Nostr Web Client

Let's imagine 2 projects. Two innovations that benefits the world greatly.

The first decides to go open source. The project is taken by others, they make it scaleand reducethe cost. The profits are shared between many entities instead of being concentrated among project founders. The product become widely available at a cheap price.

The second one decides to stay close source. The costs remains high and the profits all kept by the founders. Those who had the expertise to innovate. They use those profits to put their expertise at work and work towards more innovation.

From a utilitarian perspective, which one is better?

nostr:nevent1qqs9h8lpawj7zg430rhzc74eun9p7fsercw5uklrrl8k6mag67d0q4gpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c33wcc8gen2wc6kz6rjxd3nyd3sdf685ertx4mngwrtwfjhyunwddnnsendvdhxxdtvwpnh26esw9jxzvp5v4ch5mfnd5ek20mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qv0tfjv5ahr3c260jtzdk5w48krerrnkg8fmcnc5lpguk0qda04eqxpqqqqqqz27394g

R 9mo ago

Probably no one can say up front but “better” will be decided by the user over time and the developers will be forced to choose whether or not to adjust. The beauty of a market is all the simultaneous experiments in search of the best way.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Leathermint 9mo ago

I mentioned "from an utilitarian perspective" because better here would mean the one that achieves more results. That make the world a better place for more people.

There's not really a fixed and firmed answer but many would immediate jump to open source because it would make the technological accessible to more people quicker. In many instances it might well be the best way to go but in many others it could be a high time preference approach when staying close source and spread more slowly to fund the expertise might be better.

R 9mo ago

Makes sense