Blackboard或将完全收购Moodle并起用全新的开源软件商业模式

2012-05-15 12:01:26 评论(1)
请分享到:


Blackboard announced that they have acquired two official Moodle partners Moodlerooms and Netspot and started to enter the open source learning management system market. I’m not quite surprised upon hearing this news as I can’t see how the founder of Moodle and his firm profit from leading the development of this open source software. On moodle.com, it stated that “Moodle HQ is funded by a global network of certified Moodle Partners who provide Moodle services.” The major source of income that Moodle Pty Ltd. gets is licensing its partners for the use of the trademark Moodle when supplying training and support services to organisations who use Moodle as their learning management systems.

Unlike other open source software, Moodle HQ does not supply commercial training and support to its users; it does not charge for premium features that are not freely available; it does not host Moodle instances thus can not charge users for using the hosting service; it does not supply consultation service; it does not do custom development to meet clients’ specific needs… Instead, Moodle HQ license Moodle partners to do so. Unlike a franchising system, Moodle HQ does not supply anything to Moodle partners that they must pay for and rely on. For example, Moodle HQ does not supply something like franchising manuals which will train Moodle partners to deliver their services. Moodle partners only use information in the Moodle community and their own skills to deliver training and support service to their clients. Moodle HQ does not market the commercial service and refer clients to Moodle partners. Clients who are interested in the commercial services should contact Moodle partners in the first place. Moodle HQ does not have a service standard (e.g., pricing structure, service items, procedures, etc.) for Moodle partners to follow so they have to set up their own business model. This also means that the clients would have different experience from one Moodle partner to another. Therefore, the value that Moodle HQ passes to its partners is really just the value of the trademark and the advertisement on Moodle.com. The term “Certified Service Provider” does not imply value from Moodle HQ that is not publicly available and that is useful for the clients. It only means the service providers are allowed to use the trademark of Moodle for commercial purposes and they will contribute 10% of their Moodle-related earnings to the Moodle HQ. The above features of the relationship between Moodle HQ and Moodle Partners will have led to:

  • Moodle HQ has minimum negotiation power to ask for more funding from Moodle Partner
  • Moodle HQ’s earnings are not guaranteed due to the passive income model (i.e., it relies on the honesty of Moodle Partners should an auditing system is not in place)
  • Moodle HQ has given up the user market to profit from despite the demand within it
  • Moodle HQ’s developers are not motivated enough to push the product and the service to the highest possible standard

The above features also imply that:

  • Users have limited choices for outsourcing their Moodle hosting and development as Moodle Partners’ number is so limited.
  • Even though users manage to contract with one of the Moodle Partners, they do not benefit too much from being served by a so-called Moodle Partner because the Moodle Partner is not much different from other IT firms who supply open source software technical support, managed hosting service, and software training except for their “Moodle Partner” tag. Moodle Partners rely on publicly available information and documentation in the Moodle community to form and support their services. Such resources can also be accessed by non-Moodle-Partner IT firms.
  • Users have limited exposure to IT firms that may supply similar and better service that Moodle Partners supply. This is the Moodle trademark rules restrict those non-Moodle-Partners IT firms from advertising Moodle-related service. One of the rules states that “You can’t use ‘Moodle’ to describe services around Moodle (such as hosting, training, support, consulting, course creation services, theme development, customisation, installation, integration and certification). This applies even if you do not charge for the services. Note that usually only Moodle Partners have this permission.
  • There is no easy way for entry-level users to quickly sign up for a free Moodle site directly from Moodle.com, unlike the free service that WordPress.com offers
  • There is no way for advanced users to access to VIP features and resources even though they are willing to pay Moodle HQ for what they want, unlike the WordPress premium features that you can get if you are willing to pay.

Therefore, based on the recent acquisition move of Blackboard and the surprise Moodle founder had, I predict that Blackboard’s intention and next move would be trying to acquire Moodle completely. What Blackboard has been doing in this acquisition exercise may be an example one of the Thirty-Six Strategiums – “defeat the enemy by capturing their chief”. Is Moodle HQ the chief of Moodle Partners? No! The other way! Firstly, it is Moodle Partners who fund Moodle HQ; secondly, Moodle Partners can leave Moodle HQ once they have grown their client base to a certain extent. For example, NetSpot can easily stop being an Moodle Partners now, but people in the Australian e-learning industry have already known NetSpot does Moodle support and training. Even though NetSpot does not expressively advertise their service as Moodle-related (i.e., “open source software” instead), they can still attract Moodle-related clients. Therefore, what Blackboard has been doing is to capture the real chief of Moodle HQ: its most profitable partners. After this move, Blackboard has gained a huge negotiation power for the complete acquisition of Moodle. People may think it could be to expensive for Blackboard to acquire Moodle completely because “the copyrights belong to hundreds of authors and they would ALL need to agree to any change in the license“. This may not be true anymore when two major Moodle Partners are owned by Blackboard and when other Moodle Partners start trying to seek business opportunities from Blackboard’s new open source service sector.

My prediction can also be extended to the future commercial operations with Moodle should it be acquired by Blackboard:

  • Moodle would stay open source and free, but there would be locked premium features that users need to pay to unlock.
  • Moodle would provide basic hosting like what WordPress.com has been doing, and have commercial adds built into the free hosted version.
  • Moodle would provide premium hosting features like what WordPress.com has been doing.
  • Moodle would accept orders for custom development for special features.
  • Moodle would develop a standard for Moodle-related IT services such as hosting, technical support, and training, and all the Moodle Partners need to comply with.
  • Moodle would provide Moodle Partners with a set of “how-to” materials to provide Moodle-related IT services and Moodle would charge its partners every time when Moodle releases a new version of such set of knowledge.
  • Moodle would set out a price discrimination, i.e. set a higher price for the same service item that its partners would supply. As a result, clients would have choices as whether to obtain the service directly from Moodle HQ or from Moodle Partners according to their affordability and the geographical locations. However, the quality of the services supplied by Moodle HQ and Moodle Partners should be kept similar.
  • Moodle would modify their Moodle Partners program and make it more transparent and more standardised. Moodle would encourage more IT firms to apply for becoming a Moodle Partners. This business model should imply that the more Moodle Partners the more revenue Moodle HQ can generate. This would be similar to a franchising system.
  • Moodle would open up the use of trademark “Moodle” for advertising Moodle-related service for non-Moodle-Partner firms and freelance developers, so that the demand from lower end of the market can be met.
  • Moodle would improve its third party plugin development platform to encourage developers to supply free light version and paid version of Moodle plugins and the plugins would be sold only via a dedicated platform where Moodle can take commissions from the transactions.
  • To support the above, Moodle would have a dedicated global marketing team to promote both Moodle HQ and its partners’ products and services.

Let’s come back to this blog post 3 years later and compare it with what Blackboard and Moodle will actually be doing!


本页浏览次数:287185

最新评论:

  • 说道:

    对BB的分析的很有道理。BB对两大公司的收购只是个开始,只要BB持续这么干下去足以动摇Moodle的根基,收购达到相当的规模以后,直接Fork moodle这个项目,另起炉灶用个新名字就规避掉了Moodle的商标问题,至于代码是否是GPL,这个已经不重要了,BB完全拿开源的东西做SaaS平台,退一步讲也有服务和咨询,这个都比单单卖软件有效益。这里还有个变量,BB是个VC支撑的上市公司,之前收购ANGEL Learning还没有回本,这样一次次的大规模收购但没有收益,VC和股东方面能乐意吗?至于BB能否收购HQ则是个相当私人的问题,Moodle的创始人是个非常「理想主义」的人,一直以来不考虑VC和融资,这么多年来孜孜不倦于产品开发,而不是商业模式的发展,他不太可能会跟BB合作。

    另一方面,软件行业变化太快,现在的绝对主流是Moodle和BB,但很难讲三年会如何,e-learning行业这么多年来只有“微创新”,还没有改变传统的师生交流渠道,俗话说船大难掉头,像BB和Moodle这样的产品倒是做成巨无霸了,但无法对环境的变化灵活响应,无法及时应对互联网环境的新需求。或许用不了几年,就会有更出色的产品颠覆掉这个产业,iTunesU就是个不错的开始(从内容方面讲)。

  • 发表评论

    电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注


    *