open source is form of distribution of source code. that is all. open source is technically the same thing for Microsoft and pine and red hat and IBM, etc...

now remembering that open source is typically not democracy but rather fairy autocratic in respect to the project owner you can have - more inclusive or fairly non-inclusive community around it. so the source may be available but the community and the project may be as closed as it seems fit towards individuals that fail to cross certain threshold of required technical (or other) skills.

then software development is encompassed with number of other things - specifications, testing, devops and various integration activities that does not necessarily benefit from being open source. these activities that complement the software/hardware production are actually an important precursor for the perceived quality. it just so coincides that an open source project with proper amount of contributors will naturally benefit from peer-reviews of the code - as long as more than one person i sable to works on certain component of course.

for successful business or entrepreneurship one needs more than software development though - accounting, finance, marketing, packaging and in Pine's case - production of hardware... etc. these are not typically as open as the ... source in the software part. an even if they were - it does not mean they are automatically gotten right.

so to be absolutely fair - open source does not immediately on its own mean a better or even viable product. it means that parts of the system are available for independent review and potentially are free from license burden to be reused in other systems.

it seems a form of cognitive bias to assume that all components of products that are result of partial or entirely open-source process are by definition better to closed-source process.