A better way to put it would be to say "Locked down technologies tend to not become as ubiquitous as their open counterparts".
Linux is a good example - other proprietary UNIX systems are not everywhere as Linux is (openness being relative). Windows is another - it was more open than OS X. Both proprietary UNIX systems and OS X lost in terms of market share.
Another example is Sony's proprietary formats - Memory Stick Duo Pro or whatever it was called.
So there is a definite history of markets preferring open alternatives when they were practical and at least in the same ballpark of usability of the closed/proprietary counterparts.
Also the context is important as the article points out -
.. in Brazil, where Apple iPhone users cannot buy games for the device, due to specific legal requirements from the Brazilian government. Apple has reacted by simply removing the games category for users in Brazil altogether. Because of its secretive corporate culture, Apple has recently been criticized in Brazil for being the “most closed company in the world.”
I don't think it makes sense to compare Windows and OSX and say that OSX lost because it was less open. By the time OSX came around Windows had been a monopoly for some time. OSX hasn't gotten any more open over time (probably less so, in fact) but its market share has gone up and Apple is now worth more as a company than Microsoft - so who's lost there?
I really doesn't make sense to compare OS X versus Windows given the history of both parts of OS X (OpenStep and Mac OS). Mac OS was available on clones and didn't expand the market at all. OpenStep was available on multiple platforms from multiple vendors. Neither gained market share. To be fair about it, 1984 was a little too late in the game as the C64 was losing share, Apple was already pretty low (both II and Mac), and Microsoft already had a hefty advantage [1].
We are talking ubiquity here. And relative openness. Windows 7/Vista/XP are ubiquitous OSes that are more open (put it on any piece of hardware you want as long as it is x86{_64} etc.). Mac OS and OS X were open - but locked down to hardware. Both Mac OS and OS X were and are less ubiquitous (i.e. 5% market share vs. 95% for Windows for a long time now) than any version of Windows. Apple making more money or Steve Ballmer's whims are not the contentions here - ubiquity of products is.
No, sorry, I wasn't talking about ubiquity - I don't disagree that OSX runs on less hardware than Windows. I simply didn't think it made sense to say that OSX had "lost" since it had very little market share at first and has grown a lot (I also disagree it's been holding steady at 5% for a long time), whereas Windows started out as a monopoly with nearly 100% and has declined somewhat since. That doesn't sound like any definition of "lost" I've ever heard.
If you want to include classic MacOS as well, I'd tend to agree more, but originally you just said OSX.
I'm fairly certain the grandparent meant MacOS for which the explanation would make sense. Dos and Windows were more widely available and could run more software because of Microsoft's comparatively open business model.
I don't understand the Brazil part. It sounds like Apple just didn't want to go through the certification process for every iOS game. Do Android games somehow avoid the process? Or do only paid games have to be certified?
In an article [1] from a brazilian website, the "classification director" of the brazilian Ministry of Justice said in the video that "Apple sent representatives but backed off", due to "technical problems when embedding the [classification] seal on their AppStore".
The explanation was quite vague, but below the video it says that every video game must be approved by the Ministry of Justice itself, and about 2100 are analyzed per year. I haven't checked the law here, but I believe this is the problem Apple encountered.
Also, there was some uproar about that classification a few years ago, before the AppStore, I believe.
And if I recall correctly, South Africa has the same problem.
Linux is a good example - other proprietary UNIX systems are not everywhere as Linux is (openness being relative). Windows is another - it was more open than OS X. Both proprietary UNIX systems and OS X lost in terms of market share.
Another example is Sony's proprietary formats - Memory Stick Duo Pro or whatever it was called.
So there is a definite history of markets preferring open alternatives when they were practical and at least in the same ballpark of usability of the closed/proprietary counterparts.
Also the context is important as the article points out -
.. in Brazil, where Apple iPhone users cannot buy games for the device, due to specific legal requirements from the Brazilian government. Apple has reacted by simply removing the games category for users in Brazil altogether. Because of its secretive corporate culture, Apple has recently been criticized in Brazil for being the “most closed company in the world.”