Just because most end-users don't know what open-source is, doesn't mean it won't add value

I recently saw the comparison of Signal and WhatsApp used as an example when discussing the merits of privacy-focused services being open-source. I think this is an incredibly interesting point because both services make claims about putting privacy first, yet only one of the apps is open-source. Ironically, as is often the case, the open-source alternative has nowhere near the popularity of the close-sourced option. This got me thinking about users' perceptions of open-source systems and whether the openness of their source code actually provides any influence on the users.

Regarding the actual end-users, I don't believe they care about whether or not it is open-source. Moreover, I don't think a lot of them would even know what the word means. Even if a system is open-source, 99% of end-users wouldn't be able to understand what the code does so it would provide very little value to them.

It is clear from the example provided that the actual marketing, underlying technology, UX etc. would contribute more to whether people use the service.

With that being said, just because most end-users don't know or care what open-source is, doesn't mean it doesn't add value. Particularly for privacy-focused services, I think it being open-source definitely can encourage people to use it, even more so if it is targeted at a technical crowd.

It is also important to note that this only considers the merits of open-source in the minds of the end-users, essentially seeing how it can be incorporated into marketing. Obviously, when selecting whether or not to make code open-source, how this will influence end-users is only a very small consideration and something that isn't even a factor for many people.