Spike SpikeSource


Web 2.0 is over! Good, I can go back to my early morning, caffeine fueled ranting. Today’s rant-a-special: you guessed it, SpikeSource. The blogsphere is fawning over Kim Polese and her marginal start-up, Spike Source. The company which made its debut at Web 2.0 for purely publicity purposes is nothing to really write home about. Compare to posts devoted to Spike Source, and Source Labs, another company which does precisely the same thing. Kim’s preaching to the audience said a lot of things, which are not new, and well basically don’t tell me a lick about this company’s business model. I have a few things I want to bring to your attention: there is no company in the open source space that is making a ton of money to justify VC dollars (at least if you use the illogical rules VCs use). Red Hat is a bit of a sink hole even now. Testing etc is good idea, but a business to justify KP dollars, I don’t think so. And as for Kim, well if you remember Marimba – good idea, over hyped and in the end a bit of a day old Coke can. Spike Source, ditto! Here is a software guy’s take on all this hoopla. Read this and see why this is not such a great idea after all!

Note: Agree with Fred on giving Microsoft the shaft. Not because it is not a great cash machine anymore… which it is… but because it doesn’t have the attention of the developers as it used to have.


Shishir Garg

My comment is about spikedsource (rather than developer attention). I disagree with Om’s initial comments with regards to the viability/need for open source for the enterprise.

A lot of large enterprise IT departments are keen to leverage open source, and are wary of doing anything using open source without support contracts being in place.

Large companies with the size are able to simply keep an inhouse team that does a similar “certification” of selected open source technologies for use within the enterprise. These groups provide that requisite level of support.

Spikesource to me has a viable model in enabling this very model to be more accessible/available. As for open-source developers feeling cheated, it will depend on the attitude Kim & co. take (hopefully unlike Fleury’s attitude).

The fact that they don’t tell you their business model while outlining the problem shows the amount of opportunities that exist in this space.

PS: Finally, please go and re-read that link you pointed to, and there is an updated post that shows why exactly this IS a good idea after all….


Biggest issue I’ve heard of from MS people isn’t the open source taking all the developers – it’s that they have this problem of trying to push and sell current MS tools and platforms while getting the developers ready for Longhorn which looks to be 2 years out….that has created confusion in the MS base that will take time to work out – but MS is pretty much the undisputed leader in marketing to the developer community.


i think more than anything developer attention is a big issue right now. most of the people i normally call sources have told me that it is such a nightmare because it is percieved that open source is where all the excitement is. and these are folks within the company


SpikeSource is just more Valley noise – what a snooze. Marimba was a joke. Is it just me, or is all the recent fawning over these small businesses and the weekly rise in new internet search engines just a return to 1998-99?

As for whether or not MS has the developers attention – I just don’t believe that…it’s just that they aren’t the loudest or the most flashy…but attend a MS developer conference sometime and see how big the MS network is….

Comments are closed.