Openness. The new buzzword of the quarter, it stands for the breaking of barriers and flattening of social, political and economic landscapes across the world. I just spent an hour driving out of the city back home to Connecticut, listening to Jeff Jarvis apply openness (or “Googliness,” as he so aptly coins it in his book, “What Would Google Do“) to the auto industry, airlines, and even toilet paper, and wondered if he’s right…is everything going to “open up”?
This is a strange question, because as much as the word is tossed around, there hasn’t been a whole lot of application—of course the exception being the Web, where the term was invented. I understand that open doesn’t truly mean OPEN—but a step in a more collaborative direction–but come on, isn’t there still a need for some privacy, some sense of pure ownership? I can’t help but think about my own sense of ownership, and how as much as I love sharing with all of you my thoughts, ideas, links, youtube videos and yes, even my travel experiences, there are some things I enjoy owning all by myself. Of course, I don’t mean strictly getting credit where its due (though it doesn’t hurt…), but actually controlling all elements of a thing, be it a poem, a drawing, an inherited watch even. Those might not be good examples (especially the latter, I’ll elaborate on that in a second), but sometimes personal just means personal, and that’s that. I know, I know, you don’t have to share EVERYTHING, I’m allowed to keep some things to myself, there’s no rule enforcing me to open up my diary to the world (in fact, that would be the opposite of openness, as it wrenches control from the user). But with an entirely open world, I might feel pressured NOT to share something, to keep that poem to myself. That already exists (and has existed) in some form: “oh you wrote a song? can I hear it? no?! why not?!!” But in that scenario, I can just say “no,” and be on my selfish way. But if I belonged to a community where sharing wasn’t only encouraged, but was in fact the norm, it would be peculiar for me NOT to share that very personal song, and I wouldn’t like that.
Now, on to watches. Patek Philippe is arguably the finest watchmaker in the world. Its slogan: “You never actually own a Patek Philippe; you merely take care of it for the next generation.” Its a touching tagline, and one that resonates with any son who’s ever inherited a family heirloom. However, the ownership I am discussing is not that of the father or the son, but the manufacturer. In his book, Jarvis discusses the possibility of an “open source Google-mobile,” in which the designs for the car would be open-source, that is, they would be released to the public for all to edit and improve upon. While his description of such a world was compelling, there are some industries I hope don’t get to that point. Watchmaking is one of them. A craft such as Patek’s is one so refined that any collaboration–however “helpful”–would no longer produce a Patek Philippe. Now, Pateks are not ubiquitous, they are very, very niche (probably because they are very, very expensive). So, to take a niche business and slice it up even more by opening its process and systems to the masses is…inefficient. And there are many industries like this…high-end guitars for one. I love Paul Reed Smith guitars, and even though I think a third pickup might make it sound better, the end result would cease to be a PRS, it would just be mine. And besides, I can take a stock PRS and modify it myself if I want. If I am industrious enough, I might even make a few of those customs, and sell them on eBay. But the product commands a premium because it is just that, a premium product. And I still think it best for those types of niche manufacturers to retain full ownership of their product and brand, for fear of losing that unique touch.
So is openness good? Of course. Am I just scarred of the implications of a fully open web? Perhaps. But I think that in our rapid quest to transform tired business and social models into “digital” ones, we should be careful not to overstep the bounds of propriety. Some things are just better left closed.
0 Responses to “What we give up when we open up EVERYTHING”