We know that the future is in open systems. Open systems are the weapon the underdog will use in beating closed systems. Open systems are disruptive.

That's why I root for open systems. And that's why almost everyone who is not an incumbent defending a closed system should root for open systems too.

But "open" is a deceptive term. Some people say Facebook is open because they opened their platform so that you can build an application on top of it.

Yes, they opened their platform. But that's not really the kind of open that benefits everyone.

Open is perhaps a misleading word. A better word might be interoperable. Systems that invest in interoperability are optimized for connectivity, and thus are optimized to allocate attention, and thus are optimized to leverage the edge.

Under certain definitions, you could say Facebook is open. But it's not interoperable.

And that's why, as Jason Kottke noted, it's a step backwards. It's like AOL, or like SecondLife.

That's why I dislike it so much, because if everyone buys into it it's going to delay progress. I feel like it's Steve Jobs and Apple all over again: brilliant and visionary? You bet. Something everyone else can learn from, especially those interested in network design? Yup. No doubt about that.

But economically, it's the wrong answer. Apple plays a great niche game, as does Facebook. But for it to be the operating system of the web it's going to have to embrace interoperability.

Think Microsoft. Think Google.

Don't think Apple.

Can Any Software As Services Player Beat Google at Interoperability?

I believe the software as services game is, to a large extent, over (I'm referring to the big game -- the Google game, the Microsoft game, not the niche game). It's a game where the economic system is won by an infrastructure player who can create the interoperability needed to turn the network into the operating system. Google was in the lead, although I do think it could've been disrupted by an infrastructure player that focused more on syndication. For this reason I viewed YouTube and Feedburner to be immensely promising.

Of course, Google acquired both those companies.

There is still a chance for a widget player to take the cake (that's you, Grazr), or for something like Ning to come in and be the interoperable social OS. Although I still think if either of them grows significantly and becomes a disruptive threat, Google will acquire them -- and it will be the economically correct thing to do, as it will create greater economies of scale, which is the primary economic concern for infrastructure players.

Desktop software interoperability could not get bigger than Microsoft. Software as services interoperability might not be able to get bigger than Google.

So what's after software as services that will take us to a new level of interoperability?

Two words: Open source.