I think this is exactly the crux of the issue, but I see a big difference: Bluetooth being "open" doesn't mean much when the kernel and device drivers and electronics are all closed. What would them being "open" mean -- specs are available? No, it would mean they are built in a fashion that allows them to be modified. It would mean that tools are easily available to the lay to allow modification.

I fully agree that just publishing the spec of a chip does not enable random people working part time in their garages or collaborating over github to do it, but creating software and hardware from the ground up with modifiability in mind would enable that kind of ad hoc work.

Would it solve all problems? Would it fix every bug? No, of course not! I'm not saying that open source is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything -- I'm saying that a world built out of proprietary, competing, closed-off little gardens at the least guarantees that that which was created sub-standard cannot ever be brought to par.

Let me fix my own damned watch, and I really might.