hurting others profits
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jsusanka May 29, 2007 3:00 AM EDT |
too bad we can't put a number on the profits they are taking away/hurting from companies that sell/support linux. |
| maggrand May 29, 2007 3:27 AM EDT |
Do as the music industry. Just make up a number and claim this is the truth and nothing else except the truth. Oh the software industry do the same and the movieindustry too. So why not (its ment as a joke) |
| pogson May 29, 2007 5:28 AM EDT |
jsusanka wrote:"too bad we can't put a number on the profits they are taking away/hurting from companies that sell/support linux." I have been a number-cruncher for several decades. There is always a way... It is well documented that M$ does not compete on price and performance. One could assume that if there were no monopoly and M$ did compete on price/performance that the market would be divided up according to the merits of the products/skill of the salesmen. On the server market there are plenty of choices for web services:Linux, various other unices, BSD, FreeBSD... all reasonable performers. Linux and FreeBSD are, well, free, so they should get a little extra juice. If there are six choices and we give several free ones double the hits, there would be about 10% market for M$, 20% for Linux and other freebies. 2003 is a specialized server for the LAN/desktop environment and people like it so it could get extra juice there. On the desktop there are several reasonable choices. Linux, MacOS and that other OS are the front runners in terms of popularity and depth of apps. Linux is free in many ways while the most popular OS is a near monopoly and highly over-priced. That other OS also has malware and integrity problems galore. If the monopoly were gone (market share less than 50%), it is quite conceivable that each of these three could get about one third of the market. So I can put a number on things. M$ should have between 10 and 30% of the market based on price and features. As things stand, I wish they would fizzle completely, but I expect even M$ would change its ways once the brain has realized that the body is sinking into a tar pit. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2007 6:05 AM EDT |
pogson - People do enjoy making up numbers, but that doesn't make the numbers any better. For example, you try re-apportioning server sales, supposedly correcting for Microsoft's monopoly, but... Microsoft has never held a monopoly in the server room. They wanted one. They tried to get one. They failed. As to the desktop, that's also tricky territory because it assumes that viable competitors actually wanted the desktop while Microsoft was building its monopoly (hint: hard to use monopoly power while you have it). I could see Mac getting a third of the market if they will offer price-competitive computers, something they tend to avoid. I have a much harder time seeing Linux getting a third of the market as things stand. Elimination of software patents and modification of the DMCA would help, but the real problem is getting somebody to sink the money to market Linux in a "1/3 of the market way" and to do the things required to win broad acceptance. Free software have a way of turning on anybody who wants to make Linux a broader success. |
| pogson May 29, 2007 9:23 AM EDT |
dinotrac wrote:"Free software have a way of turning on anybody who wants to make Linux a broader success." Yes. Revolution is hard. My estimates assume the battle is over and M$ has to compete on merit. The difficulty is that those established in IT are locked-in and there is no easy way to extricate. For instance, Dell gets a huge benefit from M$ sales. If Linux took off for them, in the short run they would lose money in a big way because every Linux box means a M$ sale lost. Also, it took a decade to put the installed base out there. There is just no quick way to undo all the wrong choices people made. Some think it could take ten years to break the M$ monopoly and who know what M$ will do to fight that. Linux is not a short path to riches for most businesses. It will take a lot of time. RedHat is doing well but not showing dramatic growth. Even 20-40% per annum growth means it will take many years for GNU/Linux to displace much of M$. I think the Vista boondoggle could be big for Linux but we will not know for a year or so how big. Diversified companies like IBM can afford to go with Linux because they have reserves, momentum and clout. Startups can, too, because they have nothing to lose and plenty of room to expand, but they have to have a plan including how to survive a few years while growing rapidly. I have been thinking of starting a small Linux business, but it is not for a feeble old man like myself. I may join some partners who add the skills I lack. Novell is in an interesting position, they were working well in a transition from Netware to Linux but the M$ deal could be a rock in midstream for them. I am afraid they made a strategic move that in the long term will be disastrous. If I were in a LInux business, giving M$ a cut would be the last thing on my mind but it must have been tempting to help build the gap between relying on M$ and going entirely with Linux. I will bet M$ will force such deals on many "partners". |
| rijelkentaurus May 30, 2007 3:21 AM EDT |
Quoting: The difficulty is that those established in IT are locked-in and there is no easy way to extricate. The problem is not with the big companies, it is with the small network integration firms such as I work for. They are entrenched in MS products and knowledge, and are too scared to move away from it or learn something new, so much so that they use Linux experiences from ten years ago to continue to justify ignoring it today...in short, they lie into the ears of those who trust them and poison opportunities that scream for Linux. These firms also make money on billable time, and how much time does Linux require once it's set up? I set up a Red Hat server for a client 5 months ago, I only hear from them when they have problems with their Windows machines. People start having odd problems with Windows servers almost immediately, usually during the install. But Windows makes for a ton of billable time. The Unices of the world are just too good for their own good, I guess. |
| jsusanka May 30, 2007 3:59 AM EDT |
".in short, they lie into the ears of those who trust them and poison opportunities that scream for Linux. These firms also make money on billable time, and how much time does Linux require once it's set up?" that is very interesting angle - some good food for thought. |
| dinotrac May 30, 2007 5:24 AM EDT |
> They are entrenched in MS products and knowledge, and are too scared to move away from it or learn something new, In fairness to small companies, it is hard for them to move away from Windows because many of the applications available for small companies are Windows apps. That means, to sell Linux, you're really selling a mixed environment. That sounds more complex, and, by extension, more difficult on the surface. Non-IT folks have a very hard time balancing the strangeness of that box or this box with the fact that it doesn't matter because you'll never have to touch them. Although -- I wonder if it's easier to sell Linux to places that have ever used an AS/400? Those things are legendary for set-and-forget operation. Hmmm. "You used to have AS/400s, right? Miss 'em? Lots of people do. Well, this Linux server is a lot like that...once we get it set up and put it someplace where big heavy things don't fall on it, it'll run forever." |
| NoDough May 30, 2007 7:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:I wonder if it's easier to sell Linux to places that have ever used an AS/400? Well, it certainly would be where I work now. They had their ERP system running on AIX. Never had any trouble with it. Then the software company moved to the Windows platform. It's been nothing but problems since. Selling them on a Unix(ish) based solution wouldn't be difficult today. However, it may have been difficult before they experienced what Windows server environments are really like. |
| dinotrac May 30, 2007 11:49 AM EDT |
>Selling them on a Unix(ish) based solution wouldn't be difficult today. Don't suppose they'd be a small manufacturer in the Chicago (Indianopolis, Detroit, Minneapolis) area... |
| NoDough May 30, 2007 12:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:Don't suppose they'd be a small manufacturer in the Chicago (Indianopolis, Detroit, Minneapolis) area... No, I'm afraid not. We are a medium sized mechanical construction company in central North Carolina. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!