Is a business Installing & Upgrading Ubuntu Possible?

[held7over]

Call me crazy, but--

Someday there will be a charge into the Microsoft held customer
base that will be a feeding frenzy in the computer world like no
other time in history. --A Linux Gold Rush...if you will. (Take that! Bill Gates!) I'd sure like to kick that shark attack for residential market share off. The question is, is that time now? -- or almost now?

In view of that thought, I am trying once again to examine the
prospects of creating such a WET DREAM BUSINESS aimed at making
money hands over fist by displacing (evil) Microsoft on select
classes of residential systems, so, before figuring out the marketing plan, I am first looking to see what the profit picture of such a business would look like in today's present distribution spread of computers owned by residential target audiences in this market. i.e. Is the conversion process profitable yet?

Obviously, this business would need to operate remotely by some
means in order to get the volume of Fresh Installs up to maximum
potential and also later in order to do hand holding Upgrades
occurring with each new version of Ubuntu issued...since by
definition these residential customers are going to be very low
on the computer literacy scale....probably a grade or two below
the present users of Linux we see in these forums. (Don't look
at me like that!)

So, ignoring training the customer, the bottom line financial question of this business concept becomes, "Just how much additional technical work is going to be required in such installs/upgrades over and above the task of remotely running the automatic conversion routines on their systems?" i.e. "What is the cost impact of fixing problems left over by the automatic Ubuntu Installer or Upgrader?"

To resolve this question, which directly impacts changing great
profit potential into heart-breaking ship-sinking losses in a
FLAT FEE scenario, I grabbed the Ubuntu 9.10 conversion statistics
provided on this forum elsewhere, and reworked them so that they
now independently display "Fresh Install" statistics separate from
"Upgrade" statistics, because this is sequentially how our proposed
business will encounter our theoretical customer base's problems:

Form of Install Participants Percentage

Install -worked flawlessly 548 34.90%
Install -worked but had non serious errors 434 27.64%
Install -got many problems not solved 588 37.45%
_______________
1570


Upgrade -worked flawlessly 593 31.19%
Upgrade -worked but had non serious errors 662 35.61%
Upgrade -got many problems not solved 604 32.49%
_______________
1859

(Note: I am assuming "got many unsolved problems" means
the install/upgrade is a failure to successfully accomplish
an install/upgrade.)

WOW! On first glance, for a volume orientated business, this
looks pretty grim....

It would appear that we can expect only 31% to 35% of our
installs/upgrades to go smoothly and generate maximum profit.

This means 65% to 68% of all install/upgrades are going to require
additional efforts/(labor expense) to complete the install, lowering our profit margins. (I seem to be having trouble breathing!)

And worse, after having expended time (labor costs) to resolve the issues, 32% to 37% of all attempts will still end in failure! (My chest seems to be tightening!)....meaning, our business will have to refund the fee (Sacrilege!)(I'm seeing little bright stars swirling around in my vision!), worse, all the time on these failures (labor expense) expended is a total loss (I- I can't- I can't breath!) plus
we are going to have to re-install Microsoft (evil Bill Gates is grinning cruelly at me from behind my back!) in order to leave the customer undamaged! -More $$$ of labor expense down the drain! (Arg! The Pain! The Pain! Quick! Call 911!)

--So, as these statistics currently stand, roughly, half of all systems with problems will fail to remain sales and dramatically lower profit margins of the company to boot.

But it occurs to me that the above statistics may be deceptively skewed or possibly there is a way to screen out most of that 32% to 37% of systems doomed to failure BEFORE accepting the job...and this is where I need your help if you have a background and expertise in installing Linux on a wide variety of computers, giving you a better feel for the real world over these statistics and perhaps you have some ideas on how to avoid problem situations or problem computers?

For instance, perhaps these statistics can be shifted by elements not measured in the above poll, for instance:

What is the experience between installs/upgrades on Laptops compared to Desktops? Perhaps the statistics on installs happening on Desktop systems are far better than on Laptops? Or perhaps certain laptops should be avoided?

What is the experience between older computers and newer computers? At one time, years ago, I remember hearing that newer computer systems were not having installation problems....as they were more Linux friendly...is this true?

Are the above statistics significantly skewed by first time installers failing compared to seasoned installers? Or are they skewed to actually look better than they are by the bulk of the installers/upgraders being seasoned users with computers who have less problems already running Linux?

Are the statistics significantly being skewed by problems with peripheral equipment, rather than the computers themselves?

Etc.

In order for such a business to be successful, it appears to me to have policies that SHIFT the statistics more into its favor by dramatically cutting back the failure rate portion of these numbers and improving the odds in any other areas as much as possible, perhaps by pre-screening somehow? Any recommendations? And how much do you think the statistics can be shifted to the business's favor overall?

I realize this is a bit of guesswork, but I'd greatly appreciate your speculation, input, and suggestions if you have a feel for this direction of thought.

Thanks! :popcorn:

[Mark Phelps]

While I admire what you're trying to do, I see several concerns with what you're proposing ...

First, regarding the statistics, they say nothing about WHY so many systems continued to have serious (apparently unsolvable) problems. To reduce this percentage, you would at least need to know hadware vs. software distribution of the failures, and then, which specific hardware devices and which specific software apps. So, right off, you don't have anywhere the level of detail stats you need to make educated guesses.

A second problem you've already mentioned is one of laptops vs. desktops. While laptops are infamous with respect to customized hardware, if a single hardware device is prevalent in most laptops, and that device has been around for a while, the Linux community has probably already developed drivers and/or other workarounds. In contrast, very new devices and/or a great variety of devices will tend to increase the failure rate on new installs -- due to lack of existing mitigation approaches.

A third problem, and one that is most likely to doom your "enterprise" from the outset, is that, from the comments we get on the forum, manyfolks (especially those coming over from MS Windows) overemphasize the "free" aspect of Ubuntu, not the enormous flexibility offered by open source software. Folks that are unwilling to pay for an OS environment (i.e., OS + suite of apps), are similarly unlikely to pay for post-installation support.

Since Canonical already provides for-fee technical support, if you can, you should see what you can find out about their success. IF they can't make money off it, you're going to have an even harder time yourself.

NOT a personal criticism; just an observation.

[Mighty_Joe]

Someday there will be a charge into the Microsoft held customer
base that will be a feeding frenzy in the computer world like no
other time in history. --A Linux Gold Rush...if you will. (Take that! Bill Gates!) I'd sure like to kick that shark attack for residential market share off. The question is, is that time now? -- or almost now?


I don't see it happening. The average residential computer user is clueless about their operating system, what a different operating system would do differently and why they should pay for the difference.
Installing an operating system for a non-tech savvy user would put you on the hook for every stupid thing that user does for the rest of that hardware's life, pretty much extinguishing whatever flat fee you could pry out of their grubby paws.
The money is in the enterprise side. That's where RedHat, Suse and Canonical have staked their claim. No stupid end users, just racks of servers and high profit margins.

[benj1]

interresting idea, i do have doubts though

1. the percentage of users willing to pay for upgrade support.
The figure for non technically minded people, the people who would value this service, is probably low (compared to windows) but rising, which is good, but would they actually pay for upgrades?. At the moment (in windows land) upgrades are purchased with a new computer (especially with non technical users), would they be receptive to paying for biannual upgrades? i don't know but my hunch is no.

2.these figures seem to suggest that upgrading is haphazard at best, that would certainly be good from a demand side but bad on the cost/profit side, probably to the point of it making it unprofitable.
you suggested you could weed out the problem PCs, however then you have the problem of turning away business, and turning into a compatibility test, ie people getting quotes, if you offer one, people know their PC will work without problems, at the very least i can't think of any mass market volume service that is so selective, perhaps an insurance type pricing model might be better.

[held7over]

I want to thank everyone who has responded so far, and I mostly agree with your assessments. I also agree that right now the business world is the best market for making money with Linux, hands down, but it is this other frontier, the residential market that holds many exciting prospects if it can be cracked.

And I agree it is very tempting indeed to jump the gun from the technical exploration I began by asking my questions at the beginning of this thread and leap directly to marketing questions and speculate there, but that is premature and any immediate judgments leaped to might cause us to overlook the answer, first we need some truer statistics upon which to base a financial model, as what is possible must be based on what can be done, rather than looking at the impossible whole market, before we rule in or out our targets.

What is at stake here, is far greater than the question of creating this tiny ENABLING COMPANY, but rather, the question of WHO will take over and dominate the computer world......closed systems or open systems (to use an older term)?

In order for Linux to have a shot at winning a dominating share of that future, Linux must obviously develop far better automated more comprehensive installer routines....but there is not much we can do about that, other than point out that Linux will loose this race without them....as if anything, this study demonstrates the weakness of Linux, which requires, presently, people with knowledge of their machines...whereas Microsoft and Mac seem to get along without that requirement...so much. This is why it is so tempting to insert an ENABLING COMPANY layer to drive the Linux marketing...

But my question is today, what can we accomplish today with a high rate of success?

In order to eliminate the fantastic variety of stuff that can go wrong because of all the diversity, all of which must be poisoning these statistics so that we can't know what they mean for sure, let me revise my requirements down the simplest system :

Computer: The screen, keyboard, & mouse should work. Sound should work. That's it. No fancy cards in the machine if it didn't come with them.

Applications: Gnome desktop (not necessarily all the software that comes with it), Evolution, Openoffice.org stuff, Firefox, GQview, Konqueror, a PDF Viewer, K3B, screen snapshot, Gimp, one of the movie players, pidgin, firestarter firewall, Ark, ChmSee viewer, and Audacious music player.

Note: Any other applications that happen to run in the standard install are considered a bonus. I would have added SKYPE from mediabuntu as that is a selling point, but that requires an external mic to be working and I have a couple of older computers that no longer have this working on the newest Ubuntu, plus I have had SKYPE install and work great for months and then suddenly no longer work on several computers....for instance right now, on a 9.04 installation which has the "sign in" button permanently ghosted out for some reason.

OK, so, no other external peripherals and only the named applications above need to work to be considered a successful install.

Where do you figure we are on these statistics now?

[Mark Phelps]

I can't really comment on the stats, so if that's all you want, then you can skip the remainder of my comments ...

If you scan over the problems folks have been reporting with 9.10 installs and upgrades, you'll see that nearly all of them fall into your basic "just working" list:
- Video problems (no screen, scrambled screen, low res)
- No keyboard and/or mouse after install
- No sound after install/upgrade

The first of these is often due to unavailability of drivers for the video card models that work with 9.10 -- that's nothing you can fix.

The second of these is most probably a driver problem -- again, likely something you can't fix.

The third of these is often associated with Pulse Audio -- something you probably CAN fix.

So, even narrowing your customer base to define "success" with these minimal requirements still presents major problems -- some of which you won't be able to solve. OR, if you DO solve, will require massive investments of time, resulting in no possibility of turning a profit.

Thus, as folks have said better than me, it's unlikely you're going to be able to define a business model for doing these sort of fixes and making any real money in the process.

[ezsit]

In order for Linux to have a shot at winning a dominating share of that future

There is little or nothing Linux can do to win a dominating share of the residential market. It is not up to the Linux community, nor the Linux developers, whether of not the residential market opens up. MS controls the retail space and its control is not slipping.

Microsoft enjoys the monopoly for a few primary reasons:

1. MS controls the MBR of every hard drive that a MS operating system is installed on and sold.
2. MS produces operating systems that can be updated piecemeal, along with software and driver updates. Updating your software and drivers does not entail upgrading your kernel and vice versa. If Linux could separate the kernel, C library, drivers, and software to the point where anyone could easily upgrade any component without upgrading every component or re-compiling from source, then we can talk about world domination.
3. MS has hardware vendors writing drivers and Linux needs more drivers, more up-to-date drivers, and even more drivers. Oh, did I mention more drivers? MS allows the user to easily install and update drivers. Linux needs to separate the drivers from the kernel and the c library to the extent that allows the end user to easily update and install third party drivers for any hardware regardless of what kernel and version of the c library is installed on the system.

The first reason is purely in Microsoft's control. The second two reasons would require a monumental shift in the design and structure of Linux, see Linus about that. Either way, I do not see the situation changing anytime soon.

[benj1]

There is little or nothing Linux can do to win a dominating share of the residential market. It is not up to the Linux community, nor the Linux developers, whether of not the residential market opens up. MS controls the retail space and its control is not slipping.

Microsoft enjoys the monopoly for a few primary reasons:

1. MS controls the MBR of every hard drive that a MS operating system is installed on and sold.
2. MS produces operating systems that can be updated piecemeal, along with software and driver updates. Updating your software and drivers does not entail upgrading your kernel and vice versa. If Linux could separate the kernel, C library, drivers, and software to the point where anyone could easily upgrade any component without upgrading every component or re-compiling from source, then we can talk about world domination.
3. MS has hardware vendors writing drivers and Linux needs more drivers, more up-to-date drivers, and even more drivers. Oh, did I mention more drivers? MS allows the user to easily install and update drivers. Linux needs to separate the drivers from the kernel and the c library to the extent that allows the end user to easily update and install third party drivers for any hardware regardless of what kernel and version of the c library is installed on the system.

The first reason is purely in Microsoft's control. The second two reasons would require a monumental shift in the design and structure of Linux, see Linus about that. Either way, I do not see the situation changing anytime soon.

@eszit
i disagree with points 2 and 3

2. linux systems can be updated piecemeal, using a rolling release you could just update forever. i agree that you don't require kernel updates for drivers in windows but the practical implications are the same, you need to restart, i don't think this is a huge problem.

3. im in two minds as to whether this is a disadvantage, in my experience if linux supports something it does it better than windows, and its also nice to install a system without having to hunt down drivers for everything, but if it isn't in the kernel things become harder, i don't know if the problem is market share, and these problems could be solved by some kind of driver repo, or whether the problem is a bit more difficult. overall i think the linux approach does have many plus points, and i certainly don't think its broken.

[held7over]

So, as Mark Phelps points out:


If you scan over the problems folks have been reporting with 9.10 installs and upgrades, you'll see that nearly all of them fall into your basic "just working" list:
- Video problems (no screen, scrambled screen, low res)
- No keyboard and/or mouse after install
- No sound after install/upgrade

If these problems represent the majority of the problems one faces for achieving the minimal implementation of linux considered a success I have described in my prior posting, couldn't we just use a live CD to grade out the majority of machines we would have trouble with converting (and later upgrading) at this level of implementation? Wouldn't we be able to immediately see video, sound, keyboards, and mice aren't working that way?

What would grading out those machines that failed those tests do to our "pre-defined success" rate?

I will confess, I am more marketing strategy and tactics orientated than I am technical, although I have been running only Linux for my business and personal needs since 2001, which is why I am asking these questions concerning this minimal level of implementation because I suspect I may have stumbled upon a possible overlooked market segment where one could displace Microsoft by mining a group of people who have never heard of Linux and are not likely to find it for themselves, meaning, they would be a new class of Linux users....and I have toyed with a possible beginning marketing scheme to fit it. But to know for sure and to discover how broad it actually is, or if it really exists or not, I am going to have to do some test marketing (and experimenting with the marketing plan and sales pitch), and that means sticking my head out for that horrible headache of being tied and committed (hopefully not to the loony bin) to their upkeep once sold and converted. This is why I am exploring how to SMOOTH out the market and filter out as many labor hassles up front as possible, as I want to end up with a totally automated install and automated upgrades (which really could just be fresh installs minus the partitioning phase...). If the market is as big as I hope it is, we can afford to be a bit selective at this point. It thus becomes essential to grade out the problem systems up front while at the same time making it as easy for the computers to pass our test as possible to gain the maximum number of systems we can sell...this is why I am sweating the statistics, and needing to clean them up as they would apply to what I am thinking of doing...so that there is a clearer picture of what this particular adventure would really look like with the qualifications and limitations I have imposed on it...and I believe you guys have that view far better than I do......if I can pull it out of you! Ha! :p

P.S. If they would have had a Kool Aid icon to represent my view instead of the happy face, I would have used that...