This could be simplified: A company needs something that cannot be dublicated using a significant effort. A company that releases their source code to the public really _has_ to build up some knowledge in their domain (because the public source can be easily dublicated), while another closed source company gets away with just selling their product.
Bit of a tangent, but I think most closed source products are pretty easy to copy. What can't be copied is the headstart. If they keep on advancing, they'll retain it. And if customers want those advances - not overshooting - then they'll win most sales. (Though your point still stands, because open source gives away the headstart.)
You can interpret "get's away with" as "makes better business sense". On a slight tangent - in the infosec space those with closed source products (e.g. WAF's) laugh at those with open source products when it comes to the numbers of embarrassing and business-damaging zero-days reported.
Closed source rocks if you're a capitalist. Those who sell closed source love that open sourcers are so distracted by singing-it from the mountain.
~From a guy who runs a not-that-small open source biz.
> in the infosec space those with closed source products (e.g. WAF's) laugh at those with open source products when it comes to the numbers of embarrassing and business-damaging zero-days reported.
Because no one reports theirs? It's not a good reason to laugh if you think of it.
> in the infosec space those with closed source products (e.g. WAF's) laugh at those with open source products
I would imagine open source has more reported zero days because, well, the source is open and auditable.
I do see a lot more closed source in the info/app sec space, but I suppose if you know that space well enough, the source code is just a bonus to seeing how the program works, not a requirement.
Note: since you wrote it twice incorrectly, the word is spelled 'duplicate'. 'Dublicate' could be an interesting word since it resembles double, but it doesn't exist yet.
