by theLiminator 12 hours ago
I doubt that more than 5% of the population knows what open source means.
Less than 5% of the population knew what it meant to install an app when the iPhone launched. I believe Steve Ballmer ridiculed the idea when asked about it.
A great many amount of people use Android to this day because of its more open nature, and that's despite Google's involvement. If Motorola could go back to its native roots, shake the idea of Chinese influence, and do open source proper, I bet there's a lot more than 5% of the market ready for it.
Well 5% of a massive addressable market it itself quite a lot.
Try "aware, even vaguely, of the privacy issues standard smartphones pose".
(I would bet more than 5% have at least a vague notion of open source though, and a positive a priori - also possibly mixing it with source-available, which would be on par with some people we can read on HN)
It doesn't matter how many know what open source means - they all use it in some manner after all.
Take away open source and there would barely be a large tech company left standing.
I'm not arguing against that, I'm just saying that open source labelling isn't a feature to users.
The downstream effects of something being open source might acquire users, but being open source in of itself doesn't do anything except for a very tiny slice of the population. I'd say (in the US) more than half of the software developers I know use an Apple phone despite Android being much more open.
Whenever I'm on HN I feel like most of the posters here live in a bubble where they think most people are anywhere near as tech literate as they are. (You can really feel how this forum is SF-coded).
> open source labelling isn't a feature to users
> The downstream effects of something being open source might acquire users
So labeling means nothing, but open-source is important to users. See also: enshittification.