He’s right that “open” isn’t necessarily good. “Sharing” sounds nice but also leads to fragmentation and distraction. Android chose an “open” model and ended

He’s right that “open” isn’t necessarily good. “Sharing” sounds nice but also leads to fragmentation and distraction. Android chose an “open” model and ended up failing on its primary goal as a mobile OS experience, even if some components of android went on to be popular for other applications. It led to chaotic device fragmentation, nearly every major Android vendor going bankrupt , and Google running effectively a charity unit (Pixel) to keep it alive. It only carries on with search engine subsidies. Apple chose “closed” to the chagrin of hacker news “experts”. But the truth that “closed” iOS is a very lucrative, high-margin business. “Open source” sounds nice, but as we’ve seen, many dedicated open source developers end up burned out and under-compensated. “Open” can be a good thing, but is not a guarantee of producing positive outcomes.