Edit:
Should reply to the new posts here! I think a smart business is concerned about its customer's best interests. People like a company that is not run by robots, and do return when they feel they have been treated well. Besides which, it tends to be the big, soulless corporations which think in that robotic, matter-of-fact way...

As for the open source definition, I tend to capitalize it when I mean those guys, which I rarely do. It has turned into a blanket statement as well as a clearly defined definition, both under the same title...

Sorry, I am going to take a quick sidestep away from the real topic here...
I think a lot of you folks are jumping to an assumption that OSS is less capable software. Consider for a moment that Google and the US government (as well as numerous government agencies) rely on Linux servers. The French Paramilitary Police and the Swiss school system have recently adopted Ubuntu Linux on the desktop.

These are not just major organizations; they are organizations which get significant discounts on Windows (likely bigger discounts offered with moves like this, considering Microsoft's plan of world domination). Why?
Compatibility. Hardly any chance of a single monopolistic power unless every person in the world becomes stupid. Outside forces (eg: Standardization of OOXML) are not intended to force upgrades, but to improve existing functionality for users. Knowledge of what one's computers are doing for the same reason people hate when cars are difficult to self-service.
It is also, actually, quite often better in some respects that are rarely met from closed software. A major open source project (like GNOME) has contributors from a huge variety of places and skills; not just what suits the leaders. The result is great internationalization and unsurpassed usability work.

Sometimes open source software is the best choice; being financially cheap is just icing. With that in mind, I think a lot of people think of open source the wrong way; it is not a death sentence. It is a feature!