I also think that the talk can be seen as suggesting that open core is the preferable way to make a living from OSS - as long as openness is preserved (service

I also think that the talk can be seen as suggesting that open core is the preferable way to make a living from OSS - as long as openness is preserved (service implementations can be exchanged, client can pull out their data etc). My interpretation of why the talk was mentioned as an argument contra open core: - the talk does have criticism for value extraction that does not preserve openness (as the OP says: promises of interop etc are not kept, lock-in... is it really meaningfully "open"?), and that it is not necessarily sustainable or fair for OSS developers ("who pays the postgres committers"). This latter point certainly gets more nuanced for open core, but can still be relevant e.g. when you depend on some library you are interested in its being maintained, having security vulnerabilities identified and patched etc.