"Consider: open tooling drives user device adoption"
Citation needed. Given that most of the device adoption that's already taken place was with seriously-expensive closed-source tools that aren't exactly paragons of UX quality, I think this is assuming a LOT.
My guess is that the quality of the tools (and I'm handwaving "open" into "higher quality" which is not guaranteed) is a distant concern compared to lots of things: device capabilities, power envelope, $/10k, IP library, and many more take precedence.
"device capabilities, power envelope, $/10k, IP library, and many more take precedenc"
They do. There's been all kinds of open tooling and more open hardware. What did most people buy and keep investing in? Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft, FPGA Big Two, EDA Big Three, etc. Got the job done easily, reliably enough, and at acceptable price/performance.
I call out OSS crowd all the time on why they havent adopted GPL'd Leon3 SPARC CPU's & open firmware if it means so much. It doesn't have X, it costs Y, or too lazy to do Z. Always.
Citation needed. Given that most of the device adoption that's already taken place was with seriously-expensive closed-source tools that aren't exactly paragons of UX quality, I think this is assuming a LOT.
My guess is that the quality of the tools (and I'm handwaving "open" into "higher quality" which is not guaranteed) is a distant concern compared to lots of things: device capabilities, power envelope, $/10k, IP library, and many more take precedence.