Im not sure what the point of this article was. For one, most open-source code out there is crap or subpar. Many may or may not even build correctly depending on maintenance level. The processes for producing good OSS is same as good proprietary if we’re talking the technical parts. There’s good stuff in both camps. I believe there was a study or two showing OSS doing better on things like bug fixes than average proprietary because thd latter didnt care (eg lock-in) or had delayed patching (eg enterprise). FOSS can be more personally motivating, too. Still gotta judge them on case by case basis.
On business side, they’re both public companies supposed to make as much money as they can. One on selling products that are ideally illegal to clone. The other on one tying into their surveillance engine reinforcing an oligopoly. Open-sourcing fully would likely hurt thdir profits immediately and in long run. So, they shouldn’t.
This is why we need to push more utilitarian business models for market-grabbing tech. That way, they might OSS stuff so long as they still make plenty of money.