Let's see if I can rephrase this: A company that is unable to generate a profit long-term has proven incapable of creating value for all stakeholders. So a company may be able to sell a product with a margin, but if that margin is not enough to compensate labor, landlords, supply chain, shareholders, etc; the the net value creation is negative. So a company that is not generating a profit is not creating value, but one cannot measure the amount of value created by just measuring profit.
Open Source: I think that the incentives and economics of open source get pretty complex. There are multiple reasons for a company to open source their code, but I think it's pretty safe to say that companies are not in the habit of open sourcing valuable trade secrets. Two ways a company can realize more value by open sourcing are 1) utilize "unpaid" labor (contributors are not paid by the company, but presumably are compensated through some other means) and 2) recruitment and PR boost (by open sourcing projects, the company has improved reputation giving it leverage in hiring and other practices). So, to answer your question, open sourcing code restructures the value calculation. Presumably, an open source project that provides no value is an orphaned project.
Comcast is a beneficiary of monopoly provisions. In order to incentivize the creation of infrastructure, telecoms were granted monopolies. For example, I can only purchase Comcast cable, not TimeWarner or any other provider. I suspect that your point is correct as regulating ISPs like utilities could decrease rent-seeking actions by the ISP. In this scenario, lower margins would generate more value (shareholders realize lower value but consumers realize greater value in the form of decreased prices). Rent seeking, like coercion, is a sign of a market failure.
Let's see if I can rephrase this: A company that is unable to generate a profit long-term has proven incapable of creating value for all stakeholders. So a company may be able to sell a product with a margin, but if that margin is not enough to compensate labor, landlords, supply chain, shareholders, etc; the the net value creation is negative. So a company that is not generating a profit is not creating value, but one cannot measure the amount of value created by just measuring profit.
Open Source: I think that the incentives and economics of open source get pretty complex. There are multiple reasons for a company to open source their code, but I think it's pretty safe to say that companies are not in the habit of open sourcing valuable trade secrets. Two ways a company can realize more value by open sourcing are 1) utilize "unpaid" labor (contributors are not paid by the company, but presumably are compensated through some other means) and 2) recruitment and PR boost (by open sourcing projects, the company has improved reputation giving it leverage in hiring and other practices). So, to answer your question, open sourcing code restructures the value calculation. Presumably, an open source project that provides no value is an orphaned project.
Comcast is a beneficiary of monopoly provisions. In order to incentivize the creation of infrastructure, telecoms were granted monopolies. For example, I can only purchase Comcast cable, not TimeWarner or any other provider. I suspect that your point is correct as regulating ISPs like utilities could decrease rent-seeking actions by the ISP. In this scenario, lower margins would generate more value (shareholders realize lower value but consumers realize greater value in the form of decreased prices). Rent seeking, like coercion, is a sign of a market failure.
Thanks for the response!