Las grandes corporaciones toman lo que les interesa del «abierto» y alrededor de ellos ofrecen sus soluciones «cerradas». A todos nos gusta lo abierto, pero a los usuarios les gusta «usar fácil».

«… So rather than «open» being a binary condition that makes companies who claim adherence to it successful at the expense of those who are «closed» and proprietary, the reality is that successful companies can adopt open software in areas that make sense, but they will derive most of their profits from proprietary activity.

And when you look at the world realistically, Google is making its money through proprietary activity in placing ads in front of audiences, just as Apple and Samsung make their money by layering proprietary hardware and software technologies over an increasingly less significant open source core.

Rather than being a key to success (espoused in the mantra, «open always wins»), open software has historically resulted in a primordial soup from which real winners emerge through proprietary activity. Stay in the soup and you don’t develop, nor do you make any money. …»

Interesantísimo y muy largo editorial de Apple Insider, en el que aún siendo un medio «fanboy» de Apple, creo que dicen bastantes verdades y con bastante tino, veremos en qué medida aciertan en sus predicciones:

«… But today, the real money is currently in iOS apps, and Apple is increasingly monetizing apps for its developers, even as it removes the web-like cookie tracking from iOS that other advertisers want access to in order to make their ads in iOS titles more valuable to advertizers.

So simply from the perspective of credible threats to the status quo, Google faces more potential for losing its advertising monopoly to Apple’s iAd (and related) initiatives than Apple does in losing its hardware sales to Android as an openly licensed platform.

That’s because «open» doesn’t always win. It usually loses to greater competence, and often serves as the training wheels for the very vehicles that eventually run it over.»