Proprietary tools users have already had to lament the lack of openness, the high price and the complexity of these tools. Now they’re facing another risk: acquisition.Announced in March 2009, Sybase ETL is now only available to Sybase IQ (Sybase’s analytics server offer) users. This means that ETL load targets can only be a Sybase IQ instance. Even if it is quite evident that only Sybase IQ users will use the Sybase ETL, they won’t be able to use it for others things, such as exporting data to others parts of their information system. This isn’t that unusual. So they’ll have to deploy another ETL. And why not a third, if the second one only works with red or blue targets? One tool for one target - the return of hand-coded, heavy EAI systems…
In 2006, when Sybase took over Solonde (an ETL developed in Germany and certified for SAP integration) the company promised that it would keep the tool open. Yet barely 3 years after the acquisition, Sybase ETL - Solonde’s new name - is totally closed.
We don’t know exactly how many customers Sybase ETL has. According to a press release, 1500 companies use Sybase IQ. So even if the number of companies stuck with this solution is low, the announcement still carries a whiff of scandal. What if your car dealer required you to only buy gas in its own facilities? Yes, I know, some coffee machine manufacturers have begun to do it, but is that really the way the tide is turning? And particularly in the IT market - what would happen if a big leader in the database market (let’s say one with a red logo, for example) decided to adopt the same strategy for the ETL tool (another European vendor…) that it acquired some years ago?
This kind of announcement is really unacceptable. Of course, these shackled users will have yet another reason to consider open source alternatives, which is good for companies like Talend. But, philosophically, in a period where open source and traditional software makers join force to give concrete expression to interoperability, this kind of announcement sounds very odd. Maybe it’s the cry of the dying dinosaurs?
Bertrand
Hi Bertrand,
Sorry for my “frenchy” English… but coffee is not the only example of a link between an appliance and the product you need to use with it… and we have a lot in IT…
- Printer cartridge is the best… when each new printer comes with a new cartridge design incompatible with the others even from the same brand…
- AC Power Adaptor : when every mobile device (PC, Phone…) comes with its own that can not be used with other devices… some AC Power Adaptor are even registered like Apple’s to be sure no one can build the same.
- iTunes and AppStore business model where you can only buy approved applications or songs…
- Apple again with Mac OS X that can only run on Apple machines
- Mobile phones that comes with a subscription to a special carrier
…
Even if I can agree that “open world” is the future of IT… seems that since a couple of years the best business models are based on “closed worlds”…
@Philippe
Well, please reconsider the last 2. Unlocking is trivial nowadays, even for iPhones. And take a look at Hackintosh if you want OSX on a netbook, for example.
It won’t be long before some opening of the various siloed appstores around, at least when Apple will loose a bit of its arrogant and deserved domination in the field.
As for the rest, you’re talking about hardware/hardware bundling, which is very different from the software/software bundling Bertrand is talking about. Physically plugging 2 items is more complex, standard wise, than plugging 2 softwares. APIs and standards generally are in to help the latest.
I’m 100% with Bertrand on this, it’s a shame to have vendors entrenching themselves this way. Do they think they own their user base? It won’t be long before they realize that it isn’t the case anymore.
There is so much more to achieve in the IT field by collaboration and emulation.
@Marc: yes you can hack a cellphone or an OS, but unfortunately you’re not supposed to do it and it’s often in violation of some license agreement. What open source is all about, is making openness and interoperability part of the daily life of IT users. Vendors should focus on providing value, not lock-in. You keep your clients in the long run because they value what you offer, not because it’s too complex to leave.
@Philippe: I don’t think there is enough historical perspective on the commercial open source model to say that it is more or less successful than the proprietary one. Even MySQL, Red Hat are still young companies (well, “was” in MySQL’s case). But all the signs we are seeing point toward a huge success for vendors that provide choice and openness to their clients. The same way we have seen many proprietary vendors go under, some open source vendors will, also. But at the end of the day, being open puts you in a better position than being closed.
Yves