[barrkel]

rsync isn't a feature of android. Rather, the OS permitting something like rsync's functionality to run on it, and not in a silo or standard bucket basis - that makes all the difference.

That is, it's not this particular niche. It's the enabling of the existence of such niches in the first place.

Nobody in the population is average (this mythical "general population"). Everyone is odd in their own way. A product narrowly targeted at the average will lose to something more open. I believe this to be an almost natural law, like how free markets are better than the planned alternatives.

[mannkind]

With such strange definitions (e.g. open, lose, narrowly targeted, etc) ... I don't think we'll be able to communicate with each other; we don't seem to have even vaugely similar definitions (in this context, at least).

Maybe you're right, maybe 'open' will win. But if it does, I'm fairly certain it won't be your definition of 'open'. At the very least, it's not the case right now. The most successful systems/devices are most certainly not 'open' and are trending towards being 'less open' aka designed for that 'general population' that you so actively deny exists.

Thanks for explaining that rsync isn't an Android feature. That explains why I've been using it for the last decade on Linux and FreeBSD.

[barrkel]

You and I might use a niche feature like rsync

This is why I said it wasn't a feature; what you wrote implied it was. Stock Android has no rsync. It doesn't even have cp.

More importantly, I was trying to describe the structural strategic advantage I think Android has which will lead to it winning out in the longer term, in a similar way to how the PC beat the Mac.