> monopolistic competition, marketing, and being installed out of the box This I believe, and an integral part of "marketing" is a FUD campaign against free al

> monopolistic competition, marketing, and being installed out of the box This I believe, and an integral part of "marketing" is a FUD campaign against free alternatives. > Familiarity, inertia, compatibility I used to think they were relevant, but it doesn't seem to match reality. Android phones were neither familiar to users of older phones, nor were they compatible with software made for other phones. Windows breaks familiarity with each major version for seemingly no reason. (Not compatibility, though.) Apps and websites constantly get redesigned for no reason. Doesn't seem to drive people away. At the turn of the millennium, the reason Linux desktops were supposedly not accepted by users was the lack of eye candy. Do phone apps today have "eye candy"? Bland-looking single-color rectangular surfaces, absolutely minimal interfaces, a few straight lines here and there and mostly text unless there's photos or videos to show. Looks like OpenBox. The only common theme is marketing, marketing and marketing. A free, unencumbered platform will never be mainstream, neither on the desktop nor on the phone. Because that will always be an untapped market that one can get into with lying, manipulative marketing tactics and a free platform will have neither the resources nor the gall to employ the same shady tactics to defend itself, but a proprietary platform will, and then it doesn't matter who wins because the challenger is just the same.