Office. Inversely Open Office != Microsoft Office.

In the case above, both offerings contain their respective caveats and advantages. A power user would invariably require specific features that only one solution may provide. However, for most people (by and large) I believe Open Office is functionally equivalent to Microsoft Office, as Microsoft Office is equivalent to Open Office.

Theory 1: The Cool Kid.

There are cool kids in the world. They need that sense of societal approval. It's like ego crack for their fragile sense of belonging. Being cool means acceptance by ones peers. For the self conscious cool kid, it is the ultimate state of being. You walk into a room and your coolocity exudes, people instantly say that's a cool guy/girl I should befriend them. The cool kid thinks, "I'm Cool! Gosh darnit people like me".

Hence, society says white headphones mean you're a slick urban trendsetter who dances in the streets. Cool kids have white headphones, but I haven't seen any dancing their way to work. Of course this all varies with your peer circle. If you're peers are into women's jeans and ninja moves. Cool kids are into women's jeans and ninja moves (disclaimer: Ninja's are cool regardless of what any peer group thinks. Yes ALWAYS!).

Can software even be cool? If so is it possible that Open Source is not cool? Is it possible that Microsoft is cool? What about other software? Is the AOL Instant Messenger Client somehow cooler then Pidgin?

Apple seems to be able to consistently convince people they are cool. Apple is also exceptional at restricting its customers to only what Apple deems fit. Who decided that white plastic was sheik? How can a company which is so domineering continually appear cool. Isn't restrictions on freedom and individuality the opposite of cool? How many Apple users do you know with custom Mac OSX themes? Where's the self expression?

Solutions?

The answer of course is marketing. Apple has great marketing. Apple excels at convincing its customers that they are unique and special people for using its products. Using an iPod somehow eschew ones shackles of mediocrity and propels him/her to a higher social plane. When you can convince your customers they aren't just buying a product, but are joining a culture you have complete control.

The Hot Topic store chain exemplifies this by building their business model on popular youth counter culture. The teenage masses net them huge sums of money purchasing goods they believe set them apart. Hot Topic positions itself as the vendor of the anti-culture, when in reality they're just a business. They exist to make money and they've realized that by riding the anti-trend they can make just as much as Abercrombie does by riding the trend.

MC Lars couldn't have put it better;

Microsoft, of all things, even has great marketing (though it is definitely business sector focused). Where/what is the Open Source marketing model? Word of mouth? How far can that take the product? Is grass roots ever cool?

I am not sure there is an answer. Saving money isn't cool. Look at how we regard societies bean counters. Grass roots doesn't seem to be cool without celebrity endorsement and a staged youth counter culture. Is Nerddom the new world subculture? I guess some may say yes... Without a marketing firm with catchy songs, slogans, and pretty people it's hard to see common sense moving the cool kids to the open source camp.

Theory 2: Free == Cheap/Too Good to be True

I've heard this soo many times. Free, that must mean it's crap. Also known as, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. This is normally sound advice, especially when dealing with physical objects. Chances are if there is a free car for you, it's probably not something you want. This can also apply to services. I wouldn't expect a free moving service to NOT steal my belongings... would you?

Can this really apply to software?

In going with this there is a certain social stigma that seems to be hampering open source adoption. There is an opinion in a number of people that open source software quality is inferior to proprietary software quality. This usually stems from the belief that amateur students write the open source software and are not professionals in their marketplace. You'll see terms like hacker software, wakademic, hobbyist, etc.. (though Hacker I usually regard as a compliment meaning of great skill, intelligence, abilities).

Solutions?

Softwareis intrinsically different from manufactured goods and services (excluding software as a service of course). A software program only has to be written once and it can be shared with millions at virtually no significant cost (of course leveraging something like Bittorrent or free hosting solutions). Once it is written it can be extended rather then written from scratch. There are not physical resource limits, as in manufacturing. Open Source takes it a step further and lets any guy extend the software as they see fit. Their changes help improve the overall product.

In fact the free, as in monetary wise, aspect actually can help drive the software development making a better product. Let me explain; Big Company X is huge. They are so big they have a world recognizable blue logo (hint hint). They realize they have 150,000 computers in their company with proprietary program Y. Proprietary program Y costs them 2 million dollars a year in licensing. They find out that an open source program exists that does 80 percent of what they need. This program is free, but is not completely adequate. They determine that if they wrote the last 20 percent of the functionality it would cost them 3 million dollars.

A 3 million dollars investment would make the open source program more expensive then the proprietary program initially. Yet, by the second year the software, being free, would have saved the company 1 million dollars. Year over year they would save this money. What could you do with 2 million dollars a year? Is there anything that could justify a return from that? What new whiz bang feature would proprietary program Y have to develop to make a comeback? How much would writing an equivalent open source feature cost? Seems like a win to me...

Theory 3: Ignorance

Perhaps people don't know of the software. Perhaps they don't know that it could be free. Perhaps it is unclear what advantages or disadvantages exist and they are scared to try it out. Perhaps they live under a rock and only read MySpace comment spam.

Solutions?

Education of course, but that is a task in and of itself. Especially if the target doesn't care about what software they're using. Word of mouth does seem the best fit here actually, but without aforementioned marketing there doesn't seem to be a way to motivate the users.

Theory 4: Fanboyism

Yes, even convicted monopolists have fanboys (Ed I'm thinking of you)! It is always possible that for whatever reason a company has won over the hearts and minds of our hypothetical users. I always wondered about the fanboy psyche. I think I'm fairly loathe to put that much credence into any amoral entity (companies mainly), but what makes someone so happy with a company, program, decision, lifestyle, religion, etc... that they refuse to entertain other possibilities. Where does this closed mindedness come from?

Solutions?

There is no solution for fanboyism. Anyone who becomes emotionally invested in a decision is extremely hard to reason with. Look at religious fundamentalists (old school fanboys), not to mention Sony Playstation 3 users.