Open as a Concept Questioned
May 21, 2010
I read “Investor Dave McClure: Open Is for Losers” and was a bit surprised. I was thinking about RedHat, which seems to be doing okay. I also know that there are some open source search companies generating revenue and growing. These include Lucid Imagination and the lesser known Tesuji, run by a friend of mine. I also “debated” Charlie Hull at Lemur Consulting in December 2009, and he knocked down one of my arguments with his statement that Lemur Consulting doubled its revenue in a handful of months. I did what any addled goose would do. I ignored him and changed the argument to the lousy interfaces some search vendors push on their customers.
In the Mobile Beat write up, the argument was a reverse back flip. In short, the assertion that “open source is a positive” has been reversed so that “open source is bad.” Extending the argument, the closed methods of Apple and many other proprietary software vendors is the path that leads to the treasure chest filled with gold, diamonds, and iPads.
One presumes these are underachievers in this drunk tank. Source: http://mylalife.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/today-in-photos-dui-checks-communism-and-other-moments-in-l-a-history287875856.jpg
Here’s the key point: “Open is for losers”.
The argument continued in comments to the original write up (see no news here, gentle reader):
While I was being intentionally bombastic, I do believe some open standards foundations generate network effects & benefits for all… However, all things equal I believe the default case is that proprietary IP is useful to preserve some value for the IP creator, and thereby provide sustainability the company. Open standards are great once you get there, but the initial climb to get there can be long & expensive (for the climber), and when you get to the summit the benefits are usually for everyone. While that’s good for most everyone, the costs of climbing are usually borne by the climber alone…
What’s this tell the goose?
- Great link bait. I wish the goslings were this creative.
- Glittering generalities contain both truth and falsehood. Many folks under the age of 40 use this rhetorical method. Since few of these folks were the top performers on their college’s debate team, the notion of demographic and financial vectors deflecting traditional business models won’t make much sense. See, in this goose pond, there’s a reason open source exists and a reason for RedHat’s revenues.
- The quote is an interesting one. More of this ad hominen stuff seems to be coming each day. Dr. Johnson, come back!
My position is that “open” is just one of many possible business models. As Enterprise 1.0 companies bite the dust, maybe some of the Enterprise 2.0 outfits are trying a different angle. Neither good nor bad. Just adaptive like azure chip consultants desperate to keep their jobs.
Stephen E Arnold, May 21, 2010
Freebie.
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
