Joel on Software
Strategy Letter V:The Economics of Open Source
by Joel Spolsky Wednesday, June 12, 2002
When I was in college I took two intro economics courses: macroeconomics and microeconomics. Macro was full of theories like "low unemployment causes inflation" that never quite stood up to reality. But the micro stuff was both cool and useful. It was full of interesting concepts about the relationships between supply and demand that really did work. For example, if you have a competitor who lowers their prices, the demand for your product will go down unless you match them.
上大学的时候，我选修了两门经济学入门课程：宏观经济学和微观经济学。宏观经济学总是充斥着：低就业造成高通胀之类的故事。这些论断似乎从来不扎根于现实。微观经济学非常酷而且很有用。微观经济学讨论的都是关于供求关系的概念，而且这些概念实际上真正起作用。比如说如果你有一个竞争者降低了他们产品的价格，对你的产品的需求就会降低，除非你也降低价格匹配他们的价格。
In today's episode, I'll show how one of those concepts explains a lotabout some familiar computer companies. Along the way, I noticed something interesting about open source software, which is this: most of the companies spending big money to develop open source software are doing it because it's a good business strategy for them, not because they suddenly stopped believing in capitalism and fell in love withfreedom-as-in-speech.
在今天的系列里面，我会向你展示其中的一个概念。这个概念解释了我们熟知的很多计算机公司的战略。一路走来，我注意到了开源软件一些有意思的现象。比如说：花大价钱开发开源软件的公司这么做是因为这样做符合他们的商业计划，而不是说他们突然不相信资本理论，转而相信了大爱无疆之之类自由演说的鬼话。
Every product in the marketplace has substitutes and complements. A substitute is another product you might buy if the first product is too expensive. Chicken is a substitute for beef. If you're a chicken farmer and the price of beef goes up, the people will want more chicken, and you will sell more.
市场上的每一个产品都有替代品和补充品。替代品就是：如果第一个产品太贵了，你可能花更少的钱去买这种产品，这就是替代品。如果你是一个养鸡的农民，然后牛肉价格上涨，那么人们可能会想要吃更多的鸡肉，然后你就能卖更多的鸡肉。
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.)
补充品是你通常会跟产品一起购买的产品。汽油和汽车就是互为补充品。计算机硬件就是操作系统的经典补充品。保姆就是一个高档餐厅服务的补充品。在一个小镇上，如果当地的一个五星级餐厅推出了一个买二送一的情人节特别套餐活动，那么本地的保姆肯定会双倍他们的收费（实际上满7岁的小孩儿都会被叫去进行这种早期服务）。
All else being equal, demand for a product increases when the prices of its complements decrease.
在其他情况相同的情况下：当补充品品价格下降的时候，对产品的需求就会增加。
Let me repeat that because you might have dozed off, and it's important. Demand for a product increases when the prices of its complements decrease. For example, if flights to Miami become cheaper, demand for hotel rooms in Miami goes up -- because more people are flying to Miami and need a room. When computers become cheaper, more people buy them, and they all need operating systems, so demand for operating systems goes up, which means the price of operating systems can go up.
要再说一遍，因为你可能已经搞混了。当一个产品补充品的价格下降的时候，对产品的需求就会增加。比如说到迈阿密的机票变得更便宜了，那么对当地旅馆的需求就会增加。因为更多的人飞到迈阿密会需要更多的房间。当电脑变得更便宜的时候，买的人就会变多，于是他们需要一个操作系统。于是对操作系统的需求就会增加，这意味着操作系统价格会上涨。
At this point, it's pretty common for people to try to confuse things by saying, "aha! But Linux is FREE!" OK. First of all, when an economist considers price, they consider the total price, including some intangible things like the time it takes to set up, reeducate everyone, and convert existing processes. All the things that we like to call "total cost of ownership."
到这个时候，有些人就会很自然的想要把事情混淆起来，他们会说:但是Linux是免费的。好吧，首先，当一个经济学家考虑价格的时候，考虑的是总价，总价包括一些无形的东西：例如安装时间；重新教育每一个人的时间；转换现有过程的时间。所有的这些东西我们喜欢把它叫做“总拥有成本”。
Secondly, by using the free-as-in-beer argument, these advocates try to believe that they are not subject to the rules of economics because they've got a nice zero they can multiply everything by. Here's an example. When Slashdot asked Linux developer Moshe Bar if future Linux kernels would be compatible with existing device drivers, he said that they didn't need to. "Proprietary software goes at the tariff of US$ 50-200 per line of debugged code. No such price applies to OpenSource software." Moshe goes on to claim that it's OK for every Linux kernel revision to make all existing drivers obsolete, because the cost of rewriting all those existing drivers is zero. This is completely wrong. He's basically claiming that spending a small amount of programming time making the kernel backwards compatible is equivalent to spending a huge amount of programming time rewriting every driver, because both numbers are multiplied by their "cost," which he believes to be zero. This is a prima facie fallacy. The thousands or millions of developer hours it takes to revise every existing device driver are going to have to come at the expense of something. And until that's done, Linux will be once again handicapped in the marketplace because it doesn't support existing hardware. Wouldn't it be better to use all that "zero cost" effort making Gnome better? Or supporting new hardware?
其次。通过采用这种免费啤酒式论据，这些倡导者们是在尝试说服自己他们并不受经济规律的影响。因为他们有一个完美的0价格的东西。他们可以用这个零价格去乘以任何东西。有个例子，当Slashdot采访Linux开发者Moshbar未来版本的Linux内核是否能跟现有的所有设备驱动兼容。他回答道：不需要，虽然私有的每行调试过的代码都要缴纳五十到两百美元的税收，但这不适用于开源软件。Moshbar继续宣称Linux的内核版本可以将现有的所有设备驱动代码都记为废弃。因为重写这些现有驱动的代价为0。这完全就搞错了么，他基本上就是在宣称：花很小的时间来些代码让内核变成前向兼容和花大量的编程时间来重新编写每一个驱动代价是一样的。因为等式两边的数字都同时乘以了价格0！于是都变成了零。这简直就是小学级别的谬论。成百上千，乃至百万的开发时间花在了修改现有的驱动代码上的，而这总归是有一定代价的。在这做完之前，因为它没有办法支持现有的硬件，LINUX基本又会出于市场中的残疾状态。0代价!那为什么不花费那些0代价来把Gnome桌面变得更好呢？或者把他们对于新硬件设备的支持变得更好呢？
Debugged code is NOT free, whether proprietary or open source. Even if you don't pay cash dollars for it, it has opportunity cost, and it has time cost. There is a finite amount of volunteer programming talent available for open source work, and each open source project competes with each other open source project for the same limited programming resource, and only the sexiest projects really have more volunteer developers than they can use. To summarize, I'm not very impressed by people who try to prove wild economic things about free-as-in-beer software, because they're just getting divide-by-zero errors as far as I'm concerned.
调试过的代码不是免费的，不管是开源的还是闭源的。哪怕你没有花钱来买软件，还是有机会成本，有时间成本。有无数编程志愿者会在这些开源软件项目上面播撒自己的才能。这些开源项目互相竞争来争夺这些有限的编程资源。只有现有的那些项目才真正拥有编程资源，他们能获得比他们需要更多的资源。如果有人想用免费啤酒软件这种东西来向我证明他的山寨经济学，我只会嗤之以鼻。我只会把这些观点看成是除零错误罢了。
Open source is not exempt from the laws of gravity or economics. We saw this with Eazel, ArsDigita, The Company Formerly Known as VA Linux and a lot of other attempts. But something is still going on which very few people in the open source world really understand: 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.
开源并不能豁免于重力定律或者经纪规律。从Eazel ArsDigita（以前被称作VA Linux）以及其他类似的很多公司中可以得到这个启示。但是还有一些东西其他原因，而开源社区只有很少一部分人明白这个规律。很多致力于最大化股东效益的公开上市公司花费大量的金钱来支持开源软件。他们为团队支付巨额薪水让他们从事开源软件工作。这就是替代商品经济学所能解释的。
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. The lowest theoretically sustainable price would be the "commodity price" -- the price that arises when you have a bunch of competitors offering indistinguishable goods. So:
再次强调：当商品的替代品价格降低的时候，商品的价格会增长。总体来说，一个公司的策略总是致力于尽可能地压低替代品的价格。最低的可维持价格被称作商品价格。这个价格由一群提供没有差别的商品的竞争者互相竞争产生。因此：
Smart companies try to commoditize their products' complements.
明智的公司会尝试商品化他们的产品替代品。
If you can do this, demand for your product will increase and you will be able to charge more and make more.
如果你能做到这一点，那么对于你产品的需求就会增加，然后你就能够把你的产品卖更高价格赚更多的钱。
When IBM designed the PC architecture, they used off-the-shelf parts instead of custom parts, and they carefully documented the interfaces between the parts in the (revolutionary) IBM-PC Technical Reference Manual. Why? So that other manufacturers could join the party. As long as you match the interface, you can be used in PCs. IBM's goal was to commoditize the add-in market, which is a complement of the PC market, and they did this quite successfully. Within a short time scrillions of companies sprung up offering memory cards, hard drives, graphics cards, printers, etc. Cheap add-ins meant more demand for PCs.
当IBM设计它的PC架构的时候。他们使用了市场部件而不是定制部件。他们在那本革命似的IBM PC数字索引指南里面详细的记载了各个零件之间的接口规范。为什么这么做？这样其它的零件生产商就能够加入进来。只要你符合接口规范，你的产品就能被用来构建个人计算机。 IBM的目标是商品化附件市场。他们非常成功地做到这一点，在很短的时间内，数不清的公司如如雨后春笋般冒出来，向用户提供：存储卡，硬盘驱动，图形卡，手机等等。还记得么：附件价格降低意味着对PC电脑的需求更大。
When IBM licensed the operating system PC-DOS from Microsoft, Microsoft was very careful not to sell an exclusive license. This made it possible for Microsoft to license the same thing to Compaq and the other hundreds of OEMs who had legally cloned the IBM PC using IBM's own documentation. Microsoft's goal was to commoditize the PC market. Very soon the PC itself was basically a commodity, with ever decreasing prices, consistently increasing power, and fierce margins that make it extremely hard to make a profit. The low prices, of course, increase demand. Increased demand for PCs meant increased demand for their complement, MS-DOS. All else being equal, the greater the demand for a product, the more money it makes for you. And that's why Bill Gates can buy Sweden and you can't.
当IBM把操作系统授权给微软的PCDOS的时候。微软非常小心没有卖出独家授权。这样就使得微软可以向其他数以百计的代工工厂授权他们的操作系统。这些代工工厂使用IBM的文档合法的克隆PC电脑。微软的目标是要商品化整个PC市场。个人电脑很快就变基本上变成了一个商品。价格越来越低，并且一直呈降低状态。激烈的边际收益使得盈利变得很难。价格越低，当然，会增加对pc机的需求，需求的增加导致对他们补充品需求的增加即MSDOS。在所有其他条件相同的情况下：产品的需求越高，你所赚的钱就越多。这就是为什么比尔盖茨能买下瑞典而你不行。
This year Microsoft's trying to do it again: their new game console, the XBox, uses commodity PC hardware instead of custom parts. The theory (explained in this book) was that commodity hardware gets cheaper every year, so the XBox could ride down the prices. Unfortunately it seems to have backfired: apparently commodity PC hardware has already been squeezed down to commodity prices, and so the price of making an XBox isn't declining as fast as Microsoft would like. The other part of Microsoft's XBox strategy was to use DirectX, a graphics library that can be used to write code that runs on all kinds of video chips. The goal here is to make the video chip a commodity, to lower its price, so that more games are sold, where the real profits occur. And why don't the video chip vendors of the world try to commoditize the games, somehow? That' s a lot harder. If the game Halo is selling like crazy, it doesn't really have any substitutes. You're not going to go to the movie theatre to see Star Wars: Attack of the Clones and decide instead that you would be satisfied with a Woody Allen movie. They may both be great movies, but they're not perfect substitutes. Now: who would you rather be, a game publisher or a video chip vendor?
今年，微软决定再来一次。他们的新游戏主机Xbox。采用了商品级计算机硬件而不是定制部件。理论（在这本书中有详细的解释）就是硬件每年都在变得更便宜，所以Xbox本身价格会降低。不幸的是这似乎没有成立。商品pc硬件的价格已经被挤压到了商品价格，而Xbox价格没有微软所希望的那样继续下降。微软Xbox策略的另外一部分就是要使用directX，这个图形库，来编写各种代码运行在各种各样的图形芯片上面。微软的目标就是要把图形芯片变成一个商品，降低它的价格。这样就能够卖出更多的游戏。这才是真正的盈利点。那为什么全世界的图形芯片制造商没有尝试把游戏商品化呢？因为那太困难了，如果游戏光环像发疯了一样大卖的话，他并没有什么其他可替代品。你也不会因此去电影院看星球大战克隆人的进攻。反而你可能会觉得如果看伍迪艾伦的电影会更加满意。这些都是很棒的，很棒的电影。但是他们都不是完美的替代品。那么现在：你会更愿意成为什么呢？是一家游戏出版商还是一家芯片提供商呢？
Commoditize your complements.
商品化你的补充品。
Understanding this strategy actually goes a long, long way in explaining why many commercial companies are making big contributions to open source. Let's go over these.
要理解这种战略，通常需要花很长很长的时间来解释为什么很多商业公司为开源社区做出巨大的贡献，让我们来一起回顾一下。
Headline: IBM Spends Millions to Develop Open Source Software.
头条新闻：IBM花费了数百万美元来开发开源软件。
Myth: They're doing this because Lou Gerstner read the GNU Manifesto and decided he doesn't actually like capitalism.
神秘论：他们这么做并不是因为郭士纳读了GNU开源宣言，然后决定说实际上不喜欢资本论。
Reality: They're doing this because IBM is becoming an IT consulting company. IT consulting is a complement of enterprise software. Thus IBM needs to commoditize enterprise software, and the best way to do this is by supporting open source. Lo and behold, their consulting division is winning big with this strategy.
现实：他们这样做是因为IBM正在变成一家it咨询公司，而咨询是企业软件的补充产品。因此IBM必须要商品化企业软件。达成这个目的的最佳方式就是支持开源，专注并且保持。他们的咨询部门因为这种战略已经获得了很大的收益。
Headline: Netscape Open Sources Their Web Browser.
头条新闻：网景开源了他们的网页浏览器。
Myth: They're doing this to get free source code contributions from people in cybercafes in New Zealand.
神秘论：网景这样做是为了获得新西兰网络咖啡店里面神秘程序员的代码。
Reality: They're doing this to commoditize the web browser.
事实：他们这样做是商品化外网页浏览器。
This has been Netscape's strategy from day one. Have a look at thevery first Netscape press release: the browser is "freeware." Netscape gave away the browser so they could make money on servers. Browsers and servers are classic complements. The cheaper the browsers, the more servers you sell. This was never as true as it was in October 1994. (Netscape was actually surprised when MCI came in the door and dumped so much money in their laps that they realized they could make money off of the browser, too. This wasn't required by the business plan.)
这是他们从一开始的战略了，浏览一下第一篇网景浏览器发布报道：该浏览器是免费软件。网景公司放弃浏览器是因为他们想通过服务器来赚钱，浏览器和服务器是经典的补充产品。浏览器越便宜服务器的需求就越多，就能够卖出更多的服务器。在在1994年十月之前还不是这样（网景自己也很诧异，当时MCI走进们来，扔了一大笔钱给他们，他们这才意识到他们不用浏览器也可以赚钱，而正当时这并不是商业计划中的选项）
When Netscape released Mozilla as Open Source, it was because they saw an opportunity to lower the cost of developing the browser. So they could get the commodity benefits at a lower cost.
当网景以开源形式发布Mozilla的时候，是因为他们从降低开发浏览器的成本中看到了机会。因此他们商品化了浏览器，让整个社区浏览器的开发成本都降低下来。。
Later AOL/Time Warner acquired Netscape. The server software, which was supposed to be the beneficiary of commodity browsers, wasn't doing all that well, and was jettisoned. Now: why would AOL/Time Warner continue to invest anything in open source?
后来，AOL/时代华纳公司兼并了网景公司。作为商品化浏览器的补充，服务器软件并没有表现的那么好，很快就被打入了冷宫。那为什么AOL/时代华纳会继续在开源软件上面进行投资呢？
AOL/Time Warner is an entertainment company. Entertainment companies are the complement of entertainment delivery platforms of all types, including web browsers. This giant conglomerate's strategic interest is to make entertainment delivery - web browsers - a commodity for which nobody can charge money.
AOL/时代华纳是一家娱乐公司。娱乐公司是各种娱乐投递平台的补充，这种平台就包括网页浏览器。这家垄断巨头的策略有益于娱乐投递平台，例如网页浏览器变成没有人会收费的商品。
My argument is a little bit tortured by the fact that Internet Explorer is free-as-in-beer. Microsoft wanted to make web browsers a commodity, too, so they can sell desktop and server operating systems. They went a step further and delivered a collection of components which anyone could use to throw together a web browser. Neoplanet, AOL, and Juno used these components to build their own web browsers. Given that IE is free, what is the incentive for Netscape to make the browser "even cheaper"? It's a preemptive move. They need to prevent Microsoft getting a complete monopoly in web browsers, even free web browsers, because that would theoretically give Microsoft an opportunity to increase the cost of web browsing in other ways -- say, by increasing the price of Windows.
我的观点可能会受到IE浏览器也是免费浏览器这个事实的拷问。微软也想把网页浏览器变成一个商品，这样就能够卖出更多的桌面和服务器操作系统。他们想进一步通过每个人都能使用的网页浏览器销售他们的其他组件。Neoplanet, AOL, 和Juno都使用了这些组件来搭建他们自己的网页浏览器。既然IE本来就是免费的，那么网景公司让他们的浏览器变得更便宜的初衷是什么呢？这是一招先发制人，他们想避免微软公司在网页浏览器上面占据垄断地位，哪怕是免费的网页浏览器。因为那样理论上来讲就给微软提供了另外一种机会来通过其他方式来增加网页浏览器的售价 – 比如增加windows的价格。
(My argument is even more shaky because it's pretty clear that Netscape in the days of Barksdale didn't exactly know what it was doing. A more likely explanation for what Netscape did is that upper management was technologically inept, and they had no choice but to go along with whatever scheme the developers came up with. The developers were hackers, not economists, and only coincidentally came up with a scheme which serves their strategy. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt.)
（我的观点听起来更加站不住脚了，因为很明显。在Barksdale时代的网景根本都不知道他自己在做什么！一个看起来更加合理的解释就是网景那样做的原因是新的高层管理对技术完全一窍不通，因此他们除了接受开发者提出来的计划之外别无选，而这些开发者完全就是黑客，他们不是经济学家。只会在偶尔制定一些符合管理层战略的计划。但是还是让我们为他们的怀疑记上一功吧！）
Headline: Transmeta Hires Linus, Pays Him To Hack on Linux.
头条新闻：Transmeta雇用了Linus，付给他薪水让他继续专攻linux。
Myth: They just did it to get publicity. Would you have heard of Transmeta otherwise?
神秘论：他们这样做只是为了吸引更多的公众视线，要不然你听说过这家公司吗？
Reality: Transmeta is a CPU company. The natural complement of a CPU is an operating system. Transmeta wants OSs to be a commodity.
事实：Transmeta是一家CPU公司，CPU的很自然的补充产品就是操作系统。Transmeta希望把操作系统变成商品。
Headline: Sun and HP Pay Ximian To Hack on Gnome.
头条新闻：SUN和惠普支付Ximian工资让他专攻Gnome。
Myth: Sun and HP are supporting free software because they like Bazaars, not Cathedrals.
神秘论：惠普和SUN更喜欢集市而不是教堂。
Reality: Sun and HP are hardware companies. They make boxen. In order to make money on the desktop, they need for windowing systems, which are a complement of desktop computers, to be a commodity. Why don't they take the money they're paying Ximian and use it to develop a proprietary windowing system? They tried this (Sun had NeWS and HP had New Wave), but these are really hardware companies at heart with pretty crude software skills, and they need windowing systems to be a cheap commodity, not a proprietary advantage which they have to pay for. So they hired the nice guys at Ximian to do this for the same reason that Sun bought Star Office and open sourced it: to commoditize software and make more money on hardware.
事实是，SUN和惠普都是硬件公司。他们生产Pc电脑。为了在桌面市场上赚钱。窗口系统是桌面电脑的替代产品，他们希望窗口系统变成商品。那么为什么他们不用支付给Ximian的薪水自己开发一个独立的视窗系统呢？实际上他们确实尝试过。（SUN的叫做NeWS 惠普的叫做NewWave）但是这些公司真的只是硬件公司，本质上软件技术实在是过于原始。他们只是需要视窗系统变成便宜的商品。而不是真正想要付钱构建一个这样的系统。于是通过了Ximian这样的好人来做这件事情。Sun出于同样的原因买下了StarOffice并且将其开源。商品化软件，通过硬件来赚钱。
Headline: Sun Develops Java; New "Bytecode" System Means Write Once, Run Anywhere.
头条新闻：Sun开发了Java！这种新的字节码系统意味着一次编写随处运行
The bytecode idea is not new -- programmers have always tried to make their code run on as many machines as possible. (That's how you commoditize your complement). For years Microsoft had its own p-code compiler and portable windowing layer which let Excel run on Mac, Windows, and OS/2, and on Motorola, Intel, Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC chips. Quark has a layer which runs Macintosh code on Windows. The C programming language is best described as a hardware-independent assembler language. It's not a new idea to software developers.
字节码的想法，其实并不新。程序员们一直在尝试让他们的代码能够在尽可能多的机器上运行。（这也是你如何商品化你的补充品—硬件）若干年来微软一直有有他们自己的p代码编译器。和一个可移植的窗口层，让Excel能够在mac和windows OS/2 摩托罗拉 英特尔Alpha MIPCS 以及PowerPC芯片上运行。Quark有一套抽象层使得他们可以在Windows上面运行Mac代码。C编程语言可以被看成是一种硬件无关的汇编语言。所以说这对于软件开发来来说这并不是什么新想法。
If you can run your software anywhere, that makes hardware more of a commodity. As hardware prices go down, the market expands, driving more demand for software (and leaving customers with extra money to spend on software which can now be more expensive.)
如果你可以随处运行你的软件，这就让硬件变成了商品。当商品的价格降低，市场扩大，导致更多的软件产品需求（让客户有更多的钱来花在软件上面。这样软件就能卖得更贵了）。
Sun's enthusiasm for WORA is, um, strange, because Sun is a hardware company. Making hardware a commodity is the last thing they want to do.
SUN公司对于WORA的那种痴迷确实很奇怪的。因为SUN是一家硬件公司，硬件变成一种商品是他们是他们最不应该做的事情。
Oooooooooooooooooooooops!
糟糕糟糕糟糕糟糕糟糕糟糕了。
Sun is the loose cannon of the computer industry. Unable to see past their raging fear and loathing of Microsoft, they adopt strategies based on anger rather than self-interest. Sun's two strategies are (a) make software a commodity by promoting and developing free software (Star Office, Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc), and (b) make hardware a commodity by promoting Java, with its bytecode architecture and WORA. OK, Sun, pop quiz: when the music stops, where are you going to sit down? Without proprietary advantages in hardware or software, you're going to have to take the commodity price, which barely covers the cost of cheap factories in Guadalajara, not your cushy offices in Silicon Valley.
SUN公司是计算机行业的一个个别现象。他们没有办法放弃对微软的极度的恐惧和厌恶。他们基于怒火而不是自我的利益来制定战略。SUN公司两个战略就是：（a）通过向开发者推荐免费软件。(Star Office, Linux, Apache, Gnome,等等。把软件变成一个商品。 （b）通过推Java和字节码架构把硬件变成一个商品。 好吧SUN，一个问题： 当音乐结束的时候，你会在哪坐下来？既没有独立的硬件，也没有软件方面的优势，你必须得接受商品化价格。但是这个价格只能够承担瓜达拉哈拉的廉价工厂的开销，这个价格可承担不了你在硅谷轻松办公室的开销。
"But Joel!" Jared says. "Sun is trying to commoditize the operating system, like Transmeta, not the hardware." Maybe, but the fact that Java bytecode also commoditizes the hardware is some pretty significant collateral damage to sustain.
但是Joel，Jared说：SUN公司在尝试着商品化操作系统而不是硬件。也许是的。但是java的字节码战略同样也商品化了硬件。这对SUN的可持续发展可是严重连带打击。
An important thing you notice from all these examples is that it's easy for software to commoditize hardware (you just write a little hardware abstraction layer, like Windows NT's HAL, which is a tiny piece of code), but it's incredibly hard for hardware to commoditize software. Software is not interchangable, as the StarOffice marketing team is learning. Even when the price is zero, the cost of switching from Microsoft Office is non-zero. Until the switching cost becomes zero, desktop office software is not truly a commodity. And even the smallest differences can make two software packages a pain to switch between. Despite the fact that Mozilla has all the features I want and I'd love to use it if only to avoid the whack-a-mole pop-up-ad game, I'm too used to hitting Alt+D to go to the address bar. So sue me. One tiny difference and you lose your commodity status. But I've pulled hard drives out of IBM computers and slammed them into Dell computers and, boom, the system comes up perfectly and runs as if it were still in the old computer.
从所有这些例子中，你可以注意到的一个重要的事情就是：软件想要商品化硬件很容易（只要编写一个硬件抽象层，就像WindowsNT的硬件抽象层，只需要很小的一段代码）。但是想让硬件来商品化软件却很难，软件是不可交换的，正如StarOffice营销团队所学到的那样，哪怕价格降到了零。从微软office切换到StarOffice的开销都不会是零。在切换开销变的小到可以忽略之前，桌面Office都不是真正意义上的商品。哪怕是最小的差别，都能够让这两种产品之间互相切换变成巨大的麻烦。尽管事实上Mozilla已经拥有了所有我想要的功能，并且如果他能够避免那种打鼹鼠类的弹出广告游戏的花，我会很乐于使用。但是我已经习惯了要用Alt-D转到地址栏。所以正如我所说的，很小的差别就让你失去了你商品化的状态。但是对硬件来说我把我的硬盘从IBM电脑中拿出来然后插入到戴尔电脑。系统就像从旧的电脑启动似的完美地启动了。
Amos Michelson, the CEO of Creo, told me that every employee in his firm is required to take a course in what he calls "economic thinking." Great idea. Even simple concepts in basic microeconomics go a long way to understanding some of the fundamental shifts going on today.
Amos Michelson Creo的CEO告诉我：他公司的每一个雇员都会被要求去参加一个他称之为经济学思考的课程。很不错的主意，哪怕是基础微观经济学的一些概念都可以帮你一路去理解如今一些行业发生的根本变化。