Ubuntu maker boosted revenue in 2013 but doubled loss to $21 million

[sffvba[e0rt]

Canonical's UK-based operations earned $65.7 million in revenue during fiscal 2013, a significant boost over the previous year's revenue of $56.8 million. However, the company is in investment mode as it attempts to expand beyond desktops and servers to the mobile market. While Canonical lost $11.1 million in fiscal 2012, its losses rose to $21.3 million in fiscal 2013.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted-revenue-in-2013-but-doubled-loss-to-21-million/

There has often been lots of speculation on this topic so good to see some facts emerge...

[Roasted]

I can't help but to wonder if they regret some of the shopping lens decisions they've made recently.

[Dragonbite]

Nice to see the scope of their operation, even if just in part.

[QIII]

I can't help but to wonder if they regret some of the shopping lens decisions they've made recently.

Not sure what that has to do with "company increases revenue, commits even more to development, billionaire benefactor excited about investing more"

[Roasted]

Not sure what that has to do with "company increases revenue, commits even more to development, billionaire benefactor excited about investing more"

It has everything to do with it, as the article is simultaneously about having double the financial loss in 2013 as they did in 2012. This whole "increased revenue but had more loss" thing is exactly what happened to OCZ, and we all know the recent news of OCZ. Don't get me wrong, I really want to see Ubuntu/Canonical succeed, but I'm genuinely worried that certain decisions will bite them in the worst way possible.

[QIII]

If revenue decreased after introduction of the shopping lens you might have a point.

The article was clearly about revenue/expense, the expense being development into new markets. That's about investment and risk, not about whether a recently added feature hurt revenue.

[Roasted]

If revenue decreased after introduction of the shopping lens you might have a point.

The article was clearly about revenue/expense, the expense being development into new markets. That's about investment and risk, not about whether a recently added feature hurt revenue.

While the argument can stand that the feature didn't hurt Ubuntu/Canonical (despite the inarguable backlash to their reputation), I wonder if it helped any. I'd be curious to see what sort of revenue the lens generated overall.

[Dragonbite]

I wonder how the breakdown from UbuntuOne, UbuntuOne Music Store, Banshee-Amazon kickback and the shopping lens all fit. None of them in particular probably has made them much money but a little here-and-there can make a difference.

I, for one, think Ubuntu One could make them more money but they aren't paying it much attention. Even with the latest improvements, there is little to entice one to use and pay for Ubuntu One over the alternatives (Google docs, Dropbox, SpiderOak, Box.net, Copy, SkyDrive, etc. etc.)

[grahammechanical]

I must be misunderstanding something. Is Canonical being criticised for ploughing its profits back into development (hiring developers) and not paying a hefty dividend to the owner of Canonical? Didn't Amazon have the same policy? just look where Amazon is now! I see trouble a head.

[RichardET]

To those who are criticizing Canonical - when you download your iso, do you ever donate money? The old joke is "why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?!"
Over the years I have seen many posters on the openSUSE forums bragging about how they never buy openSUSE, but they always run the latest version!
We don't want to pay for anything anymore; the NY Times has nearly gone under over this fact; not sure how to change this trend.