Open vs. Proprietary Standards — The Reality Is More Complex Than It Seems
Last Updated on 26 May 2026 at 17:03
In the tech world, the term open is often touted as the ultimate solution for software standards. Advocates of open-source claim that openness leads to more competition, innovation, better interoperability, and freedom from proprietary lock-in. It sounds like a perfect scenario, right ?
Well, not exactly.
In reality, an “open” standard is not always the better option. Whether it’s created by a tech giant like Apple or Microsoft, or a community of “passionate” developers contributing for free, the underlying challenges with standards remain the same.
The key word here is “standard.” Whether it comes from a corporate giant or an open-source community, a standard is still a standard.
Table of Contents
The Overhyped Promise of Open Standards’ Interoperability
Let’s break down a few examples.
OpenDocument formats like .odt (for text), .ods (spreadsheets), and .odp (presentations), or even .mkv (Matroska video) and GIMP’s .xcf (an open-source equivalent to Photoshop), are often promoted as free, open alternatives to proprietary formats — those open formats have even ISO standards. But let’s be clear: interoperability with these formats is far from perfect. And that’s before we even get to issues around governance and processes.
If you’ve ever tried opening a .odt file in Microsoft Word, you know the hassle. You’ll spend more time fixing broken formatting than actually working. Importing complex data from .ods into Excel often results in a confusing mess. And if you’re sending a video presentation, you won’t use an open-source .mkv file — you’ll choose something that the recipient can open, like MP4, MOV (Apple’s QuickTime), or WMV (Windows Media Video).
In industries like marketing, FinTech, or private equity, where accuracy and speed matter, open standards often aren’t enough. No one has time to go back and forth fixing file compatibility issues. Those files end up in the trash, and the client moves on.
Open standards also bring along other, less obvious challenges.
After years of contributing to open-source communities like osCommerce and GIMP, I know firsthand how complex they can be. Here are a few more things to consider.
Open Standards: The Chaos Beneath the Surface
Open-source systems rely on multiple contributors, decentralized governance, and fragmented development with inconsistent quality.
In the end, you get buggy implementations, slow updates, and standards that are barely market-ready. It’s chaotic. Businesses or individual users have no leverage to demand fixes or get reliable support. They are left at the mercy of a volunteer community.
Companies run on deadlines, workflows, and measurable results—not on the goodwill of a few open-source volunteers.
Open formats might seem more “ethical,” but at the end of the day, businesses prioritize efficiency and performance, not ideals. Most companies rely on a mix of proprietary software, legacy systems, and custom tools — and maybe a few open-source tools for less critical tasks.
In practice, companies choose compatibility—even if it means paying for a proprietary license — over the theoretical ideal of full interoperability that open systems promise.
Both systems have pros and cons. The real question is not open-source or proprietary, but which one solves the problem most effectively.
Open Standards: Often Without Mass Adoption
Another issue is that most open standards don’t achieve the market adoption needed to succeed. Here are a few examples:
- Ogg Vorbis was abandoned in 2020 after it failed to replace MP3, despite better audio quality.
- OpenGL, even though its last stable release was in 2017, lost ground to DirectX due to stronger industry support and better integration.
- OpenDoc aimed to replace Microsoft Office’s proprietary formats but died off by the late 1990s due to complexity and poor integration, while .doc and .xls became the de facto standards.
- WebM, introduced by Google, never managed to overtake the widely-adopted H.264 standard.
These examples show businesses invest in functionality, scalability, and reliability — not just ideologies. In addition, market inertia is a powerful force. Once a standard is entrenched, it takes more than being “open” or “free” to displace it.
Meanwhile, IT consultants are often paid handsomely to implement these so-called “open” and “free” solutions. In reality, the final costs, risks, and maintenance needs often surpass those of proprietary solutions.
In tech, the theoretically better solution doesn’t always win — it’s the one that fits into existing workflows and user expectations more seamlessly.
Open-source advocates like to think things have changed radically, but they haven’t. Open standards still face plenty of hurdles to widespread adoption and open-source software, too, brings serious security risks.
Open-source software is inherently risky because it follows the priorities of volunteers. These volunteers could be anyone—even hackers installing many hidden backdoors. The code quality is hit-or-miss, updates are slow, and there’s no support. Look at any open-source forum full of consultants stuck with unsolvable problems.
That said, it’s not about dismissing open-source outright. It’s about making smart decisions—whether about open-source software or standards. Some open-source tools are great in capable hands, and some open standards have achieved strong market traction.
Open-Source Isn’t a Binary Choice — It’s Nuanced
Some tech insiders love to simplify things: open-source vs proprietary, free vs paid, Microsoft vs Linux. For some IT consultants, it’s “one is good, the other is bad.” But that’s a false dichotomy.
The debate isn’t as simple as it seems. It’s not about picking sides—it’s about choosing the right tools and standards for the job.
Most businesses don’t care whether their software or standards are open-source or proprietary; they just want the work done efficiently.
In reality, the choice is not ideological — it’s about your company’s needs and workflows. What’s the work process ? What are your operational constraints ? What level of support and maintenance can your team handle ? What are the usual market standards ? What’s the total cost, including implementation and maintenance ?
One key point that’s often overlooked with “open” software is that any additions or developments on top of it must also remain open. This “viral nature of licenses,” like GPL (General Public License), applies to modules, libraries, and sometimes even integrations. This can have significant commercial impacts, and contracts are king when it comes to legal disputes.
These are the questions that guide decision-making — not whether something is “open” or “proprietary”.
Too often, decision-makers are misinformed and influenced by buzzwords. They think they’re opting for flexibility and saving money, but they are betting their IT infrastructure on something they don’t fully understand. And when things go wrong, the consequences—especially on the security front — often hit the headlines, with plenty of blame to go around.
The uncomfortable truth is that the open vs. proprietary debate is much more nuanced than most people realize. It’s not about picking one side—it’s about navigating complexity. A binary “open-source vs. proprietary” mindset is dangerous because it stops being about the company’s needs and becomes an ideological argument. A consultant may prefer what works in practice, but imposing one solution as “the best” crosses the line into salesmanship, not consulting.
True IT strategy is knowing when and how to use each type of software and standard effectively.
As we look ahead, open-source software is starting to feel outdated and unable to keep up with market evolution. These software models are falling behind, and, surprisingly, some governments and municipalities in Switzerland are still pushing for such implementations in 2024. The market is shifting, and even Microsoft has embraced standards like .docx based on open .xml. The future points to open standards that offer real-world interoperability.
With cloud/SaaS and AI advancing, the need for open-source software will fade — businesses will create their own scalable tools instead of looking for existing options.
In a few years, open-source software may no longer hold significant demand or influence over the market. Companies will develop their scalable tools internally. Integration across systems will rely on so-called “open” standards, and businesses must gear their IT strategy in this direction.
█ Related governance and execution context
- Framework context: Debbaut.Solutions The Execution Framework™ — how strategic choices become operational systems, governance rules, and sustained execution capability.
- Service context: Operational Restructuring Consulting — when technical standards, vendor dependencies, and operating-model choices create execution risk.
- Proof layer: Strategic Execution & Transformation Portfolio — field examples involving governance, technology, delivery, and organisational alignment.
Elena Debbaut is a strategic execution expert to boards and executive teams. She leads and advises on complex transformations when governance barriers, internal politics, or structural fragmentation prevent organizations from executing critical decisions.
Specialities:
• governance-constrained transformation
• operational restructuring
• strategic recovery & execution