I have to make one more comment about this book and then I will give it up.
I have been listening to Friedman’s “The World is Flat” (again) for the past few days. Today, the topic happened to be open source software. In attempting to provide both pros and cons, Friedman describes a discussion with a Microsoft executive. In attempting to argue that open source development can be detrimental to the industry, the executive suggested that open source developers recreate what already exists, but do not put time into research and development required to move the industry forward. This argument also is advanced in the “Cult of the Amateur” .
When I read, I am immediately taken in by the author’s arguments. When I read multiple books on similar topics, I can feel like I am being bounced about like a ping pong ball. Most often, this is because competing positions end up focused on different strengths and weaknesses. It is not about being right or wrong. So, open source (amateur programmers, authors, etc.) projects tend to recycle work already done and in the process take revenue away from the individuals and companies generating the original products. When money gets tight, R&D is one of the first things to go.
First, do I believe this position is true. Do bloggers mostly comment about the work of commercial sources? I suppose – I am commenting about the work of two book authors. Of course, I would guess my comments would increase rather than decrease someone else’s willingness to buy these books. I have hardly provided enough information to replace a reading of the original sources. I suppose Open Office is a reworking and for some a replacement of Word. Is Linux a reworking of Windows? Apache may be the best example ending up as a replacement for several commercial server packages.
I think there are examples that work in the opposite direction. Mosaic (and then Netscape) were imitated by Microsoft in creating IE.
Are companies interested in innovation? I think companies are interested in innovation to the extent that innovation provides a competitive advantage. What bothers me more and more is that there seems to be less and less competition and fewer and fewer “players”. There are fewer textbook companies, companies developing computer operating systems, independent newspapers, major Internet destinations, etc. Companies drive out or assimilate the competition. It is difficult to accept that this is for the benefit of the consumer. Open source developers offer one source of competition.
If the options are open source approaches reducing revenue for developers and a limited number of dominant corporations minimizing competition and controlling the market, I think I come down on the side of open source.
One final point. I don’t see big companies as the only source of innovation. Researchers (and students) in colleges and universities contribute in a cost effective fashion to innovation. Mosaic and Google search came out of higher education and not corporate culture. University-based researchers have a different set of incentives than industry-supported researchers (when these organizations maintain independence) and this is a productive hedge for society.
Aha – I finally found a post related to Keen’s book – Weblogg-Ed – read some of the comments.
Blogged with Flock
