The Fundamental Reason

The first and main reason to choose open-source systems and tools for IoT projects is the same as for all other categories of software production:

The Open Source model does not oppose the intrinsic attributes and values of software; on the contrary, it feeds off them and enhances them.

• By its nature, software can be easily reproduced and distributed.
• By its nature, software can be known, studied, understood, and audited.
• By its nature, software can be modified, corrected, and updated.
• Also, by its nature, software lends itself to prolific exponential evolution, where each new creation reuses previous components.

The Open Source model takes advantage of all these software attributes and does not waste effort, time, energy, or money that proprietary software models demand to oppose them.

These wasted efforts, time, and energy in fighting the natural attributes of software not only add no value to the final product but often the mechanisms implemented to hide the principles of operation or attempt to create captive markets complicate it far beyond necessity, making it unstable and more prone to bugs, vulnerabilities, and failures.

In the particular case of IoT, where control or supervision of machines, vehicles, and security devices such as cameras or alarms is involved, incidents and failures due to hidden software flaws, whether intentional or not, acquire much greater significance than in conventional administrative software. Transparency and the ability to know, understand, and audit the components of an IoT architecture and how, with what, or whom they connect are vital.

Sustainability

Both software production models face significant sustainability challenges:

• On the one hand, the proprietary model is at a clear disadvantage compared to the Open Source model, as explained earlier, due to the very nature of software. It is not the same to work with the natural order of things as it is to work against it.
• On the other hand, the Open Source model faces the issue of monetization, which also threatens project sustainability. How do developers of a software product earn money and sustain their businesses if they don't charge usage licenses?

Once again, we believe the balance tilts toward the sustainability of the Open Source model. By insisting on a software licensing monetization model that ultimately relies on hindering free dissemination, knowledge, trust, and use of the product through legal or factual means, the manufacturer neglects the search for compensation methods that are more in line with the intrinsic nature of software and technological evolution. Let's remember what happened to Blockbuster.

Meanwhile, companies founded on the Open Source model have developed monetization forms such as paid technical support or consulting services, freemium models, Software as a Service (SaaS), services paid for through microtransactions, and other mechanisms that essentially consist of charging for a concrete service or value the user receives from the software product.

Thus, focusing on IoT, creators of an excellent Open Source product for automation like Node-RED offer FlowFuse, a paid SaaS service to manage multiple instances of that software with high availability options and a number of additional features, such as AI-assisted development. Another great example is the fabulous Open Source home automation project: Home Assistant, whose creators monetize through the subscription service Nabu Casa, which offers remote home connection and interface with voice assistants like Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Model Concerning IoT

Key aspects to consider:

• Flexibility and Customization
• Costs
• Security
• Innovation and Evolution
• Integration and Compatibility

Flexibility and Customization

Open Source

• Pros:
  • Ability to modify and customize the source code according to the specific needs of the project.
  • Large developer community that continuously contributes improvements and updates.
• Cons:
  • May be more difficult to implement and maintain without qualified support.

Proprietary

• Pros:
  • Generally offers pre-packaged solutions with paid technical support from the manufacturer.
• Cons:
  • Limited ability to customize or modify the software.
  • Dependent on updates and decisions from the provider.
  • Lack of transparency and implementation documentation.

Costs

Open Source

• Pros:
  • No licensing costs. Significant reduction of the initial cost.
  • Ability to reuse and share solutions created by the community.
• Cons:
  • Possible costs related to training and hiring experts.

Proprietary

• Pros:
  • Although typically higher, costs may be more predictable and planned for the long term.
• Cons:
  • Expensive licenses, especially for large deployments.
  • Additional costs for advanced features, updates, or integrations.
  • Risk of being locked into the provider's prices and decisions.

Security

Open Source

• Pros:
  • Transparency in the code, allowing community audits and security reviews.
  • Rapid detection and correction of vulnerabilities due to continuous open review by the community.
  • Regarding IoT and Industrial IoT (IIoT), security and transparency are crucial.
• Cons:
  • There are no real disadvantages in terms of security with the Open Source model.

Proprietary

• Pros:
  • Depending on the manufacturer, it may include advanced security measures developed and maintained by dedicated experts. But it requires trust in the provider.
  • Clear and determined responsibility of the provider over system security.
• Cons:
  • Less transparency, making independent security evaluation difficult or impossible.
  • Risk of vulnerabilities not disclosed by the manufacturer that could be exploited.

Innovation and Evolution

Open Source

• Pros:
  • Evolves exponentially thanks to open collaboration and contributions from a global community.
  • Incorporates the latest trends and emerging technologies.
• Cons:
  • In the evolution of Open Source projects, sometimes the code splits into different branches, creating new competing projects. Some see this as an issue, but we believe it is a positive phenomenon that produces good results.

Proprietary

• Pros:
  • The provider has control over the roadmap and ensures a coherent, planned evolution. Some may see this as an advantage.
• Cons:
  • Much less incentive to quickly incorporate the latest innovations.
  • Dependence on the provider's vision, which may not pay enough attention to user needs.

Integration and Compatibility

Open Source

• Pros:
  • Greater interoperability with other systems and platforms due to the use of open protocols and standards. In IoT, interoperability and compatibility with open protocols and standards are crucial.
  • Easy integration with other Open Source projects and tools.
  • Not locked into the manufacturer's ecosystem or price list.
• Cons:
  • If already dependent on other closed systems, it may be more challenging to integrate them when those systems do not use established open protocols and standards.

Proprietary

• Advantages:
  • If already dependent on other products from the same provider, integration may be easier.
• Cons:
  • Less flexibility to integrate with third-party or Open Source solutions.
  • Vendor lock-in, limiting future technology choices.

Conclusion:

Open Source leverages the intrinsic characteristics of software, such as ease of reproduction, modification, and distribution. It does not face the limitations of proprietary software, which often makes it more complicated, unstable, and prone to failures. In IoT, where transparency is vital, these failures can be critical.

Both models face challenges. The proprietary model is at a disadvantage by fighting against the nature of software, while the Open Source model, though it faces monetization issues, finds viable solutions like SaaS, subscriptions, and paid services, which align well with the nature of software.

The Open Source model facilitates customization but requires expert support, while the proprietary model offers standard solutions but with limited customization.

The Open Source model doesn't involve licensing fees, though there may be costs for support, subscriptions, or SaaS services that are directly related to concrete benefits for the user, while the proprietary model involves high costs that are less clear in terms of value and carry the risk of vendor lock-in.

In security, the Open Source model clearly offers greater transparency and auditability, while the proprietary model requires trust in the provider's closed security system.

Finally, the Open Source model ensures rapid evolution thanks to a community that stays at the cutting edge of technology, while the proprietary model tends to be slower and more dependent on the provider.

For these reasons, we prefer Open Source for IoT projects.