Open vs Closed

There is a LOT of hype about businesses being “open” right now.  This, of course is due to the huge success of open-api companies like twitter, facebook, and many others who have gained users extraordinarily quickly by “opening up” their architecture and allowing the world to build features on top of them.

And I agree, it works.  It works to get other people to spend money to build your product for you.

It works to attract lots of users really quickly.

But, does it make money?  Isn’t it possible that “open” is simply an express lane to failure?

When I think about the OPEN success stories, they almost always have the same conversation surrounding them.  “Explosive growth in users”, “media sensation”, “raising another round”, “unsure of revenue stream”, “ad-based”, “potential buyout target”.

On the other hand, CLOSED companies seem to grow slower, but with an eye on profitability and revenue that it seems to me would be essential for long-term, stand alone success.

Apple is beloved for its ability to integrate its products, control design and dictate user experience.

RIMM, the maker of the blackberry, has some of the same benefits…and equally impressive profit margins.

CLOSED companies are more capable of controlling customer experience and can actually roll out new products/services that cost money without pissing off their explosively growing, but thrifty customer base.

I’d like this to just be the kickoff point for a discussion….so I’m not going to post any conclusion on which is better (I really don’t KNOW anyway and suspect it is likely a well-planned mixture of the two)

What say you?  Open vs closed?