Flag

We stand with Ukraine and our team members from Ukraine. Here are ways you can help

Get exclusive access to thought-provoking articles, bonus podcast content, and cutting-edge whitepapers. Become a member of the UX Magazine community today!

Home ›› Artificial Intelligence ›› Open vs Closed: a Critical Question for Designing and Building Experiences

Member-only story

Open vs Closed: a Critical Question for Designing and Building Experiences

by Josh Tyson
8 min read
Share this post on
Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Save

As we careen into the era of conversational AI and hyperautomation, closed systems create bad experiences that stifle innovation and opportunity

Maybe you’ve seen the meme knocking around the internet: a photo of British octogenarian David Latimer who bottled a handful of seeds in a glass carboy in 1960 and left it largely untouched for almost 50 years (uncorking it only once, in 1972, to add a little water). His 10-gallon garden created its own miniature ecosystem, and has thrived for more than half a century. [1]

In the realm of technology, closed platforms are like Latimer’s terrarium: they can be highly functional, beautiful, and awe inspiring, but they can only grow as big as their bottles. The current business landscape, however—with businesses attempting to sequence as many innovative technologies as possible, as quickly as possible, to automate business processes, workflows, tasks, and communications—requires an architecture that breaks out well beyond these glass walls.

For something like the original iPhone, a terrarium was just fine. Everything a user needed to enjoy its functionalities was baked right into the original version of iOS. Keeping the system closed ensured the quality of the apps and created a seamless overall experience, which contributed to its success, despite the fact that it didn’t have nearly as much functionality as other mobile devices at the time.

Become a member to read the whole content.

Become a member
post authorJosh Tyson

Josh Tyson
Josh Tyson is the co-author of the first bestselling book about conversational AI, Age of Invisible Machines. He is also the Director of Creative Content at OneReach.ai and co-host of both the Invisible Machines and N9K podcasts. His writing has appeared in numerous publications over the years, including Chicago Reader, Fast Company, FLAUNT, The New York Times, Observer, SLAP, Stop Smiling, Thrasher, and Westword. 

Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Related Articles

Learn why the design-to-development pipeline is the launchpad your team inherited but never questioned.

Article by Erika Flowers
Zero Stage to Orbit
  • The article argues that the entire design-to-development pipeline is a multi-stage rocket — a system built around workarounds, not solutions.
  • It makes the case that AI agents don’t just improve the handoff problem; they eliminate the need for handoffs.
  • The piece challenges readers to ask not how to optimize their process, but why they’re still using it.
Share:Zero Stage to Orbit
14 min read

Learn how to build systems where design explicitly models development, handoff is automatic, and AI can extend your work reliably.

Article by Jim Gulsen
Your Design System Works in Figma. Does It Work in Code?
  • The article explains why many design systems don’t work well: designs made in Figma don’t translate well into code.
  • It introduces five practices: structure frames like code, use fewer components with more variants, organize by how both designers and developers actually work, let AI check your naming, and build documentation into your daily workflow.
  • The piece says that good design systems are the same in design and development, and when they match, everything just works.
Share:Your Design System Works in Figma. Does It Work in Code?
6 min read

Find out how to stop building where the data is bright and start building where the problem actually is.

Article by Núria Badia Comas
Stop Building Streetlamp Models: The Decision-First Framework for AI Products
  • The article reveals that most AI projects fail because teams focus on what’s possible instead of what users actually need.
  • It introduces the AI-Question Framework, asking three key questions: Does it matter? Do you have the data? Can you handle the mistakes?
  • The piece concludes that successful AI products start with the right question, not with what the AI can do.
Share:Stop Building Streetlamp Models: The Decision-First Framework for AI Products
5 min read

Join the UX Magazine community!

Stay informed with exclusive content on the intersection of UX, AI agents, and agentic automation—essential reading for future-focused professionals.

Hello!

You're officially a member of the UX Magazine Community.
We're excited to have you with us!

Thank you!

To begin viewing member content, please verify your email.

Get Paid to Test AI Products

Earn an average of $100 per test by reviewing AI-first product experiences and sharing your feedback.

    Tell us about you. Enroll in the course.

      This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Check our privacy policy and