Philip Howard of Bloor Research (right) says that if open source is strategic, it will benefit mainly the current players.
Plus a change, plus c'est la mme chose, he writes. That's French for the more things change the more they stay the same. (Sounds better in French.) Or, if you like, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Howard's analysis is based on the idea that if an asset is strategic, it will be thought of strategically, and risk aversion will rule.
The companies and products with shaky backgrounds, and where you cannot see how they can make enough money to survive, should be avoided.
Further, since these are being treated as strategic, you also need to ensure that the suppliers of these solutions can provide adequate training and support (since, as strategic products, you will surely need these).
In other words, you need a shortlist of potential vendors that you are happy to deal with and you need to mandate that the company limits itself to these strategic choices when deploying solutions.
To me this reads like someone with no Clue as to what open source means. The nature of following an open source model is to get as much help, from as many different places, as possible, not to whittle down those you'll seek help from to a chosen few.
But maybe I've got it backward. What do you think? Let us know in TalkBack, especially if you're in an enterprise setting.