Open source code doesn’t mean community managed
twitter.com
twitter.com
But also, it doesn't need to be community-managed to be useful. If the company is doing an okay job then that's fine for now, and things get worse, governance disputes can be resolved later, by forking if necessary.
I think proprietary code makes sense for unexplored markets where the parameters are unknown and so there is risk. Once something is a standard experience (like a word processor) there is a place for open source to work towards. While it becomes feature complete the proprietary product gets to squeeze out the last of it's profits before becoming obsolete and moving on to the next unexplored space.
The community also might make the entire architecture a modular pipeline kind of thing, and it might take years to modernize the UI on top of that(See KiCad).
I've noticed most of the FOSS stuff I use is corporate, or gets taken over by corporations quickly. The community is good at developing small libraries, and very obscure special purpose apps, they're not so big on anything LibreOffice sized.
that may be partially true, but it sounds like the kind of generalization that leads people like Musk or corporations like alphabet/meta/whoever to throw around the phrase 'Open' in an effort to receive kudos for themselves and their groups.
the soul of open-source is the open source. One doesn't need to be altruistic to participate, it's just nice when that happens.
Anyway, if you don't like or trust the guys running a project, fork it! If you do, fork it anyway!