Open Sesame

bijan:

Companies have a choice when they decide to open up their network/product or keep it closed.

For a long time many companies were giving us the false choice, namely:

“Do you want an open system that may be prone to bugs, security risks, lack of incentives or a closed system that is polished and works reliably.”

We heard that false choice again and agin. Mainframes vs PC, walled garden vs open web, carriers and set top box manufacturers.

That is what Apple first asked when they shipped the first version of the iphone. Their answer at the time was basically “We are keeping this phone closed and that is for your own good”.

With the glorious arrival of the Apple App Store it’s now clear that open beats closed. All day long.

And that is true when it comes to networks, consumer electronics, and web services.

I was reading Techdirt earlier today and this quote from Prof Felton at Princeton struck a chord with me:

Generally, the closer a system is to being open, the more practical autonomy end users will have to control it, and the more easily unauthorized third-party apps can be built for it. An almost-open system must necessarily be built by starting with an open technical infrastructure and then trying to lock it down; but given the limits of real-world lockdown technologies, this means that customers will be able to jailbreak the system.

In short, nature abhors a functionality vacuum. Design your system to remove functionality, and users will find a way to restore that functionality. Like Apple, appliance vendors are better off leading this parade than trying to stop it.

That’s one reason that I’ve put my money where my mouth is….

:)

On the whole I agree with this post, but I’d like to point out something that I believe is at the heart of Jonathan Zittrain’s argument. There is no necessary “choice” between two alternatives. There is a balance that must be struck between open and closed. Even platforms that we might consider fully open require certain restrictions and standards to inhibit abuse and corruption. The choice is not between user friendly and corporate friendly - as far as the user is concerned it is between generative (conducive to innovation) and reliable (free from bugs, secure against attack). There is a healthy balance that we must locate, and this balance must be dynamic. With ever developing technology and ever fickle user preference, we must be aware that any balance must be flexible enough to adapt to both.

Apple was built on closed platforms. From OSX to iTunes to the iPod and now the iPhone, Apple has held their products together with a highly integrated and closed model - and these products work together (relatively) seamlessly. At the extreme, openness might sacrifice this seamlessness on behalf of opportunities for innovation. As the prowd owner of two iPods, an iPhone, and a Macbook Pro, I enjoy how effortlessly these products work together. My digital existence is easy to organize when one company controls how the pieces fit together, but on the other hand I recognize that without this move towards openness, I might never have benefited from the new applications on my iPhone. Apple still has a long way to go - the application delivery process needs to be much simpler and more accessible, but they are moving in the right direction. One can only hope that this trend, driven by competition and user frustration, continues, but not at the extreme cost of a loss in product integration and reliability.

This is the dilemma openness creates, and we must all work to find the right balance.