I had an interesting chat yesterday with a guy that thinks about the Web probably as much as I do (or more).  The subject of the conversation was Open vs. Closed systems, a very prevalent discussion right now.

On the Web, there seems to be different universes forming with different fundamental laws governing them.  The most prominent of these “universes” being Apple’s media ecosystem, the Twitter-verse, and Facebook.  People enter these universes and interact differently with the Web and other users.

Defining Open and Closed is a bit of a discussion in itself, but I’d describe Twitter as being completely Open.  The Twitter API is like electricity; Twitter powers any piece of software that is designed to use it. But, it provides such a fundamental functionality, it can power many things (just as electricity delivers energy).

Apple maintains a high level of control over their system through their vertical integration from hardware, software/media, to distribution. They have certain rules for what can be done on their devices.  You manage and obtain shows, music, and apps through iTunes.  This is a closed system.

The major question posed during this conversation was, “How do Open and Closed systems affect innovation”?

Here’s my answer after this conversation (thanks to Brad for framing it within the context of evolutionary processes):

Early in their formation, closed systems produce the most innovation and value. With a closed system, if the designer gets it right, clearly defined rules and uses allow people to immediately build within the system and harness it.  If the system really gets it right (and I think Apple did), it will be the optimal system at that point in time. Consequently, Apple’s universe exploded very quickly.

Early in the development of open systems, people aren’t really sure exactly what it really is for and what it can do. Twitter started as a micro-blogging system with an open API (other programs could interact with it), so you could post short messages like, “I’m eating soup.”  However eventually people started doing very interesting things with this system, people started to figure out what it really was, Twitter developed more capabilities, and people started better understanding the laws of the Twitter-verse and how to operate within this universe.  Then Twitter suddenly had a trove of openly available data.  This further enhanced the platform.  The platform (Twitter) and the users co-evolved.  It took a long time for this to come about.

Intelligent design of closed systems is much faster at producing growth, and optimal in the short term.  Thus, closed systems can really hit the nail on the head and deliver in a short burst.  However, they suffer long-term risk. Apple has to get things right since they impose constraints. They don’t leave it to others to find their way.

Open Systems don’t have constraints, and the agents within can pursue whatever they desire within a loose set of fundamental laws. Open systems evolve and take longer.  But in the long term, evolutionary processes are very powerful.  In the beginning things are a mess, but once people start to get it, and since people can pursue whatever they desire, the activity grows explosively. Consequently, innovation comes about by sheer brute force of having so much activity.  And when selective pressures come along, something will stand.  There is less long-term risk.

You could think of a closed system as an arrow. If it’s on the mark, it’s beautiful and elegant. But if it’s off target, it produces nothing.  You better have someone skilled shooting the arrow.

Open systems however are more like a shotgun, once the powder is ignited (think of an old gun that takes a long time to load), it fires, and hurls a mess of small projectiles at the target.  It’ll hit something.  Although it’s not nearly as pretty or elegant, almost anyone could hit the target to some degree.

Not a perfect analogy, but it’s the best I could do in a limited amount of time.  It’s difficult without having two similar systems (Apple and Twitter do different things).  Here’s one that could provide a model: Encylopedia Britannica and Wikipedia.  Once Wikipedia got going, it blew encyclopedias out of the water.

Thoughts? Clarifications for me?

-Kevin
5.7.2010

Image via Wikipedia

The ideal form of governance is the absolute rule by what Plato referred to as the Philosopher King– an infinitely wise ruler that is capable of perceiving the world and making the best possible decision.  A state ruled by a Philosopher King is the most agile, efficient, and fair.

It’s also the most volatile.

If you’ve ever been a part of an organization, you know transitions in leadership are stressful and dangerous times.  There is no substitute for experience, but it’s always difficult to identify the correct combination of the right experience and the right frame of mind.  There is always risk that this isn’t the right person.  There is also a learning curve for every leader and consequent risk that they fuck up early on.

We’ve seen this volatility in the dictatorships history has seen.

Democracy shifts power to the people, away from one single ruler; all can play a role.  Democratic governments are more stable, less agile, slower, and tend towards average decision-making.

Governance is a huge part of any organization–particularly businesses.

~

Image via Wikipedia

People often complain about the maniacal control Steve Jobs has over it’s product ecosystem and company itself.  If Steve understands what Apple must do to deliver the best product and do the best work, this is optimal.  There might be headaches for developers, and I might have dropped calls, and Apple may have a weirdly secretive culture, but, if it delivers a product I want to use more than any other, that’s all that matters. If not, I can choose an alternative if I’d like.  (So long as the company doesn’t have monopoly power of course.)

However, Apple is taking on large amounts of long term risk by maintaining tight control over the ecosystem and by relying on the seeming absolute rule of Jobs and a culture of secrecy.  If they choose the wrong leader, if they get the user experience wrong for too long, if they fail to deliver, if secrecy gets in the way of a good workplace and communication, the constituents will rebel.

-Kevin
5.2.2010

But, there’s one thing that eBooks don’t do: they don’t visibly sit on a shelf.

Books aren’t just for reading.  They express something about us.  A book on our shelf represents something we see (or want to see) in ourselves.

They’re also like trophies.  You can’t walk into my house and see all the eBooks I’ve conquered.  You can’t appreciate the grandeur of an eBook library.

eBooks are much more cost effective way of publishing and distributing content.  But, I still think people will continue to buy physical books for a long time.  But, they’ll likely become more of a luxury good.

Today, Apple announced it’s new tablet device–the iPad. They also announced iBooks, the iPad’s application/platform for ebooks.  Interestingly enough, Apple was smart enough to try and replicate the feeling of a book sitting on a shelf.  The idea of putting eBooks on a shelf is much more provocative than adding them to a list of text.

-Kevin
1.27.2009