Open RAN (O-RAN) has long been touted as a disruptive technology in mobile infrastructure with the concept of splitting the RAN into three components, encouraging a more modular architecture that claims to improve operator bottom lines.
The idea is to separate the RAN into three different components: Radio Unit (RU), Distributed Unit (DU) and Centralised Unit (CU) – all connected through open interfaces.
With a modular design, operators can pick and choose their components, encouraging a more competitive mobile infrastructure market. As well as improving margins, O-RAN was hailed for spurring innovation. A key example stems from ending vendor lock-in – operators could mix and match hardware and software – pushing traditional giants such as Ericsson, Huawei and Nokia to innovate. It also enables specialist vendors and start-ups to enter the space and compete in specific niches.
The landscape in 2025 shows a cautious mobile infrastructure market for O-RAN, but progress is being made. Mordor Intelligence valued it at US$3.98 billion in 2025, with projections to grow to US$19.58 billion by 2030.
New operators such as Rakuten have led the way in adopting Open RAN, but established operators’ networks are starting to catch up. ReThink Technology Research projects that by 2030, there will be approximately 1.329 million Open RAN cells deployed globally.
These projections suggest that O-RAN is growing into a viable option for operators planning large commercial deployments.
Industry body the O-RAN Alliance would certainly agree. Founded in 2018 by major operators – including China Mobile, Deutsche Telekom and Orange – it aims to foster a competitive ecosystem. The Alliance regularly hosts PlugFests with around 25 operators to test interoperability and deployment.
But O-RAN does have its doubters – some of it perhaps deserved, given the hype around promises to ‘revolutionise’ and ‘revive’ a stagnant telecoms industry that was already focused on cost efficiencies.
ABI Research Director Dimitris Mavrakis stated on LinkedIn: “Open RAN is dead.” He recalled predicting tier-one operators would bet big on the ecosystem and act as integrators – and even suppliers – of O-RAN infrastructure. Instead, he lamented, “they (operators) would kill momentum.”
Mavrakis noted that the RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) and Service Management and Orchestration (SMO) were supposed to be the white knights for O-RAN, but in his view, they failed to deliver.
“Safe to say that Open RAN will not meet its initial promise, but will morph to something else, likely dominated by Tier-1 vendors. Perhaps interest will shift to the AI RAN alliance and AI will dominate all discussions,” he added.
Open RAN has not been lost by the industry – but it certainly has not fulfilled its broadest promises. The market is scaling up, backed by solid projections and growing deployments, yet its initial ethos of fully open, multi-vendor ecosystems faces stiff practical resistance. As adoption proceeds, much will depend on how operators and emerging technologies like AI-powered RIC and SMO evolve. Whether O-RAN transforms into a mainstream innovation driver or becomes a niche controlled by dominant players, its impact on network flexibility and vendor dynamics may prove its true legacy.
