PDA

View Full Version : The LInux Distro Business Model?



neu5eeCh
April 10th, 2010, 12:23 AM
So... I'm guessing this question has been asked before, but...

What's in it for a company like Novell, or Sun, or Oracle? What does Novell stand to gain by throwing its resources behind a single user desktop OS like OpenSuse, an OS that users aren't paying for? How does that expand their server market, where the real money is?

What's in it for Shuttleworth?

How does creating an OS for individual use (read non-business or non-corporate) contribute to the bottom line for any of these companies?

And then there are all distros like PCLOS, PC/OS, Mint, Sabayon, Sidux, etc... Are these just people and groups of people with lots of spare time?

And what about OpenOffice? Why is IBM throwing money and time into Lotus?

Just wondering.

(RedHat and Madriva, I know, have seemingly both decided that offering a Free OS - with all the bells and whistles - is unsustainable. The wonder, to me, is that many of the other distros haven't decided the same.)

cariboo
April 10th, 2010, 01:17 AM
Money, it's all about the money. :) RedHat, Novell, IBM, Canonical et al sell support contracts for desktop and server systems to businesses. That's the reason we get to play with all the goodies.

Lightstar
April 10th, 2010, 01:24 AM
Alot of big linuxs are the testing area of other linuxs!

RedHat is a paid linux, they test their stuff on Fedora.
Suse is paid linux, they test their stuff on OpenSuse.

And some other distributions are just really awesome and give us their real stuff.

neu5eeCh
April 10th, 2010, 01:35 AM
Money, it's all about the money. :) RedHat, Novell, IBM, Canonical et al sell support contracts for desktop and server systems to businesses. That's the reason we get to play with all the goodies.

Interesting. So to whom, exactly, would a company like Novell sell support contracts for "desktop" systems? I can see server systems, but desktop systems? And my impression is that desktop systems don't share much with server systems. So how would creating a desktop OS be useful for a server system?

szymon_g
April 10th, 2010, 01:46 AM
Interesting. So to whom, exactly, would a company like Novell sell support contracts for "desktop" systems? I can see server systems, but desktop systems? And my impression is that desktop systems don't share much with server systems. So how would creating a desktop OS be useful for a server system?

they do not really 'count' on ordinary-desktop users (although you can, sometimes, find a boxed version of SLED in stores); they usually sell it to company-desktops, which differ from 'home' desktop (like- security and stability is more important, same as PIM integration etc)

undecim
April 10th, 2010, 02:24 AM
There's also search contracts. If you look, you can find articles and forums posts talking about Ubuntu switching to Yahoo! search because they offered higher revenues that Google. (They've recently switched back to Google though :) )

Then there's other extras like the stuff you can buy from the Ubuntu store. Of course, I'm sure that revenue is nothing compared to support contracts and search revenue

markbuntu
April 10th, 2010, 07:38 PM
Businesses want a one vendor solution and secure desktops so the big guys provide linux desktops. It also keeps their employees from infecting the machines/network with windows viruses which is a huge problem where windows desktops are used.

neu5eeCh
April 10th, 2010, 08:09 PM
Businesses want a one vendor solution and secure desktops so the big guys provide linux desktops. It also keeps their employees from infecting the machines/network with windows viruses which is a huge problem where windows desktops are used.

That makes more sense, though I can't think of a single businessman (of the few I know) who schlep around linux laptops. They all use windows and when I've visited their offices, all their desktop systems are windows based.

Is there a percentage for linux desktops, as opposed to windows, strictly within a business environment?

And on a related note, what's with China? You'd think, given how paranoid the government is, they would have nothing to do with an American Software maker who could (theoretically) sneak (into the source code) whatever spyware the US government demanded.

Interestingly, here's what Wikipedia has to say about Red Flag Linux:


Nanchang Internet cafes

As of 3rd December 2008, it has been reported that Internet cafes in Nanchang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanchang), since November 2008, have been required to install the Red Flag Linux as a replacement for pirated versions of the popular Microsoft Windows operating system, or switch to legitimate copies of Microsoft Windows. Radio Free Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia) however said that Chinese internet cafes were being required to switch to Red Flag Linux even if they were using genuine copies of the Windows OS. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Linux#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Linux#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Linux#cite_note-3) This system is provided with a non-expiring support contract at the cost of 5000 yuan for all machines in the cafe. An official spokesperson for Red Flag Linux clarified by stating that the announcement were targeted to the server-side not the gaming-intensive client-side computers, and that in the original announcement, Microsoft Windows and Red Flag Linux were simply recommended platforms as they have been tested by Bureau of Culture.


At least with Linux, the government can actually see the code.

Doctor Mike
April 10th, 2010, 09:00 PM
That makes more sense, though I can't think of a single businessman (of the few I know) who schlep around linux laptops. They all use windows and when I've visited their offices, all their desktop systems are windows based.
Would you be surprised to know that's changing. I've been approached by two local companies about Linux viability in the home user market. To be sure it is because I'm known to tech support people in both (my knowledge is not sufficient for advanced advise) companies and they also know I do advocate open source like Ubuntu.

My advise was that the systems are 'basically' stable but need trained tech support services for viability in an untrained user market (doesn't hurt that Linux is about ten times more secure even after careful security planning (MS) and elimination of multiple network bindings (MS OS). I've seen nothing but smiles (almost) to that answer. Learn, use, grow and be honest and people will buy your services.

It's simply the MS history that has been creating the change. There current product is a strong OS, but it might not survive they're accumulated reputation...

neu5eeCh
April 10th, 2010, 09:07 PM
Would you be surprised to know that's changing. I've been approached by two local companies about Linux viability in the home user market.

Yes, I would be surprised, but I'm glad to hear it.

Would these companies then purchase service agreements (per desktop perhaps) from whatever distro you recommended?

madjr
April 10th, 2010, 11:42 PM
So... I'm guessing this question has been asked before, but...

What's in it for a company like Novell, or Sun, or Oracle? What does Novell stand to gain by throwing its resources behind a single user desktop OS like OpenSuse, an OS that users aren't paying for? How does that expand their server market, where the real money is?

What's in it for Shuttleworth?

How does creating an OS for individual use (read non-business or non-corporate) contribute to the bottom line for any of these companies?

And then there are all distros like PCLOS, PC/OS, Mint, Sabayon, Sidux, etc... Are these just people and groups of people with lots of spare time?

And what about OpenOffice? Why is IBM throwing money and time into Lotus?

Just wondering.

(RedHat and Madriva, I know, have seemingly both decided that offering a Free OS - with all the bells and whistles - is unsustainable. The wonder, to me, is that many of the other distros haven't decided the same.)

1 word: mindshare

marketshare is the present, but mindshare is where your mind wants to be, and it;s also the future

it's powerful. having extra products or services doesnt hurt.

Giving back code from software you use internally doesnt hurt either.

also the community does a big percentage of the work happily and for free.

you could ask the same question to the community: whats in it for us?

YEP SOME SPARE TIME

instead of watching a soap opera, we're doing something productive, it's our hobby

we're creating the future, learning at the same and giving people something to use

i cant cure cancer, but i can at least contribute in the software world and get poor kids/adults/institutions become productive, without worrying too much about licenses or paying more for software than they would do for food

Doctor Mike
April 10th, 2010, 11:51 PM
Yes, I would be surprised, but I'm glad to hear it.

Would these companies then purchase service agreements (per desktop perhaps) from whatever distro you recommended?No they're IT + companies and one is a service provider. But, if they want to use the name or seek certification they will have to talk to Conical. The subject has only come up because I construct functional systems out of left over computer parts that both companies provided to me.

neu5eeCh
April 11th, 2010, 12:00 AM
instead of watching a soap opera, we're doing something productive, it's our hobby

we're creating the future, learning at the same and giving people something to use

i cant cure cancer, but i can contribute in the software world

Yeah, I get it. And that's cool.

I do the same thing, though not with software.

But I don't think companies like Novell and Canonical can afford to think like that - at least in the long term. At the end of the day, these companies have earn some kind of return on their investment or they fold. So I remain curious as to how they will parlay their "mindshare" into a financial return.

Giving away ones product "for free" is something I'm trying to wrap my head around. How does it make real business sense?

neu5eeCh
April 11th, 2010, 12:01 AM
No they're IT + companies and one is a service provider. But, if they want to use the name or seek certification they will have to talk to Conical. The subject has only come up because I construct functional systems out of left over computer parts that both companies provided to me.

OK, talk to me like I was in first grade. How does Canonical profit from this?

Doctor Mike
April 11th, 2010, 12:05 AM
Yeah, I get it. And that's cool.
Giving away ones product "for free" is something I'm trying to wrap my head around. How does it make real business sense?I made a lot of money giving stuff away for free (called advertisement) until the technologies crash. Then I made due with less...:(

Irihapeti
April 11th, 2010, 12:22 AM
I'll answer your question with a question.

How does it benefit businesses to sponsor athletes and sports teams and charitable foundations?

Same idea, I would think.

neu5eeCh
April 11th, 2010, 12:47 AM
How does it benefit businesses to sponsor athletes and sports teams and charitable foundations?

OK, NIKE has Tiger Woods (their last ad, post scandal, was great by the way). But NIKE isn't giving away shoes. The whole point, for NIKE, is to sell shoes. But what is Canonical selling? Here's the comparison as I see it: It' as if NIKE were giving away their shoes, for free, (to the public) in the hopes that a few high profiles athletes, like Tiger Woods, decide to buy a pair with a long term "service contract".

Obviously, I'm missing something. Right?

What NIKE does instead, is to give their shoes to Woods, for free, then sell the rest to the public. Linux distros seem to be doing just the opposite.

Sporkman
April 11th, 2010, 01:15 AM
instead of watching a soap opera, we're doing something productive, it's our hobby

we're creating the future, learning at the same and giving people something to use

i cant cure cancer, but i can at least contribute in the software world and get poor kids/adults/institutions become productive, without worrying too much about licenses or paying more for software than they would do for food

Well said! 8)

Irihapeti
April 11th, 2010, 01:45 AM
OK, NIKE has Tiger Woods (their last ad, post scandal, was great by the way). But NIKE isn't giving away shoes. The whole point, for NIKE, is to sell shoes. But what is Canonical selling? Here's the comparison as I see it: It' as if NIKE were giving away their shoes, for free, (to the public) in the hopes that a few high profiles athletes, like Tiger Woods, decide to buy a pair with a long term "service contract".

Obviously, I'm missing something. Right?

What NIKE does instead, is to give their shoes to Woods, for free, then sell the rest to the public. Linux distros seem to be doing just the opposite.

I would say that it's about exposure. Yes, they are wanting to sell support (or licenses - I think that's what Red Hat does). If I were thinking about getting a commercial distro for my business, I'd be paying at least some attention to what my employees had to say about what they've been using. So, if someone says, "Hey, I've had good experiences with Ubuntu/Fedora/OpenSUSE," I think that it's at least worth investigating. What they already know about using it could be valuable to me.

More than one business-to-business salesperson has found out to his/her cost that the opinions of the receptionist or secretary matter more than was first thought.

Maybe the volunteer bug reporting is useful, too. Employed software testers cost money, after all. :)