Is this overly reductive? My understanding is that ARPAnet started as what most would call a “closed” platform, and it later became the underpinnings of modern internet.
Discussion
Seems as though things take off regardless of whether they’re open/closed if there’s good product market fit.
Open/Closed seems to matter more in terms of whether platforms can achieve/maintain scale, but even then it seems like it’s a required attribute. See examples of wildly successful closed platforms: Apple, Facebook, Twitter
A lot of “open platforms” seem like they’re putting the cart before the horse.
Sure if strong PMF sudden appears by chance for an open platform, it will be more likely to catch the wave and be successful. But it’s also in just as likely that the PMF never materializes
Good Q.
People can choose to build closed source tools, distribute them organically and incrementally improve.
Perhaps a better way to frame it would be to have a word that summarizes the following: fiat VC funded obscure growth demons from hell that scrape everyone's personal data to sell to the highest bidder and create honeypots for hackers and governments while actively trying to lobby said governments to crush their competition and create monopolies for them, which compromises their integrity and ensures they become more powerful, hellish and evil.
I guess it's easier to say closed source.
Open source helps prevent the evil loop from occuring.
Of course it's overly reductive. This is a short note, not a book.
The point is that closed for-profit entities eventually die. Open protocols have the chance of immortality.