Tag: open-source

Company Check – Meta : Merchandising & Military

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta is stepping up its push into physical retail, open-source AI, and military-grade AR and VR technology, but each move is attracting scrutiny and raising new questions about ethics, transparency, and the company’s strategic direction.

Physical Stores Selling Smart Glasses

Meta is reportedly preparing to open a new wave of physical retail stores in a strategic bid to push sales of its Ray-Ban smart glasses and other wearable devices. The move (first revealed by Business Insider) signals a move from virtual ambitions into tangible retail expansion as the company looks to solidify its position in the emerging face-computing market.

It’s worth noting here that this won’t be Meta’s first foray into bricks-and-mortar. For example, the company launched its debut physical store in Burlingame, California in 2022, followed by a pop-up in Los Angeles. But this latest round of hiring and planning suggests a much broader rollout is on the cards.

The logic behind Meta’s planned move appears to be that smart glasses, especially those blending AR features with fashion, are inherently tactile. Trying them on in person can make or break a sale. It seems that although Meta reportedly sold over 1 million Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses in 2024 alone, CEO Mark Zuckerberg is said to have challenged staff to raise that figure to 5 million units, prompting the search for a more immersive retail strategy.

In-Store Demos

In-store demos will also likely help Meta showcase its Meta Quest VR headsets, especially as rivals like Apple raise the stakes with more premium offerings like the Vision Pro, priced at $3,499 but struggling to attract mass-market adoption.

By creating dedicated physical spaces, Meta seems to believe it could address two problems at once, i.e. differentiating its devices from commodity tech, and humanising a brand that’s often criticised for being too virtual and too data-hungry.

For business users, this matters. For example, the rise of face-worn computing is set to impact fields from healthcare to logistics. With AI-assisted smart glasses already capable of real-time transcription, photo capture, and even livestreaming, the line between personal wearables and professional tools is blurring fast.

However, it seems that retail has proven a tricky terrain for Big Tech. For example, Microsoft famously shuttered its 83 stores in 2020, and Amazon has scaled back its ambitions after mixed success with physical shops. Meta’s challenge, therefore, may be to offer something more experiential than transactional, and something that convinces users and developers alike that these devices are more than gadgets.

“Open Washing” Accusations Cloud Meta’s AI Open Source Push

At the same time that Meta is championing openness in AI, the company is facing renewed criticism for allegedly misrepresenting the nature of its flagship Llama models, with critics accusing it of “open washing.”

This latest controversy stems from Meta’s role in sponsoring a Linux Foundation research paper, The Economic and Workforce Impacts of Open Source AI, published in May. The report highlights the cost savings and innovation benefits of open source AI (OSAI), noting that 89 per cent of AI-adopting organisations use some form of open source infrastructure, and that open models are significantly cheaper to deploy than proprietary ones, findings that are hard to ignore for small businesses and tech start-ups.

Meta’s involvement in the report, however, has triggered backlash. For example, critics, including OpenUK CEO Amanda Brock, argue that Llama does not meet the widely accepted Open Source Definition (OSD), largely due to commercial use restrictions embedded in its licence.

“Llama isn’t ‘open source’, whatever definition you choose to use for open source,” Brock stated. “We rely on open source being usable by anyone for any purpose, and Llama is not.”

The nuance here is key. Meta’s Llama models (including Llama 2 and 3) are open access, meaning researchers and developers can use them freely in many cases. However, the restrictions on high-scale commercial use mean they fall short of being truly “open source” under OSI standards.

For Meta, the implications are twofold. First, its marketing message around openness risks losing credibility, especially as regulators in the EU and US begin using “open source” as a basis for liability exceptions in AI laws. Second, it could jeopardise Meta’s appeal to developers who value transparency, forkability, and independence from Big Tech.

The Linux Foundation report itself finds that open models are being adopted more heavily by small businesses than large enterprises, with smaller firms citing lower costs and greater flexibility as primary drivers. If Llama isn’t genuinely open, these businesses could end up relying on what they believe is community-driven infrastructure, only to face legal grey areas or cost barriers later.

While Meta has made real contributions to the open AI ecosystem, including the release of PyTorch and participation in Hugging Face, it’s likely that the wider industry is watching closely to see whether the company’s vision of openness is consistent, or just convenient.

From Metaverse to Military

In yet another Meta development, and this time one that caught many observers by surprise, Meta has signed a deal with Anduril Industries, a fast-growing US defence contractor, to build AR and VR devices for military use.

The irony hasn’t gone unnoticed. For example, Anduril’s founder, Palmer Luckey, was famously ousted from Meta’s predecessor, Facebook, back in 2017, reportedly over political donations and internal disagreements. Now, Luckey is working with his former employer on a project aimed at turning soldiers into what he describes as “technomancers.”

“I am glad to be working with Meta once again,” said Luckey in a statement. “The products we are building with Meta do just that.”

Battlefield-Ready Technology

According to Meta, the partnership will leverage its expertise in AI and extended reality (XR) to deliver battlefield-ready technology that enhances real-time situational awareness. The systems are expected to integrate with Anduril’s Lattice platform, a command-and-control interface powered by AI that overlays live battlefield intelligence into soldiers’ fields of view.

Could Actually Make Money

Meta’s AR and VR ambitions have so far been expensive and, arguably, unproven. Its Reality Labs division lost $4.2 billion in Q1 2025, part of a long-term investment strategy that has seen Meta burn through over $80 billion on immersive tech since acquiring Oculus in 2014. However, with the US military’s proposed $1 trillion budget, the defence market could finally offer a return.

Progress and Pitfalls

For business users and the wider XR market, the defence partnership signals both progress and potential pitfalls. For example, military involvement could fast-track innovation, enhance hardware capabilities, and make advanced technologies more accessible for commercial use. However, it also raises serious questions about Meta’s role in surveillance, data handling, and the broader ethical implications of merging consumer tech with military objectives.

Notably, Microsoft handed off its own US Army IVAS contract to Anduril earlier this year, having struggled to deliver effective headsets with its now-discontinued HoloLens. That leaves Meta and Anduril in what appears to be a strong position to lead the next wave of military-grade XR, and potentially commercial spin-offs.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Taken together, Meta’s latest moves suggest a company trying to reposition itself at the centre of three major battlegrounds: consumer hardware, AI ethics and extended reality. Each initiative carries its own rationale. Retail stores aim to offer hands-on experience, the push for AI openness suggests leadership in cost-efficient tools, and the defence partnership seeks a path to long-term commercial viability. However, the connections between these efforts reveal a deeper tension. Is Meta attempting to cater to every audience at once, or is it spreading its efforts too widely in a fast-changing technological landscape?

The physical retail expansion is perhaps the most straightforward. It gives Meta a tangible way to demonstrate products that have, until now, lived mostly in speculative hype cycles. Smart glasses, in particular, are on the verge of moving from novelty to utility, and a physical showroom model could help convert curiosity into confidence. For UK businesses operating in sectors like healthcare, manufacturing, logistics or retail, that’s potentially game-changing. If the technology works and is easy to trial and adopt, it could speed up the mainstreaming of AR in workplace settings.

However, it’s the open-source AI row that cuts to the heart of Meta’s credibility. The company is trying to paint itself as a champion of openness, cost savings, and accessibility, which is a narrative that appeals to developers and small firms alike, but the reality of Llama’s licensing restrictions muddies that message. If Meta is seen to be overstating its openness, or using community narratives to mask corporate control, it could backfire with the very audiences it’s hoping to win over. For UK tech start-ups and SMEs, who often rely on open source to compete with bigger players, the difference between “open” and “open enough” represents a business risk.

The Anduril partnership adds another layer of complexity. On paper, it could finally make Meta’s multibillion-dollar investment in XR technologies pay off. But aligning with military objectives also risks alienating consumers, employees, and partners who are wary of how immersive tech might be used in surveillance or combat. In a world increasingly conscious of tech’s societal impacts, even commercial buyers may start asking harder questions about the provenance and purpose of the tools they deploy.

From businesses and developers to policymakers, the message appears to be that Meta is doubling down on its hardware and AI bets. That said, how it navigates trust, ethics and transparency will shape not only its own future, but the broader acceptance of emerging tech across the board. What comes next may, therefore, depend less on product specs and more on public perception, legal scrutiny, and whether Meta can balance innovation with genuine accountability.

Tech Insight : What Is ‘Open Washing’ ?

Posted on by Paul Stradling

With many tech giants now using ‘open’ as in ‘open source’ as a marketing term, we look at what the issues around this are, why it needs to be discouraged, and how this can be achieved.

What is Open Source?

To understand the question about ‘open washing’, it’s important to understand what real open source is. Defined and stewarded by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), open source goes beyond simply sharing code. In fact, it means giving users the rights to view, modify, and redistribute the software without undue restrictions. According to the OSI’s Open Source Definition, true open-source software adheres to ten principles, including free redistribution, access to source code, and the right to create derivative works. Open-source licences must also be non-discriminatory, ensuring that anyone, anywhere, can access and modify the software for any purpose.

These principles are meant to support innovation, community-driven improvement, and freedom from vendor lock-in, which is why open source has become so important in technology.

Not Everyone’s a Fan of Open Source

Despite the positive aspects of the principles of open source and its widespread use, not everyone is sold on it, with critics pointing to risks in security and sustainability. For example, while the transparency in open-source code may allow anyone to inspect for flaws, it also enables malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities. In many cases, open-source projects tend to lack dedicated security teams, meaning patches can be slow to release, leaving users exposed. Financial viability is another issue; many open-source projects rely on volunteer developers or donations, making funding unpredictable and threatening long-term support and innovation. Without the financial backing of licensing fees that proprietary software can leverage, sustaining high-quality development and support over time is a challenge. Some critics also argue that while open source enables collaboration, it often lacks the reliability and consistent support associated with proprietary systems, creating potential pitfalls for users and developers alike.

So, What Is Open Washing?

‘Open washing’ is a term coined by internet policy researcher Michelle Thorne in 2009, referring to where using the word ‘open’ as a marketing term allows companies to appear open while maintaining control over their products. The term open washing is, therefore, along the same lines as the term ‘greenwashing,’ where companies claim to be environmentally friendly without substantive action. In open washing, companies appear to use “open” branding to exploit open source’s positive connotations without meeting its core values of transparency and accessibility. This co-opting of the term, therefore, undermines the foundational principles of openness, confusing consumers and diluting the legitimacy of the open-source community (open washing is a negative term).

Why Has Open Washing Become More Common?

Open source’s transformation from a fringe movement to a widely adopted practice has also made it highly attractive to companies looking to capitalise on its reputation. In the early 2000s, companies were wary of open source. For example, Microsoft’s then-CEO Steve Ballmer even called Linux a “cancer” due to the licence requirements that would obligate them to make their entire codebase open if it incorporated open-source elements. Today, however, open source is seen as innovative, ethical, and collaborative. It is endorsed by tech giants, governments, and educational institutions alike, with open-source projects like Linux, Kubernetes, and TensorFlow at the core of many enterprise systems.

The Appeal of Open Washing in AI and Big Tech

The stakes are especially high in the field of AI. Many AI models, particularly those from major tech corporations, operate under significant secrecy, which allows them to avoid scrutiny on issues ranging from ethical concerns to regulatory compliance. Open washing appears, therefore, to have become a convenient way for these companies to leverage the credibility of open source without actually relinquishing control or opening their models for true public or scientific examination.

For example, research by Andreas Liesenfeld and Mark Dingemanse at Radboud University surveyed 45 models marketed as open source and found that few actually meet the standards of true openness. The researchers found that only a handful (e.g. AllenAI’s OLMo or BigScience’s BloomZ) genuinely embody open principles.

In contrast, models from Google, Meta, and Microsoft often allow limited access to specific aspects, such as the AI model’s weights, but withhold full transparency into the training datasets or the processes behind fine-tuning – factors that are crucial for replicability and accountability.

Regulatory Incentives for Open Washing

The regulatory environment has also further incentivised open washing, particularly with the introduction of the EU’s AI Act, which came into force on 1 August 2024. This legislation, set to shape the governance of AI in Europe, includes special exemptions for open-source models. These exemptions mean that open-source AI products face fewer compliance requirements, especially regarding dataset transparency and ethical considerations. However, the EU has yet to define “open source” for AI models explicitly, leading to a gap that companies can exploit by labelling restricted models as open.

This regulatory grey area appears to have encouraged large corporations to stretch the definition of open source. By classifying their models as ‘open,’ they can benefit from reduced regulatory burdens while still keeping proprietary information hidden. This kind of open washing could, therefore, shield companies from scrutiny and enable them to bypass scientific and ethical standards that would otherwise apply.

Why Open Washing Undermines Openness and Transparency

The widespread practice of open washing could be seen as posing a risk to the integrity of the tech industry. For example, when companies brand restrictive products as open, they dilute the meaning of open source and weaken public trust. This practice could harm consumers and developers who assume these models are accessible for improvement, modification, or auditing. Without full transparency, end-users and even governments can’t fully grasp the capabilities and limitations of these tools, potentially leading to misuse and ethical oversights.

What Does the Open Source Initiative Say About It?

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a global nonprofit organisation that promotes and protects open-source software by maintaining the Open Source Definition, approving compliant licences, and advocating for open-source practices across industries. It is also, therefore, one of the most outspoken critics of open washing. For example, the OSI says that “misuse of ‘open’ erodes the fundamental trust” in open-source communities. According to the OSI, this dilution of open-source principles not only misleads the public but also endangers the health of the open-source ecosystem itself, as genuine open-source projects may struggle to gain traction when overshadowed by well-marketed, quasi-open products.

Composite Measures of Openness

Recognising that transparency in AI is multi-faceted, researchers have now proposed a composite measure of openness that includes access to datasets, training protocols, licensing clarity, and the model’s documentation. An example of this composite measure is a framework on openness in generative AI, presented at this year’s ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), by Andreas Liesenfeld and Mark Dingemanse, researchers from Radboud University’s Centre for Language Studies in the Netherlands, specialising in language and AI studies.

Their framework, with its 14 dimensions of openness, highlights how open-source claims cannot rest on a single factor, such as access to model weights or basic documentation. Instead, the researchers say these claims should involve comprehensive access across multiple domains, offering the public, scientists, and policymakers a way to meaningfully assess openness. The idea is that by developing and implementing composite standards, the tech community could, therefore, discourage open washing and promote genuine transparency.

Clearer Definitions and Standards for Open Source AI

The current ambiguity around open source, particularly in AI, highlights the need for clearer standards. To tackle open washing, the OSI has recently started working on a formal definition for open-source AI, collaborating with various stakeholders to address unique considerations, like access to training data and replicability. This evolving framework aims to set definitive standards for what constitutes open source in the AI landscape, with the goal of curbing open washing and providing a measure for consumers and regulators to gauge the authenticity of open-source claims.

The Role of Public Awareness and Advocacy

To counter open washing, it may be important for both consumers and developers to recognise and question the authenticity of open-source claims. Community-driven transparency tools, such as open-source databases and audit platforms, can play a role in empowering users to make informed decisions. As Dingemanse notes, “evidence-based openness assessment is essential for a healthy tech landscape.” Awareness campaigns and advocacy groups can also shed light on open washing practices, pressuring corporations to align with true open-source standards.

What Does This Mean for Your Business?

As technology continues to evolve and embed itself deeper into everyday life, the importance of distinguishing genuine openness from ‘open washing’ becomes ever more critical. Open-source software’s promise lies in its potential for transparency, innovation, and community-driven growth. However, when companies engage in open washing, they undermine these principles, eroding public trust and complicating the regulatory landscape. This practice not only weakens the authenticity of open-source initiatives but also risks obscuring the boundaries between proprietary and truly open technologies, leading to a diluted understanding of what “open” truly represents.

The movement to counter open washing is gaining momentum through research, community initiatives, and regulatory efforts, yet it ultimately depends on public awareness and industry accountability. Informed consumers and developers play a vital role in demanding transparency and authenticity from tech giants. With organisations like the Open Source Initiative working to refine definitions and create accountability standards, there is hope for a future where open-source principles are upheld, respected, and protected. Clear standards and genuine openness are essential to sustaining an ecosystem where “open” means more than marketing, symbolising a commitment to collaboration, integrity, and the shared progress of technology.

With clearer definitions, regulatory oversight, and a strong community voice, it appears possible for the tech industry to preserve the values of openness and transparency while guarding against open washing. By holding companies accountable to genuine open-source principles, users, developers, and policymakers could help ensure that “open” remains a meaningful and respected term in the technology landscape.

Tech Insight : Restrictive Cloud Licensing & Public Sector Skills

Posted on by Paul Stradling

In this insight, we look at how recent reports have revealed how the UK’s public sector is facing the dual challenges of potentially losing £300 million through restrictive cloud licensing and the limitations of an open-source software skills gap.

Restrictive Cloud Licensing Costs 

A report from the cross-party think tank, The Social Market Foundation (SMF), has shown that due to restrictive rules on cloud software licensing, the public sector looks set to waste more than £300 million over the next 5 years (£60 million per year over the next five years). According to the report, this is because current software licensing rules are making it harder to switch between providers, thus keeping public sector organisations locked into pricey deals.

The SMF says its report has only accounted for the costs of restrictions to users’ ability to freely use Office 365 and the overcharge of using SQL Server on third-party infrastructure, yet the actual additional costs incurred by all software licensing practices may be much higher.

The Benefits Of One Provider Wiped Out By Costs 

The UK government mandates that central departments adopt cloud services and, therefore, encourages public sector organisations to improve technological efficiency and to find savings within public services. One method of achieving savings in the public sector has been to choose one central (cloud) provider that delivers the full range of services required. However, as one IT professional (quoted by the SMF) recently pointed out, there’s “positives to having one provider with a suite of things that work together very well, but the challenge of that is you’re tied in”. 

Effect Worse On Public Sector 

The SMF says that while licensing costs and complications also affect the private sector, the overall detriment is likely to be worse in the public sector. For example, excess costs are financed by the taxpayer and may mean diverting resources from other government objectives or budgets, thereby resulting not just in direct financial costs but also in preventing the UK from achieving its technological, economic, and security goals.

An Economic, Technical, and Social Issue 

Jake Shepherd, Senior Researcher at SMF, said of the report’s findings: “Our research shows that restrictive software licensing practices squander millions of pounds – taxpayers’ money that could fund vital public services and boost national productivity – while interviews with public sector IT professionals reveal the ‘real’ day-to-day operational costs. Software licensing isn’t just a technical issue – there’s an economic and social imperative to ensure it works smoothly and prevents needless wastage of public resources in the future.” 

The Open Source Challenge 

Open source is integral to the UK’s digital economy, contributing significantly to business growth and competitiveness and the public sector is encouraged to increase its participation in open source projects to leverage these benefits further.

However, the recent ‘State of open report’ from OpenUK, a UK-based organisation promoting open source software, hardware, and data, has also highlighted how there is a gap in the skills and understanding of open source in the public sector.

Substantial Public Engagement With Open Source 

OpenUK’s report, which uses a collection of data from NHS Digital, Government Digital Service, and the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has revealed the existence of 1780 GitHub repositories with 14,910 stars and 745,000 commits. OpenUK says this is evidence of “substantial public sector engagement with open source software in the UK” and highlights how the public sector embracing open source “aligns with government digital transformation goals, driving better public services and fostering a culture of continuous improvement”. Also, OpenUK says by leveraging open source, the UK public sector can address “complex challenges more effectively, ensuring robust, scalable, and secure digital infrastructure that supports economic resilience and growth”. 

Not Enough 

Despite these levels of engagement in open source by the public sector, OpenUK’s ‘Phase Two: The Open Manifesto Report’ highlights the need for policymakers to build skills in open source software to help the UK (public sector) make better use of open source and to improve AI openness. Some of the challenges to achieving this, identified in the report, include:

– A skills shortage / a significant lack of expertise in open source technologies within the public sector. This skills gap hinders the effective implementation and management of open-source projects. Training and upskilling initiatives could help address this issue. For example, OpenUK’s CEO, Amanda Brock, has said that working with people who learn to code in open source and contribute to open source code repositories is one way to help tackle the UK skills gap.

– A lack of coherent policies and governance frameworks for managing open-source contributions within many public sector organisations. This results in inconsistent practices and potential compliance issues and highlights the need for comprehensive policies and standardisation.

– Security concerns. For example, security is a significant concern with open-source adoption and public sector organisations often struggle with balancing cost and security, leading to vulnerabilities. Security in the development and deployment of open-source solutions is, therefore, crucial.

– Resistance to the cultural shift required for adopting open source technologies. Traditional public sector environments find it challenging to move towards more collaborative and transparent working practices.

– Resource Allocation. Financial constraints and competing priorities make it difficult for public sector organisations to allocate the necessary resources for open-source initiatives. Strategic investment and prioritisation are needed to overcome these barriers.

OpenUK has, therefore, called on the public sector to develop skills to curate open source well, and on policymakers to gain a greater understanding of open technologies to avoid a continued reliance upon multi-year contracts from “legacy IT providers and consultancies”.

AI Too 

In the report, Jennifer Barth, chief research officer at OpenUK, also points to the growth of the UK’s AI repositories as evidence of “the dynamism and innovation within the UK’s AI community, bolstered by open source principles”.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

For UK businesses, the insights from these reports show a pressing need to address both the challenges of restrictive cloud licensing and the open-source skills gap within the public sector. The repercussions of these issues are multifaceted, affecting financial efficiency, technological advancement, and overall competitiveness.

The substantial costs associated with restrictive cloud licensing (estimated at £300+ million over the next five years) highlight the importance of flexibility in software procurement. Businesses can learn from this by advocating for more open and competitive licensing agreements. This approach not only reduces costs but also fosters innovation by avoiding vendor lock-in. By negotiating contracts that allow easier transitions between providers, businesses can ensure they are not overpaying for services and can quickly adapt to better solutions as they emerge.

The public sector’s struggle with open-source software adoption due to a skills shortage could be seen as an opportunity for businesses to invest in training and upskilling their workforce. Open-source technologies can offer significant benefits, including cost savings, enhanced security, and the ability to drive innovation through collaboration. By developing in-house expertise in open source, the public sector and the private sector, businesses can improve their technological resilience and reduce dependency on proprietary solutions. This, in turn, can lead to more agile and responsive IT strategies, essential in today’s fast-paced digital landscape.

The identified lack of coherent policies and governance frameworks for open source usage in the public sector could also be seen as a cautionary tale for private enterprises. The challenges faced by the public sector in allocating resources to open-source initiatives show a need for strategic investment in technology. Businesses should, therefore, look at investment in open-source projects and technologies to remain competitive.

These findings from the SMF and OpenUK reports appear to offer valuable lessons not just for the public sector, but for all UK businesses. Embracing flexible licensing agreements, investing in open-source skills, establishing robust governance, fostering a collaborative culture, and strategically allocating resources can improve flexibility, scalability, security, and cost-efficiency.