Talking guardedly about being open

Google senior vp of product management Jonathan Rosenberg writes four thousand words about the pros and cons of open and closed systems:

...eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo.

Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don't have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won't. (The Meaning of Open)

Of course, there is open and there is open. Take openness at upFront.eZine and WorldCAD Access. Both of these publications take data from a variety of sources, repurpose it, distribute it, and somehow make money from the process.

The entire process is open: everyone has the same access to most of the data as we do (press releases, financial conference calls, and so on), everyone has access to free blog hosting and email distribution, but not everyone wants to.

That's the parts that remain proprietary: desire and ability. The desire to research and write up topics that concern the CAD community, and the ability to process the information, turning it into something valuable enough to profit from.

Comments

[Sid]

Ha! Could not agree more. Plus you cant have your left hand as Open, and right hand as Proprietory.

I read upFront.eZine and WorldCAD Access for a couple of more reasons :-

1. Honest Opinion
2. Neutralilty
3. Selectiveness

You can be open or closed, as long as you deliver something of value to the end user, without taking them for a ride, you will be liked! (And perhaps, more important to you, make some money as well)