Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

These very large internet companies using, developing, and promoting open source technologies like crazies. What is the rationale behind promoting and developing open source tools and technologies rather than closed source software like traditional tech companies (Microsoft, Apple, Adobe)?


migration rejected from Apr 27 '15 at 1:22

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers. Votes, comments, and answers are locked due to the question being closed here, but it may be eligible for editing and reopening on the site where it originated.

closed as primarily opinion-based by GlenH7, Snowman, gnat, durron597, MichaelT Apr 27 '15 at 1:22

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

@Gagandeep Please read the FAQ before asking a question. – Mayank Mar 2 '11 at 6:19
@Gagandeep Also look at this… – Mayank Mar 2 '11 at 6:21
Short answer: It's more profitable for them in the long run. – NullUserException Mar 2 '11 at 6:24
Microsoft has also open sourced some of their stuff. – user16764 Jun 26 '13 at 18:18

Commoditization of complements - Hardware is useless without software, so if your company sells hardware (like IBM or Novell), it's good for you if the software is free (as in beer) to the customers. The complement could be anything - Hardware vs. software, software vs. services, cars vs. fuel...

Chris Anderson's Free: How Today's Smartest Businesses Profit by Giving Something for Nothing explains some business models which fit nicely with this idea.

Corollary: if you work in the software industry you don't want to open source anything – Karl Mar 2 '11 at 10:32
Man, oh man, I would love a company that sells fuel to give out free cars ;) – Rook Mar 2 '11 at 10:54
Or the other way around ;) – Rook Mar 2 '11 at 10:54
I wish that companies that made analytical instruments understood this. They want to sell you a piece of hardware for $10k-$500k, with crappy control software, a proprietary interface, and undocumented data formats. You would think it would be to their benefit to make their instrument as useful as possible to as many people as possible, and giving away the software. Its not line its useful to anyone who hasn't bought the hardware. – KeithB Mar 2 '11 at 18:54
Karl: What are you talking about? Lots of software industry companies (like Red Hat) are based on giving away their software and selling services: Training, installation, configuration, helpdesk, documentation, on-site tech assistance, you name it. – l0b0 Mar 3 '11 at 9:34

Strategy letter V by Joel will best answer your question.

...A complement is a product that you usually buy together with another product. Gas and cars are complements. Computer hardware is a classic complement of computer operating systems. And babysitters are a complement of dinner at fine restaurants. In a small town, when the local five star restaurant has a two-for-one Valentine's day special, the local babysitters double their rates. (Actually, the nine-year-olds get roped into early service.)

All else being equal, demand for a product increases when the prices of its complements decrease...

...a lot of very large public companies, with responsibilities to maximize shareholder value, are investing a lot of money in supporting open source software, usually by paying large teams of programmers to work on it. And that's what the principle of complements explains.

Once again: demand for a product increases when the price of its complements decreases. In general, a company's strategic interest is going to be to get the price of their complements as low as possible...

This works for a number of small companies I know of as well. The exact details vary, but the principle is the same. – Donal Fellows Jul 15 '13 at 6:15

To match the mindset of their target audience

Can be one reason.

Products are usually open sourced to get external contributions. But in the case you mention, that could be to satisfy the crowd. It can be symbolic or simply to match the mindset of the audience.

Some products are more likely to be distributed as open source than others. Strategically it can be better to keep closed sources and for the same reasons (strategy) it is good to be open source.


If you have a big extensible, core system on the Internet, and if there is a global community of developers willing to spend their valuable time extending the reach of your core system, it only makes sense that you would make the hooks into that system be open source.

The core of Google is search. This is of course not open source. But all of the tools that Google provides: Docs, Spreadsheets, Blogger, Calendar, etc, all have permissive, open source BSD licenses that encourage corporations to build their infrastructure on top of Google.

If people are using your services, it's much easier to get them to use other services you offer.


Besides the economical arguments, pointed out by others, there are other incentives to promoting open source. After all these companies are run by people and people have other forces that motivates them than economical gain. I can imagine that as open source has gained influence, CEOs and other top level management will push for promoting open source regardless of the economical gain. Just because it is good.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.