If we look who is ahead of the curve in the hottest digital domain right now, artificial intelligence, we understand walled gardens are here to stay, even if they let a crack in the wall here and there for the curious.
In the case of AI models, the excuse is that training and operating these huge models require immense computing power and data, which generally only a few companies have access to. So despite understanding the risks of having their lives even more controlled by these companies than in the present days, people start using the next generation walled gardens.
"Walled gardens" have been around for a very long time, and their closed nature and with lots of tracking makes them easier to monetize whether through advertising or subscriptions or other services provided to the user base.
Image generated with AI.
"Open gardens", on the other hand, are not easy to maintain without proper funding. The interesting part is the walled gardens get the majority of the funding from potential investors because they bet they'll recover their investment with a high profit, and there are ways for them to exit and take profit.
"Open gardens" does not offer such guarantees to VCs, quite the opposite. That means "open gardens" need a different type of funding with a strategy not oriented on profit, rely on donations, or they need to become self-sustainable, which is probably not so easy for something... open.
You may think of the difference between an amusement park where you pay an entrance fee or a fee on access to different entertainment areas in the park, and an open park in your city, the kind that gets tended on by a city hall service or contractor, or/and by volunteers, and costs nothing to visit (but it costs to maintain).
I think they both have room in our future, but unless we change the way businesses work, walled gardens will continue to be much more profitable and more powerful than the open gardens, as much as I, personally, would prefer the reverse.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha