Open protocols are already much larger than closed systems. Look at email (based on SMTP) and the internet (based on TCP/IP). This statement only expects a successful new protocol to follow the same trend.
Maps: Open: OpenStreetMap. Closed: Google maps, Apple maps
I realise these are mostly not "protocols" (depending on what layer we're talking about). Nevertheless, can hardly say that "Open protocols are already much larger than closed systems".
This is a Bad Comment that tries to disguise itself as a Good Comment by going for quantity over quality. Cherry picking, misinformation, and apples-and-oranges comparisons can all be found here. For example:
> Google Authenticator
...is open source and based on open standards.
> Chrome
Chromium
> Safari
WebKit (originally derived from KHTML)
> Cloud: Open: ? buddycloud, GitLab. Closed: iCloud, Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive.
The open and closed products here aren't even in the same spaces.
Google Authenticator, the one that you download from Play Store, is not open source:
> These apps are not on the app stores, and their code has diverged from what's in the app stores, so patches here won't necessarily show up in those versions.
True, but the developers of those open protocols have no or little financial incentive for the success of their standard. Traditionally closed protocols had the financial incentive. Blockchains are different in that way.
