No surprise
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| notbob Oct 28, 2012 7:21 PM EDT |
The mistake Shovelsworth made was to overestimate his fans. If yer gonna aim at the dumbest target in the pool, you can't expect 'em to suddenly get all smart and hip about the realities of business Besides, it's jes a small group of very vocal morons that are rocking the boat. Jes keep on keeping on and the masses too dumb to care will fall in line. Do it like ol' Khaled Mardam-Bey, the guy who created mIRC. Initially, he gave it away free. Then it became share or donation-ware. Finally, he started charging for it. None of this kept mIRC from being the most used IRC client of all time. Ubuntu will be the same. If Shovelsworth starts charging, longtime fans will cough up. Screw the vocal minority. I don't like ubuntu, but I certainly don't begrudge Mark trying to recoup his investment. |
| HoTMetaL Oct 28, 2012 7:25 PM EDT |
+1 notbob, even if I don't understand half your grammar. |
| montezuma Oct 28, 2012 10:13 PM EDT |
Nah if Bling Shuttleworth starts charging the crowds will move over to the Mint Debian edition. |
| notbob Oct 29, 2012 9:39 AM EDT |
montezuma wrote:Nah if Bling Shuttleworth starts charging the crowds will move over to the Mint Debian edition.Why?? If too high a price is reason to eschew a product, Apple would have withered and died 30 yrs ago. Do like Jawbs did. Jack the price up outta sight and make ubuntu sound exclusive. Add a little French flair. "Only ze coolest rubes use ze Ub!" ....ROFL.... |
| smallboxadmin Oct 29, 2012 12:00 PM EDT |
I think the article only pointed out half of the problem. The other half is users not realizing that Ubuntu is a commercial product for Canonical and they may not get as much say as a commercial customer of Canonical. Shuttleworth seems to want it both ways, a free user-base that promotes Ubuntu, but a commercial base that they need to keep happy. They could always go on the path of a subscription model, it seemed to have worked for Mandrake for a while. While I don't remember the missteps Mandrake made with that model, I don't think it was users unwillingness to pay. |
| flufferbeer Oct 29, 2012 12:14 PM EDT |
>> The other half is users not realizing that Ubuntu is a commercial product for Canonical and they may not get as much say as a commercial customer of Canonical. Shuttleworth seems to want it both ways, a free user-base that promotes Ubuntu, but a commercial base that they need to keep happy. Right on and +1 smallboxadmin! I think it's the sleight-of-hand set in motion by Shuttleworthle$$ and perpetuated by his wickedly-clued Baboontu minions witch CONTINUES this whole mess. And given that Linux Mint keeps trumping Baboontu on DistroWatch, I'd have to give montezuma a +1 as well! Go spin THAT away Baboontu fanbois! 2c |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 29, 2012 12:55 PM EDT |
The "free user base" and "paying commercial base" seems to work just fine for RedHat. |
| caitlyn Oct 29, 2012 1:07 PM EDT |
The problem with trying to charge for Ubuntu is that there are other distros that do as well or better or much better than they do. The masses don't use Ubuntu or any other Linux distro other than Android at this point. If it isn't widely preinstalled (as Ubuntu, Xandros Presto! and Linpus Lite were on netbooks a few years ago) then it doesn't exist as far as the masses are concerned. Ubuntu requires installation in most cases nowadays and that means, by definition, it has to cater to more knowledgeable users. If it fails to do that and fails to make serious progress in terms of being sold preinstalled on hardware then Ubuntu has no future as subscriptionware or pay to play. More knowledgeable users are already migrating to other choices and that will accelerate if they try to charge for Ubuntu without adding real value. |
| notbob Oct 29, 2012 2:38 PM EDT |
Bob_Robertson wrote: The "free user base" and "paying commercial base" seems to work just fine for RedHat. That's cuz they have brand recognition, much like IBM back in the 90s, and they have become the defacto std for enterprise linux. No manager ever went wrong choosing IBM. Remember that old saw? It now applies equally to RH. Besides, RH makes its $$ from being the primary support provider to corporations that choose linux. |
| notbob Oct 29, 2012 2:51 PM EDT |
caitlyn wrote: More knowledgeable users are already migrating to other choices and that will accelerate if they try to charge for Ubuntu without adding real value. "More knowledgable users" have never been the core user group of ubuntu, so there will no wholesale defection. Like windroids, ubuntusers will suffer almost any mutation to remain loyal, including having to pay. Even Dell has returned to the ubuntu linux fold, though that may be in flux what with the locked bootloader issue right around the corner. I'm not exactly up-to-date on that one ....cuz I don't really care. ;) |
| caitlyn Oct 29, 2012 3:12 PM EDT |
Ubuntu users may be somewhat less knowledgeable on average than other Linux users but they are head and shoulders above Windows users. Ubuntu users can at least install their own OS. From Ubuntu it's an easy step to another distro, so... I don't agree with your conclusion. Red Hat has retained it's market dominance in large part to serious mistakes by Novell/SUSE and Canonical/Ubuntu that just drive away enterprise customers. For example, SLES/SLED make major version changes in service packs, often breaking apps, especially the proprietary ones many enterprise customers depend on. Red Hat doesn't do that which insures that keeping a server patched on a reasonable schedule and maintaining existing apps doesn't conflict. So... if someone else does enterprise Linux right I think Red Hat can be seriously challenged. Yes, RH makes money on support, training and consultancy. A subscription model for Ubuntu will put them in the same space for a different clientele. Paying customers expect support, whether it's ordinary consumers or big business. Canonical, if they move into subscription space, will have to offer reasonable support which has costs associated with it. They need to see a fair number of subscriptions to make that business model work for them. I'm not convinced they can do it in consumer space. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 29, 2012 3:15 PM EDT |
> I'm not convinced they can do it in consumer space. Consumers are notoriously fickle and cheap. |
| caitlyn Oct 29, 2012 3:19 PM EDT |
@Bob: Precisely the issue :) |
| notbob Oct 29, 2012 4:08 PM EDT |
Bob_Robertson wrote: Consumers are notoriously fickle and cheap. Then how do you explain the phenomenal rise of Apple in the last decade, which approaches near cult levels in loyalty and almost total disregard for price? |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 29, 2012 5:36 PM EDT |
> Then how do you explain the phenomenal rise of Apple in the last decade, which approaches near cult levels in loyalty and almost total disregard for price? In a market with competition, a firm must constantly innovate in order to maintain market share. This doesn't have to be "real" innovation by any objective measure, just perception. Apple has an excellent marketing department, and until recently was lead by a "visionary" who was perceived as innovative. As soon as that "innovative" reputation is lost, watch Apple vanish. |
| caitlyn Oct 29, 2012 5:37 PM EDT |
Regarding Apple: that's hardware, not just software. Different beast. There is perceived value. Most ordinary users think Windows is free since it comes with their computer. They won't pay for an OS. Linux users generally ignore distros which charge anything at all. I still don't see how Ubuntu sells their buggy, slow excuse for a Linux distro as a value-added proposition that users will be willing to pay for. |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 29, 2012 6:27 PM EDT |
Red Hat doesn't just provide "support" in the form of help when things go wrong, you can't get the updates if you don't subscribe. Ubuntu isn't playing it that way. |
| notbob Oct 29, 2012 6:39 PM EDT |
caitlyn wrote:There is perceived value. Most ordinary users think Windows is free since it comes with their computer. They won't pay for an OS. Ahh, but the computer must be upgraded. Can't run W7 on that ancient XP box. Is W8 not in need of a new Intel fix? And what about all the peripheral software like photoshop, Office, and security suites which IS costly? Hardcore M$ loyalist pay willingly, despite M$'s actual innovations being mostly decorative. Time will tell. Most of the mindless ubuntu boys that do defect go for an EASIER distro, not a better one. I have no doubt Mark is blowing it, but by changing traditional desktop space more than merely asking fer a few shekels. |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 29, 2012 10:56 PM EDT |
In an interview with the Ubuntu UK Podcast recently, Shuttleworth talked about all the Ubuntu-running PCs set to be shipped by HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. I truly hope it happens, despite my personal wariness of Ubuntu/Canonical's recent business moves. |
| jdixon Oct 30, 2012 10:15 AM EDT |
> I truly hope it happens, It would be nice, yes. I'm not holding my breath. |
| caitlyn Oct 30, 2012 11:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:Red Hat doesn't just provide "support" in the form of help when things go wrong, you can't get the updates if you don't subscribe.Not so. You can get all the updates at no charge. You then have to build your own packages from the update sources. That's how CentOS, Scientific Linux, PUIAS Linux and Oracle Unbreakable Linux all get their updates: from Red Hat at no cost. That also means that if you don't have a subscription for a given box you can point to the repos from one of the clones and still get updates that way without compiling. Currently that means a 1-2 day delay. |
| caitlyn Oct 30, 2012 11:11 AM EDT |
Quoting:In an interview with the Ubuntu UK Podcast recently, Shuttleworth talked about all the Ubuntu-running PCs set to be shipped by HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. I truly hope it happens, despite my personal wariness of Ubuntu/Canonical's recent business moves.I agree completely. Quoting: It would be nice, yes. I'm not holding my breath.I also agree with jdixon. This isn't the first time that Mr. Shuttleworth has made such claims and, at least so far, they have never panned out except on netbooks and all too briefly by Dell on other models. |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 30, 2012 7:40 PM EDT |
About 99.99 percent of business are not going to want to build from source, and they want the "official," supported versions, and whatever peace of mind they get from that official channel, which means paying Red Hat |
| caitlyn Oct 31, 2012 3:54 AM EDT |
@Steven: Of course. Red Hat and Novell/SUSE capitalize on the business IT director/manager's need to have a support contract in hand even if they never, ever use it. My point was that Red Hat and Novell do not charge for the code. It's GPL and readily available. They charge for convenience and for giving management warm fuzzies. It's very profitable, too. Seriously, I do think Red Hat and to a somewhat lesser degree Novell do add value and do give customers very good support for the cost of the subscription. Even so, they are really capitalizing on the mindset of management used to a proprietary software model. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 31, 2012 8:32 AM EDT |
> they are really capitalizing on the mindset of management used to a proprietary software model. Sure. And when there's no profit in that, they'll find something else. |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 31, 2012 12:38 PM EDT |
That's business for you. |
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!