you are not reading this properly. I believe in open, so thats not what this post is about, open wins and thats why small companies can disrupt large companies, but closed is just reality for profits….exxon, google (fake open), microsoft, Goldman sachs….the long term trend has been open for 1000 years, but open enough is how you survive after the first few. it sucks, but its reality.

I will get back at your answer in a bit.

but as a spiritual man of the openness cloth let me dispell your blasphemous remarks about my religion.

first if what you are saying is true in that companies are only as open as they need to be, than what you are saying is that openness is a cost. if this were true the real winning innovations would be those that minimized how open a company needed to be. if the environment were really like this, then we would see a trend towards greater closedness. instead we see a trend towards greater openness. the key is to monetize openness, the way this is done is by being an intermediary and intermediating transactions. google is the poster child of this. or craigslist. you pull everyone in, you do some matchmaking, you intermediate the transaction. now we just need to make this better, so we go niche, and we filter. c'mon man you know this game, you literally wrote a book on it, why you gotta be dissing it now, that ain't right howard.