Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX
-
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
I was going to reach out to some contacts but wanted to direct them back to this post with a lot of community interest. I can think of at least 2 commercial PBX products that we MIGHT convince to release open source. Most of their revenue is derived from training, support and multitenant deployments and customizations.
That's interesting. The tough part there is that most closed source systems have code licensing issues making it difficult even if they wanted to release their own portions. It's an awesome idea, though.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
I was going to reach out to some contacts but wanted to direct them back to this post with a lot of community interest. I can think of at least 2 commercial PBX products that we MIGHT convince to release open source. Most of their revenue is derived from training, support and multitenant deployments and customizations.
That's interesting. The tough part there is that most closed source systems have code licensing issues making it difficult even if they wanted to release their own portions. It's an awesome idea, though.
Have actually thought about that.
Some immediate thoughts that occured to me
1.) Sipwise CPBX whichI actually thought this was already a free download. I am surprised its not as I can't imagine stand alone CPBX is a big seller for them outside of an entire carrier setup
Also they hae released SIP Provider FOSS which is a bigger deal than the CPBX component. They have been trying to break into the US market for a while. I feel like its doable.
2.) Kazoo (the successor to freeswitch's bluebox, which would have been a FreePBX for freeswitch) could be reduced to a simpler installation.
3.) Fusion PBX (which just needs a single server guide written for the layman)
4.) SipXecs could be simplified to a single server installation
5.) Thirdlane is a better PBX than FreePBX IMO, and is inexpensive but not free. Given they mostly focus on multi-tenant its a possibility.
I lot of these have borrowed from projects like Jitsi who are true FOSS supporters.
When you consider the exposure these guys are missing vs the small amount of revenue they get from their baseline PBX products... how many times a week do you tell someone to use FreePBX?
-
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
When you consider the exposure these guys are missing vs the small amount of revenue they get from their baseline PBX products... how many times a week do you tell someone to use FreePBX?
A LOT!
-
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
When you consider the exposure these guys are missing vs the small amount of revenue they get from their baseline PBX products... how many times a week do you tell someone to use FreePBX?
The question is how small is it? Do we really know?
Assuming they moved to a support only model for revenue, would they have to charge an arm and a leg like XO to cover their bases, basically driving the support cost out of most SMB anyway?
-
@dashrender said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
When you consider the exposure these guys are missing vs the small amount of revenue they get from their baseline PBX products... how many times a week do you tell someone to use FreePBX?
The question is how small is it? Do we really know?
Assuming they moved to a support only model for revenue, would they have to charge an arm and a leg like XO to cover their bases, basically driving the support cost out of most SMB anyway?
XO doesn't have to, their investors make them. Not the same thing.
-
In fact, we are pretty sure that XO is losing a fortune because they aren't charging a small enough amount.
-
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?
-
Are we talking about Verizon XO? At first I thought we were talking about OX. Or XiVO?
-
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
Are we talking about Verizon XO? At first I thought we were talking about OX. Or XiVO?
He means XenOrchestra
-
He's using XO's insane pricing model as an example because he's thinking that them being open source is what made their pricing so absurd. But the actual issue has nothing to do with open source but European venture capital practices and so he's made a connection that doesn't exist and is applying it here. XO is actually an example of how open source should work from a product perspective and shows how tons and tons of smaller customers would make for a handy profit.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
Are we talking about Verizon XO? At first I thought we were talking about OX. Or XiVO?
He means XenOrchestra
My mind was elsewhere.
Trying to direct market something like an IP-PBX today is really ridiculous when you consider RingCentral spends $1mm a day marketing against you with a turn-key solution. Overall cost aside, a business owner wants turn key.
Your only real hope is to have a Freemium or FOSS model. FreePBX does this with modules, banner ads cough, products, etc. There is no marketing going on there, its the IT community thats propping them up.
It seems like a no brainer, and I feel like we could convince someone with a good product of all this. Even if someone starts offering customers Hosted PBX with free individual instances, eventually when that have 10+ tenants they are in a nightmare of updating servers. Growing those free accounts into an MT customer is a win-win for both parties.
promise I am done editing this post
-
@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.
-
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
@bigbear said in Let's Convince Someone to release a FOSS PBX:
Are we talking about Verizon XO? At first I thought we were talking about OX. Or XiVO?
He means XenOrchestra
My mind was elsewhere.
Trying to direct market something like an IP-PBX today is really ridiculous when you consider RingCentral spends $1mm a day marketing against you with a turn-key solution. Overall cost aside, a business owner wants turn key.
Your only real hope is to have a Freemium or FOSS model. FreePBX does this with modules, banner ads cough, products, etc. There is no marketing going on there, its the IT community thats propping them up.
It seems like a no brainer, and I feel like we could convince someone with a good product of all this. Even if someone starts offering customers Hosted PBX with free individual instances, eventually when that have 10+ tenants they are in a nightmare of updating servers. Growing those free accounts into an MT customer is a win-win for both parties.
promise I am done editing this post
A nightmare of updating servers? Sure a MT solution could be nice in larger deployments, but 10 hardly seems like an issue.
-
@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.
