It's not a panacea. Open source software is nice when it doesn't put contibutors into the poor house while corporations depend on the code at large-scale and don't support what they take. Open source software is great for SDKs and other supporting materials, but Github and Google aren't going to make their core infrastructure available to all... it defies common sense.

Furthermore, companies which would lose more profit than hard-to-monetize goodwill gained, by releasing something their competitors can use against them, has as much chance as an airplane made of lead.

Open source can help sell small products get initial traction but it makes them easy to knock-off and easy to steal (unless you make the build process hard and fragile)... It just won't scale because human nature.

Define common sense please. Also please define human nature... Who would steal this software? What for? To compete against something free?

Please gain more points by not demanding impossibly-unreasonable answers.

Life experience and wisdom cannot be taught easily.

Do you think open source fine art is better than one from a single artist's vision?

Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive options. Something can be "open source" and still have only one contributor.

Art has been quite open source in its workings since centuries. Look at how artists were joining masters to learn the art and how they "forked" masters' techniques to create theirs. Personal vision is not precluded from open source, to the contrary it is encouraged.

R&B, EDM, pop and so on wouldnt have much left without remixes and sampling.

But in that case money changes hands. That's pretty different from open source.

Nothing about open source precludes money from changing hands. Case in point: Red Hat.

Yes. Open source is about way more than the finished product; it's about the shared community, techniques, processes, and tools.