Un très bon article sur les arguments commerciaux de solutions de content management:
http://www.cmswatch.com/Feature/142-Top-10-Fibs
trouvé sur le nouveau blog des développeurs d’Alfresco.
Mon préféré:
« Our open-source solution means you’ll get off cheap » and « Our commercial solution is better supported than open-source alternatives »
Tony: He’s right in saying that the « really big expenses lie in customization and integration » but, in my experience with quality open source projects (see above), he’s wrong to argue that « some open-source tools will cost you more than their commercial equivalents. » Well, he’s not wrong, but it would be important for him to point out those projects that end up costing more. I’ve yet to see it.
With a commercially supported product like Alfresco, for example, we have customer after customer that has spent dramatically less on both the licensing costs and the implementation costs. And, again, we tend to be bidding against both greenfield and incumbent installations of proprietary software products that have run enterprises hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in both acquisition and implementation costs, only to have the overpriced system not work.
Does this happen with open source? Sure. One of our prospective customers is considering a move off their open source system because it hasn’t scaled or implemented well. But the cost of their failure is a fraction of what our proprietary competitors impose.
As for the support question, it all depends on comparing apples with apples. Typo3 support (a la Enomaly is going to be as good or better than you’d get from OpenText. Ditto, in another world, with SugarCRM support from Sugar and/or Corra Technology. Or Compiere in the ERP space. The important thing is to compare apples (commercial company support) with apples (commercial company support from the open source product vendor or their SIs).
Bonne lecture! 🙂
