Ajay Rayasam, Flexpress CEO, gives his perspective on the dispute between WPEngine, Automattic, and WordPress, and what it means for the open source web.
If you haven’t been paying attention, over the past few weeks, WPEngine and Automattic have engaged in a fairly public dispute regarding WPEngine’s use of WordPress’ open source nature and contribution (or lack thereof) back to the community. High-traffic website The Verge has a running chronology of key developments in the dispute that can quickly bring you up to speed.
I'm going to start by saying that we at Flexpress have personally known members of WPEngine and Automattic for years. We are also part of the extended WordPress ecosystem; the Flexpress CMS is built on a WordPress backend. For those looking to process this debate — and what it might mean for your companies — I thought I'd add my thoughts given the impact on all of us in the broader WordPress community. Here are my three most important takeaways:
While my team and I at Flexpress are sensitive to both sides of the story/debate, I want to be absolutely clear to anyone who is currently using either of these services: neither you nor your company is in any imminent threat because of this feud.
If you are in charge of your company's infrastructure and you take this as a sign to explore other options, that is completely within your right. But these companies are mature, have strong business models, have been around for ages, and remain great products for many small to medium-sized businesses. It’s very unlikely that this dispute would actually threaten any company’s day-to-day operations.
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't specifically comment on an organization’s or an individual's obligation to contribute to an open source project such as WordPress. I also cannot give legal advice.
What I can say: insisting that a company (e.g. WPEngine) is somehow taking advantage of the WordPress brand and not subjectively reciprocating value to the community, implies that many other companies built on open source platforms, such as Red Hat and mongoDB, should fall under the same scrutiny.
Red Hat: Primarily known for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Red Hat provides enterprise-level software solutions built on open-source technology. Red Hat is a key player in the development of open-source operating systems and cloud infrastructure.
MongoDB: MongoDB is a NoSQL database management platform, also open-source at its core, allowing developers to build applications with greater flexibility in handling and storing data, especially for modern, cloud-based architectures.
Implications of being open-source:
No one would ever mistake me for Raymond Babbitt, but if I were to predict the future, here's what I would say: Situations like these commonly publicize companies’ weaknesses — when weaknesses are made apparent, the market will ultimately respond with new offerings that cover those weaknesses.
This expands options for buyers as the marketplace becomes further stratified. With expanding options, legacy business models will have to adapt their value proposition or decrease price in order to remain competitive, while smaller and newer players (like Flexpress) will have to battle with capital constraints to displace those legacies by taking advantage of demand gaps.
Ultimately, these things operate in the cycle where the marketplace eventually contracts as future consolidation occurs. No one can see the future, but generally more options for buyers is better—just as more nuances in companies' value propositions means a better fit between buyer and vendor.
So, for what it's worth, even though at times public disputes can be concerning, petty, or unnecessary, the result may be better for the customer — which is the one thing that we should all be concerned about first.
