Thread by @swardley

X : You described open as a weapon, is that true?
Me : Yes, open approaches can be used to deliberately change markets in certain directions. It's an extremely powerful system if used correctly.
X : Correctly?
Me : Yes.

X : Details?
Me : Ok. Many think that by opening something up you will get free resources to work on your stuff.
X : Does that happen?
Me : No. That's just blathering execs going "open" probably because they read it in some equally mindless HBR / McKinsey / Biz school report.

Me : To effectively use open then you have to have reason (open by thinking), investment (resources and time) and passion (a true desire to make it happen and to lead others). The throw it out there, create a foundation and magic will happen is fairly delusional.

X : Lead others?
Me : Yes. Not in a bark commands sort of way but more opening doors for others to walk through. You have to manufacture conditions and constraints for the project to succeed.
X : And will it?
Me : Nothing is certain except you'll burn a lot of energy doing it.

X : So, lots of effort, lots of uncertainty but possibly a major effect?
Me : Lots of frustration as well and it won't happen quickly if it is going to be sustainable. But on the upside, you'll often meet truly wonderful people in your journey.

... of course, there's another simpler path. There always is.
X : Which is?
Me : Use it as a marketing tool, throw money at saying you're being open, hold a few big parties etc.
X : Does that work?
Me : As marketing? Sure. As a way of building a sustainable community? Lol.

X : Thoughts on OpenStack?
Me : Ha, I wondered how long it would take someone to ask. Gosh, even SUSE is closing down its efforts - techcrunch.com/2019/10/09/sus… ... look, there was a reason I called it a dead duck all those years ago. Bad choices were made and are still being made.

X : Bad choices?
Me : Unforced strategic errors. It's like today where the whole battle for the future is around serverless (has been for six years and it is almost over) and people are still trying to fight a battle around containers and container management.

... I'll just go back to that open by thinking, the reason why you are opening something. If you don't understand the landscape then you are just shooting in the dark and basically praying to hit it lucky.
X : The future is kubernetes.
Me : Whatever. Talk to me in a decade.

X : You seem to be saying that Amazon will just own it all?
Me : No. There is another path. If you want to see how the ideas behind openstack & kubernetes will combine with serverless to win back the future ... then you will need to go somewhere that plays long term. Try China.

X : Why not in the US?
Me : Most US tech giants (past tense) have already shown they lack even basic situational awareness and hence were caught out by highly predictable changes (i.e. cloud). Even fewer show any of the long term gameplay needed to reverse that position ...

... most common sort of response is the Oracle approach of appearing after the war is finished to declare you're going to win the war (which is already over) with some paltry amount of future investment. It's farcical. You need longer term strategic players. Think China, not US.

X : What about Amazon?
Me : Amazon is exceptional in terms of a US company that exhibits good situational awareness and long term thinking. If anyone is going to keep the US in a future tech race, it's Amazon. Assuming US doesn't force it to be split up for being too successful.

... so from a US national perspective, you would want to see Amazon succeed even more and for Amazon to go down a more open path i.e. to lead that future - which by the way it is starting to do. The challenge will come from China and open source will be used in its plays.

... the mantra of a bunch of former US tech giants with poor situational awareness and long term play creating an open source market to outperform Amazon which they in turn often want to see split up for being too large (successful) just hands the game to China. Bad play.

X : What about Facebook?
Me : Oh, you should split them up. That's just market failure and there is no national interest in keeping that mess together. In fact, it's worse because Facebook's core value seems to be create social value which is what Gov's core value is ...

... i.e. Facebook (whether intentional or not) seems to have put itself on a path to becoming a direct competitor to Gov - secret courts, free speech, currency etc etc. All it needs is a flag.

X : So don't split Amazon but do split Facebook?
Me : Yes. For reasons of long term national interest and market failure. But hey, we're talking the US here. They'll probably do exactly the opposite.

X : Are there no conditions in which you would break up Amazon?
Me : Once Bezos et al have left and some Biz school / consultant droids take over talking about "shareholder value as no.1 priority" ... then you should split it up rapidly. The national interest will be gone.

... Amazon serves the national interest through its ruthless focus on industrialisation which not only enables invention but forces the market to progress rather than spend time on rent extraction. This is why it will keep the US in the game with China ...

... at some future point, when a bunch of muppets take over and start talking rent extraction (i.e. maximise shareholder value) then you know that national interest is lost. Better to split it up at that point.

A better path would be for the US Gov to invest in real invention / R&D whilst supporting Amazon in its industrialisation of industry and encouraging the embedding of existing practices of Amazon permanently with a view to nationalise the entire structure at some later date ...

... however, that would require the US Gov to realise the market is a tool not some belief or reason for living and to take a much more China Gov strategic view towards the market. I can't see that happening in US politics.

X : You're not in favour of neoliberalism?
Me : Neoliberalism has a context where it is useful. It's just not a one size fits all. That's the problem, always has been. Markets work well in specific contexts, you need to use it as a tool.

The other complication is this particular feedback loop in the culture map ... in seems to create a distortion in both memory and behaviour ... it's too long to explain in a tweet but I suspect ...

... it's behind the distortion in economic viewpoint. It's another reason why I don't believe US policy makers are capable of playing the games needed against China. It's not that they're daft, quite the opposite. But they are institutionalised to a belief in the market.

... gosh, we've gone quite a way from just talking about open source. However, it's all related to situational awareness and context specific gameplay.