20 Comments

Summary:

The launch of Facebook’s open graph protocol is fueling the debate over whether it is better to be open vs. closed. But the ultimate answer may be that it depends. Being open can benefit a company in some ways, while being closed is better in others.

The Open vs. Closed debate, which we’re covering as an ongoing series on the GigaOM Network, continues to bubble and boil around Facebook and the social networking site’s attempts to extend its “social graph” out into the broader web. Is this move by the company truly open, or is it a cynical attempt to co-opt the rest of the web and aggregate value for Facebook — or could it be both? That all depends on what the term “open” really means. Can a company or a service be partly open, or is it a binary thing? Can a service start out as mostly closed and then become open? And is it OK for a company to be open with some things and closed with others?

Chris Dixon, co-founder of Hunch, launched a project last week called Open Like, which he says is intended to jump-start an open standard for recommendations, as an alternative to Facebook’s open graph protocol. After a series of Twitter debates with Keith Rabois — VP of business development for Facebook app maker Slide — and startup investor and adviser Dave McClure about the benefits and meaning of the term “open,” Dixon tried to come up with an overview of the different ways in which companies and platforms can be open as well as the tradeoffs involved by using the following table from Harvard Business School professor Tom Eisenmann:

So, in other words, Windows is open for “demand-side” users and “supply-side” users (developers) but closed when it comes to design and intellectual property, meaning the look and the underlying code can’t be changed or used by anyone other than Microsoft. An open-source platform like Linux, of course, is open in every sense of the word. And while the iPhone is open for users, it’s closed to developers and anyone who wants to change the platform. Even these definitions are open to debate, however: Dixon says that some see the iPhone as only partly closed to developers — a truly closed platform wouldn’t allow third-party apps at all, as most phones didn’t before the iPhone.

The point is that different services, companies and platforms can be open in some ways and closed in others. As Dixon described in a recent interview about the Open Like project, a company like Google is happy to be open when it comes to mobile operating systems or browsers — things that aren’t core to its business — but when it comes to the details of its search and advertising algorithms, not so much. This just makes economic sense, he says, and is known in economic terms as “commoditizing the complement.” In other words, companies benefit by being open with things that will help drive demand for their core product or service.

Being closed, Dixon argues, may make sense for a company such as Facebook or Twitter or Google, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for the industry as a whole, or for society.

Chris Saad of DataPortability.org also took a crack at defining what “open” means, both in a post on his own blog and at the Data Portability site. What he calls “Torvalds open” works for software such as operating systems (Linus Torvalds is the founder of Linux) but doesn’t work as well for web-based products and services, because in those cases “the software itself has less value than the network effects and up-time provided by a branded, hosted experience.” Running Twitter as open source wouldn’t matter, he argues, because “Twitter’s lock-in is not their software, but rather their name space (@chrissaad) and their developer ecosystem.”

As for Facebook and its new features, Saad says that “when Mark Zuckerberg talks about open, he is not talking about technology. He is talking about human interactions.” He add that:

[Facebook has] gone to great lengths to redefine the word Open to mean the way people interact with each other. In doing so, they have managed to, in large part, co-opt the word and claim their platform makes people ‘more open’.

Saad says that his view of what open should mean is “interoperable and distributed.” Twitter wouldn’t meet this definition, he says, because while it has an open API, it controls the “namespace” (i.e., user names such as @chrissaad), limiting what you can do with the API and when, as well as charging for access.

Open advocate David Recordon, who is now working at Facebook, has also written about his view (and presumably Facebook’s view) of what is open about the new services and features the site has launched, including the fact that the open graph protocol is licensed under Open Web Foundation standards. His blog post came in response to comments from Chris Messina — another prominent open advocate who now works at Google — about how the company’s “open” protocol and API weren’t really open. The bottom line, Messina said, is:

[I]t’s dishonest to think that the Facebook Open Graph Protocol benefits anyone more than Facebook — as it exists in its current incarnation, with Facebook accounts as the only valid participants.

And so the open vs. closed debate continues. Who is the most open? Who is open where it really matters, as opposed to just being open where it’s convenient or low-risk? Who can convince users, developers and — most importantly — advertisers and other businesses to join their open or closed platform? More than anything, this appears to be shaping up as a battle between Google (which published an “open manifesto” late last year) and Facebook over who can out-open the other. All we can hope is that users will ultimately benefit.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

There’s No Stopping Facebook

Post image courtesy of Flickr user Tony Duarte

  1. Nitin borwankar Monday, April 26, 2010

    I am announcing the creation of the Open Open Foundation, the definition of Open is wide open. Participants compete to provide more and more nuanced and meaningless definitions of Open to justify and rationalize their closed or proprietariness. All the while participants go to great lengths to claim that their definition of Open is actually == some definition of “Good”. For examples see http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23openopenfoundation and please contribute and use the hash tag #openopenfoundation so everyone else can see your definition of open.
    The prize for the best definition of open will be an open can of soda sitting next to an open window.

    1. Great idea, Nitin :-)

    2. ha- I’m starting the Open OPEN Open Foundation. It will be more open than anything seen to date. If someone comes up with a better name I’ll give them a furball my cat coughed up. It looks like the Virgin Mary!

  2. Dave McClure is not just a start-up investor. He’s a Facebook centric fanboy and has an entire investment pool dedicated to FB apps etc. So I think it’s important to note his stance that he’s about as far from unbiased as one could possibly get.

  3. Isn’t the whole thing soooo last 2 decades? I think the 21st Century is more about ownership. As long as I’m the owner of my data, I don’t care to much if it’s on proprietary System or an open system. If I’m the owner I could take it and run with it, if I then so choose.

    Linux is not open (to new ideas)ever tried to get something advanced into the official kernel? Now they wonder why the good old boys club gets old, I wonder why. But all my data belong to me. Same with Microsoft difference is in the ownership of the source code, Apple kinda( who owns the iTunes data of what I purchased ?) … Is science open? Or is it a battle against old assumption and reputations most of the time? There again, science is about ownership (of the idea, data) and goes to great length to keep it that way, still the good old boys clubs exist.

    These guys have to make into the 21st century.

  4. You could argue that the demand side/user cell in the little open/closed chart should be CLOSED for the iPhone.
    After all, it’s locked to AT&T users only.
    It’s not open to any service like Android.

    1. Yes, Chris Dixon made the same point in his post. Thanks for the comment, Max.

    2. You could also argue that you need to get out of the United States more often.

      Apple has multiple relationships in other regions, such as the UK or Italy. And it’s possibly to get unlocked iPhones outside the US as well.

  5. Ning Network, Open Source and Hagel | Keeping It Real Monday, April 26, 2010

    [...] Open vs. Closed: What Does Open Really Mean? on the Gigaom blog gives in depth definition to the “open” vs “closed” [...]

  6. Brett GlassA Monday, April 26, 2010

    Actually, Linux is not “open,” because it comes with an onerous license that severely restricts what developers can do with it. BSD, on the other hand, is truly “open.”

  7. vinaykakade.com » Facebook ‘Like’ Buttons – Beginning of a New Era in Search? Monday, April 26, 2010

    [...] ‘Like’ buttons and much has been written about them on the blogospehere – e.g., whether they are really “open”, the OpenLike movement and the how they are changing the way we use the [...]

  8. Phil Hendrix, Ph.D. Monday, April 26, 2010

    I think it’s useful to think of Open Source not just in the context of software but more broadly how companies (attempt to) deploy their own scarce resources (including IP) and those of others with whom they do business. The principles that distinguish OS – transparency, community participation and collaboration – describe how companies deal with a number of constituents, or communities in the vernacular of OS: developers in software (suppliers in more conventional businesses), R&D partners (think open innovation), customers (customer co-production) and even competitors (e.g., coopetition).

    Mårten Mickos, former CEO of MySQL and now CEO of Eucalyptus Systems, gave a great presentation at PARC earlier this month. He argued that OS is a much smarter and more efficient way to produce and distribute goods (especially software) because it leverages “collective intelligence,” which is a common thread though all of the above instances. He also acknowledged that OS is “not a business model,” echoing a theme of the 451 Group. Micko’s presentation can be viewed online at http://bit.ly/deTNdD.

    Interestingly, varying degrees of openness are also appearing in cloud computing platforms, which vary in terms of APIs, data formats, software, and data itself. See http://bit.ly/b3kdeW.

    1. Good points, Phil. Thanks for the comment.

  9. Dear Facebook, I have noticed that the “apps” and “games” list is gone from Facebook, that is, it’s not gone, but the link to the list is gone, so most users won’t find it. I’m not sure why you would delete a perfect fine feature like that, but for indie developers (which can’t afford to spend much on adds) this is catastrophic. It basically means that only big studios like Zynga & co will have any exposure and the only games that will get promoted are the ones that sell virtual goods. This is also bad for those players that like to browse for games which don’t necessarily have a great business plan and venture capital backing, but are just for fun. So please Facebook, for us indies, put a link to the apps page again (www.facebook.com/apps). Thanks !

  10. Reputation Defender : Reputation Management, Internet Privacy, and Social Media Quick Hits Tuesday, April 27, 2010

    [...] Understanding Open vs. Closed Online [...]

Comments have been disabled for this post