critical risk in relying on closed-source platforms for commercial solutions
-
Hello,
It's not that I've already managed to commercialize the project I've been working on for 3 years, and in the beginning I even addressed this type of situation with kl3m3n and naturally it's a concern and something for anyone who wants to acquire solutions that use closed source platforms.
How can we answer questions about this to a potential client?
Microsoft's withdrawal from Azure IoT Central highlights a critical risk in relying on closed-source platforms for commercial solutions. This move reminds us that by choosing proprietary solutions, we are at the mercy of suppliers' business decisions. This can lead to the need for costly restructuring or even the total loss of the investment if the service is discontinued. It's a wake-up call to invest wisely and consider the long-term sustainability and adaptability of the technologies chosen. More details at [The Register]
https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/15/microsoft_retires_azure_iot_central/Regards
-
@Sato Hi!
GUI-O uses MQTT standarized protocol. That means that nothing magical is happening under the hood.
Furthermore, there are numerous third party MQTT brokers that you can migrate to. You can also setup your own broker. More info can be found here: https://www.gui-o.com/how-to-guides
On the GUI-O app side, the user would only need to change IoT settings... A small change.
I see more problem on the MCU side. You would also need to change the IoT settings there. So you would need to have te capability to update the MCU code also.
I would say that the most optimal solution would be to have your own server from the start. Then nothing can suprise you and no changes to IoT settings will ever be needed. But this involves some additional complexity setting it up.
Best regards,
Klemen -
Hello @kl3m3n and community,
I apologize for the confusion. The article I shared is not a cause for concern; it was presented merely as an example.
Specifically, I wasn't referring to the MQTT broker for which the generous kl3m3n provides a tutorial for those wishing
to port it to their own server. The support he provides is, and always has been, exemplary.The main concern is related to the use of Gui-O as a platform for commercial products. I've had the opportunity to discuss
this issue before. When using Gui-O in commercial projects, one of the first questions from clients is usually about the
platform on which the product is run and whether it is provided by the same supplier as the final hardware product.To illustrate, consider a potential client with over 7000 devices, each of which could be equipped with a PCB. Here, the concern is evident: we cannot guarantee the client the continuity and maintenance of the Gui-O platform, as we have no influence over its maintenance, or worse, its continuity.
During commercial negotiations, the decision to purchase a product can represent a significant investment for the end customer.
Thus, the choice also takes into account some guarantees related to what was mentioned earlier.I want to clarify that, personally, I love using Gui-O from the very beginning. However, I bring up this issue because I believe some clarification is helpfull, especially when it comes to products with commercial purposes.
Regards
-
@Sato Hi!
I misinterpreted your question, sorry!
Your concerns are totally valid and understandable.
It should be a possibility to create a custom GUI-O application instance tailored to your needs. This means you get an apk that you can distribute to your users on your own terms. If you develop a product with this application instance, you are not affected by the main GUI-O application branch. Even if GUI-O loses support, your product is safe(er). You don't get any new features, but your product lives on.
But in order to get a custom application and some support for future updates, fixes, etc., this would be more expensive for you. Why - because I need to maintain your custom application version.
I currently don't have a business model in mind (working on it...), so I cannot give you any more details. But I am glad that you've put this questions forward for debate.
What do you think about this?
P. S. Your custom app could probably also be distributed via Google Play.
I will probably create a new post on options to distribute GUI-O (or GUI-O variant) to end users. I hope I get a lot of feedback from you and other people in similar situation. This way, we will be able to shape together how to make GUI-O more distribution friendly.
Regards,
Klemen -
Hello @kl3m3n,
I raised this question to understand how many hobbyists and professionals are in the Gui-O platform community.
In my case, I have been developing a product for commercial purposes for which I am still seeking investors. The market for the product is global.
I am of the opinion that in the case of commercializing products developed and produced using the Gui-O platform, you should also benefit from a percentage of the profit from the solution (product + Gui-O).
I believe this is well-deserved, and there is no reason to think otherwise.In commercial terms, the most important aspect is not only the value you can derive from the Pro version registration, perhaps with hobbyists, but if you consider the example I provided, that client has approximately 55 employees, which would represent the same number of Pro version registrations. By entering into a partnership as you mentioned,
"This means you get an apk that you can distribute to your users on your own terms,"
you would end up with much more financial return. For example: 7000 x €4 = €28,000
This is an example, and the value depends on the type of final product, but at a minimum, this would be the amount, and reimbursement in most cases would not be immediate but rather phased over time. Clients buy it according to their needs and financial capacity.By maintaining the commitment in all future projects, you would be optimizing the monetization of your work. The apk issue would provide the necessary security for all of us to make commitments with end customers, making it possible to commercialize the solution of product (pcb) + Gui-O in a win-win manner.
Give it some thought. In my case, I will continue to try to find clients for the solution, but I am already more reassured knowing there is openness to leverage this good solution for both sides.
I hope that other professional users can join this partnership model and share their opinions.
Regards