Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX
-
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
Given that open source costs less to make, and as there is nothing in this model that would increase the support costs, why would it cost any more to support if given away than under the current model?
Giving it away wouldn't increase their costs but making/selling "cheap" support could drive their costs through the roof. Could be the operative word.
I don't understand. What action in this would increase any costs? I only see costs staying the same or getting cheaper. Where do you see this increase coming from?
-
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
Given that open source costs less to make, and as there is nothing in this model that would increase the support costs, why would it cost any more to support if given away than under the current model?
Giving it away wouldn't increase their costs but making/selling "cheap" support could drive their costs through the roof. Could be the operative word.
Why would they make "cheap" support. What does that portion mean?
-
@dashrender said in [Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX]
A nightmare of updating servers? Sure a MT solution could be nice in larger deployments, but 10 hardly seems like an issue.
20, 100, IDK. I deployed 11 FreePBX instances for production environments. The updates have broken servers, once I uploaded a greeting wav file and the whole system crashed. One day the Firewall GUI changed 3 times. Sometimes trying to update modules has caused the whole system to stop working, then I am staring at a screen that is telling me Asterisk is gone. And no, all the fwconsole commands in the world wont bring it back.
Every Hosted PBX provider hits a number where the cost of manpower would be more than a larger solution. I dont just mean MT like 3CX would do, putting multiple tenants on a single server. Rather I am talking about multiple servers, servers with dedicated roles and redundancy.
You couldnt build a Hosted PBX server too far on FreePBX. Mobile apps get blocked by the firewall as the traverse networks, deploying HA for each tenant would be too much work and cost. I could go on a while about this but I wont.
And at any rate, if Asterisk, FreePBX, Freeswitch, etc do it - sure more can.
-
@scottalanmiller said in [Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS
Why would they make "cheap" support. What does that portion mean?
I can't imagine selling a software PBX in this day and age, where everyone online is going to point you to a more feature-rich Free PBX package that does 90% of what you want for free.
But maybe thats why I am just noticing ThirdLane PBX is still on Asterisk 11. Maybe they under-develop the products.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
Given that open source costs less to make, and as there is nothing in this model that would increase the support costs, why would it cost any more to support if given away than under the current model?
Giving it away wouldn't increase their costs but making/selling "cheap" support could drive their costs through the roof. Could be the operative word.
Why would they make "cheap" support. What does that portion mean?
A price that entices SMBs to buy it but the cost would be that SMBs using that support so much to overcome the income from the support contract. No clue how often that happens.
-
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in [Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS
Why would they make "cheap" support. What does that portion mean?
I can't imagine selling a software PBX in this day and age, where everyone online is going to point you to a more feature-rich Free PBX package that does 90% of what you want for free.
But maybe thats why I am just noticing ThirdLane PBX is still on Asterisk 11. Maybe they under-develop the products.
Asterisk 11 is only one LTS behind. It's not... horrible. FreePBX is on 13 with 14 available for testing, though.
-
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
Given that open source costs less to make, and as there is nothing in this model that would increase the support costs, why would it cost any more to support if given away than under the current model?
Giving it away wouldn't increase their costs but making/selling "cheap" support could drive their costs through the roof. Could be the operative word.
Why would they make "cheap" support. What does that portion mean?
A price that entices SMBs to buy it but the cost would be that SMBs using that support so much to overcome the income from the support contract. No clue how often that happens.
But none of that is needed. They don't have to change a single pricing thing. I think that you are assuming that they will change all kinds of things and get screwed. SUre, they can if they want to, but they can just as easily do that today without being open source and they have not. Going open source would not influence that in any meaningful way. Those are unrelated decisions. If they have a logical pricing model today, they would logically keep it exactly as it is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
Given that open source costs less to make, and as there is nothing in this model that would increase the support costs, why would it cost any more to support if given away than under the current model?
Giving it away wouldn't increase their costs but making/selling "cheap" support could drive their costs through the roof. Could be the operative word.
Why would they make "cheap" support. What does that portion mean?
A price that entices SMBs to buy it but the cost would be that SMBs using that support so much to overcome the income from the support contract. No clue how often that happens.
But none of that is needed. They don't have to change a single pricing thing. I think that you are assuming that they will change all kinds of things and get screwed. SUre, they can if they want to, but they can just as easily do that today without being open source and they have not. Going open source would not influence that in any meaningful way. Those are unrelated decisions. If they have a logical pricing model today, they would logically keep it exactly as it is.
Right, the product is already developed. It just get downloaded and used more. More opportunities to showcase other products. More opportunities to sell modules. More people in your forums trying things, asking questions, etc.
Just please no banner ads across the web interfaces. Please no proprietary hardware offerings. And instead of CAPEX for add-on modules at least offer a month to month version.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
Given that open source costs less to make, and as there is nothing in this model that would increase the support costs, why would it cost any more to support if given away than under the current model?
Giving it away wouldn't increase their costs but making/selling "cheap" support could drive their costs through the roof. Could be the operative word.
Why would they make "cheap" support. What does that portion mean?
A price that entices SMBs to buy it but the cost would be that SMBs using that support so much to overcome the income from the support contract. No clue how often that happens.
But none of that is needed. They don't have to change a single pricing thing. I think that you are assuming that they will change all kinds of things and get screwed. SUre, they can if they want to, but they can just as easily do that today without being open source and they have not. Going open source would not influence that in any meaningful way. Those are unrelated decisions. If they have a logical pricing model today, they would logically keep it exactly as it is.
a logical pricing model? What would that be other than selling the product and selling support? But the discussion is to drop the cost on the product completely which only leaves selling support. Which is all I was saying.
So, today, the only ones buying it are the ones willing to both pay for the product AND pay for support. But tomorrow let's assume that the product is free. If they want any chance at getting support contacts from the SMB they will have to be a pretty low cost on that support, otherwise it won't sell, a la XO. Now maybe they won't care about that because they have no desire to support SMB so they leave the support costs where they are today. Fine, this only works for them because they already had a customer base at their old pricing model. But if they were to jump out there today like like XO has they would probably be floundering to find customers.
-
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
a logical pricing model? What would that be other than selling the product and selling support?
Selling software is never a logical model. That's a totally bizarre model that makes no sense.
The logical model is the one that they already have, selling support.
-
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
Just please no banner ads across the web interfaces. Please no proprietary hardware offerings. And instead of CAPEX for add-on modules at least offer a month to month version.
Are the prices of the modules so outrageous to you that it makes the product unusable? I challenge you to find a normal vendor selling typical SMB phone systems cheaper than the cost of those desired modules that do that functionality.
-
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
But the discussion is to drop the cost on the product completely which only leaves selling support. Which is all I was saying.
No, the discussion is to make a product open source. You already only really pay for support. I don't know of any vendor that sells software PBXs without support. The PBX is worthless on its own, only the support is worth money. That's all that they sell now.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
But the discussion is to drop the cost on the product completely which only leaves selling support. Which is all I was saying.
No, the discussion is to make a product open source. You already only really pay for support. I don't know of any vendor that sells software PBXs without support. The PBX is worthless on its own, only the support is worth money. That's all that they sell now.
That's all the vendor in question sells now. clearly other PBX vendors also sell modules.
-
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
So, today, the only ones buying it are the ones willing to both pay for the product AND pay for support.
The only ones buying it today are the ones that pay for support. PBXs are free, if you didn't want support, you'd use one of the countless free products. In software, all value is in support. One of the many reasons why Microsoft products really don't have much value, they don't have support. That's why they work so hard to sell through pressure, not quality. MS really stands out as completely crazy that anyone buys their stuff as it doesn't come with support - but mostly this is because people THINK that it does and then find out later that it was so obvious that support was what they were paying for that they just get screwed because they didn't think it through.
-
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
But the discussion is to drop the cost on the product completely which only leaves selling support. Which is all I was saying.
No, the discussion is to make a product open source. You already only really pay for support. I don't know of any vendor that sells software PBXs without support. The PBX is worthless on its own, only the support is worth money. That's all that they sell now.
That's all the vendor in question sells now. clearly other PBX vendors also sell modules.
With support.
-
Anything that comes "with support" isn't really selling software. Find me unsupported PBXs and modules that people are selling, then you can show me somewhere where someone paid for software.
-
@dashrender said in [Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX]
Are the prices of the modules so outrageous to you that it makes the product unusable? I challenge you to find a normal vendor selling typical SMB phone systems cheaper than the cost of those desired modules that do that functionality.
Its just an adoption barrier. Everyone expects to pay per month for services, features, etc now. Offer OPEX and CAPEX and see your coffers rewarded.
-
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
But tomorrow let's assume that the product is free. If they want any chance at getting support contacts from the SMB they will have to be a pretty low cost on that support, otherwise it won't sell, a la XO. Now maybe they won't care about that because they have no desire to support SMB so they leave the support costs where they are today. Fine, this only works for them because they already had a customer base at their old pricing model. But if they were to jump out there today like like XO has they would probably be floundering to find customers.
This makes no sense and does not mirror the market at all. They are willing to pay this for support today, making the product open source just increases the value of the whole thing, it does not decrease it in any way. Whatever they are paying today logically they would be willing to pay the same or more for a better overall support and software package.
XO's has nothing to do and as you know should never be used as an example for anything because their pricing is 100% set without the market and has nothing to do with being open source, free, who will buy it or anything of the sort. Look at Red Hat, Oracle, Suse, IBM and other giant open source companies and their support models.
-
Also, people selling on-prem IP systems are going the way of guys who are selling you a closet full of servers.
Everythings OPEX, nothing is CAPEX. People swallow that pill easier and truthfully they likely pay more after the 12th or 18th month then they would have paid for a 25 year license.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
This makes no sense and does not mirror the market at all. They are willing to pay this for support today, making the product open source just increases the value of the whole thing, it does not decrease it in any way. Whatever they are paying today logically they would be willing to pay the same or more for a better overall support and software package.
Of course those who where already paying will likely keep paying, And as I mentioned, if they don't care about supporting SMB, then you're right, there would be no change. But if they want to try to gain some support revenues, they might offer a less expensive option in hopes of getting SMBs to buy it.
