Why is everyone in the tech industry claiming they are ‘open’, and their competitors aren’t?  Is this merely a war of buzzwords and PR?  Or is building proprietary products on top of open technology, while simultaneously contributing to complementary and competitive open products, the new tech strategy?

In my ‘return from sabbatical’ talk at USF, I argued that this use of open tech is the new normal.  I also argued that the most useful definition of ‘open’ is as the breakdown of the producer/consumer divide, in order to avoid the losses that come with turning technology into a product (along with my new awkward term:  ‘productization losses’).  While open approaches clearly break down hierarchical firm model of production, by allowing potential contributions from anywhere, open approaches just as radically break down the market model of consumption, by loosening exclusive ownership rights and allowing others to build upon the community’s work.  Open approaches are strange and interesting because so much business theory is based on the obvious divide between producer and consumer, hierarchy and market.  And because so much business practice is based on the assumption that going-to-market with a product is the obvious goal (or, as we say these days, the ‘business model’).

I include my slides on “The Future of Open:  Platforms, Opportunity, and Progress” for completeness, but they are more supplementary visuals than a stand-alone argument.  Contact me directly for further enlightenment.