I'd say that it didn't really happen that way. What happened was that they would be interoperable initially, the other clients would get neglected as the dominant client vacuumed up half of the business, then when the dominant client reached a certain size, it would close. The neglected clients wouldn't be able to pick up the people resentful that the dominant client closed because of their fewer features, more difficult (and less opinionated) UI, and the loss of half of the user network. Attrition happens among the holdouts, they switch to the dominant client, and development that was once slow on the other clients stops dead. Then the dominant client starts asking for your firstborn and gets contracts with the CIA.
I'd submit that it's the closing that's the problem, not the openness. Openness tends to support a power law distribution of clients. One or two will dominate, but there will be a dozen that are significant.
The problem is that the open protocols which were initially used by the dominant client to achieve its dominance later became closed when they "seamlessly" forced their users onto a closed protocol. OSS licenses solve the open code issue to varying degrees but has largely fell flat on the issue of open protocols. So if coopting IP-law (aka OSS licenses) is the wrong approach, what is the correct tool to address this problem? Would other legal concepts like like contracts help? Something else?
100% agree. I also observed that some time ago, many platforms would use interoperability as a growth tools (ex: Facebook with 3rd party apps/games, Google with the 3rd party cookies, Apple with iOS APIs) and then, when they reach critical mass, they would close down and become closed gardens.
Watching all the preparations for the Open Banking regulations here in Brazil (still not in place fully). The concept is sound, as the data belongs to the user, not the bank/platforms, so banks/platforms should enable this data to freely flow (on the user command) to other platforms.
I think forced interoperability might have a good effect on that world, and also it seems to foster innovation by lowering the barriers of entry but I don't really know the effects on investment and VC money when you eliminate an effective competitive barrier.
Open wouldn't hurt, but I'd submit that price, specifically "free", is the bigger problem. It doesn't really matter which platform is dominant when they're all advertisement driven.
If our data became worthless, because of say, regulation on its use and a right to be forgotten, then we'd see more than just "one business model under different names".
I'd submit that it's the closing that's the problem, not the openness. Openness tends to support a power law distribution of clients. One or two will dominate, but there will be a dozen that are significant.