Does Ubuntu's price dissuade people?

[ironfistchamp]

Hey guys and gals,

Something I have been noticing more and more is that people love the idea of Linux (especially Ubuntu). It's great to see all my friends really thinking about it. What I find interesting is that when they say "How much?" and I respond with "Free" they are suddenly uninterested. I get comments like "Oh probably not worth me bothering with then." or "It's only a beta?!" and the best "Pah must be made by haxX0rz with all their syNt@x 'nd pr0gr@mMiNg!" (Yes they say it exactly like that :shock: )

Has anyone else noticed people being put off by the lack of monetary cost?

Ironfistchamp

[justin whitaker]

Hey guys and gals,

Something I have been noticing more and more is that people love the idea of Linux (especially Ubuntu). It's great to see all my friends really thinking about it. What I find interesting is that when they say "How much?" and I respond with "Free" they are suddenly uninterested. I get comments like "Oh probably not worth me bothering with then." or "It's only a beta?!" and the best "Pah must be made by haxX0rz with all their syNt@x 'nd pr0gr@mMiNg!" (Yes they say it exactly like that :shock: )

Has anyone else noticed people being put off by the lack of monetary cost?

Ironfistchamp

Yeah, it takes some explaining. Linux distributions are perpetual betas....I have seen the "Free" reactions before. They equate it with the sort of discs you can get torrented: hacker releases.

Best way to combat that is show them a desktop, give them a live CD. Hand them a Shippit disk.

[stokedfish]

Price as an indicator for quality - old marketing mantra...

But no, this has never happened to me so far.

[RussianVodka]

Well ofcourse, in America (I'll assume that's where you're from) people believe that if something doesn't cost obscene amounts of money, it must be made by communist scum, for communist scum, and isn't worth bothering with. I remember back in 7th grade my history teacher explaining to us the horrors of a universal health system.

What you should have done, is when they asked "How much", you should have said "only $75, way cheaper and better than Vista!". That way you would have converted some users, and made some money in the process!

[ironfistchamp]

Haha good idea RussianVodka. Isn't that illegal/immoral tho? And I'm from the UK btw (take not there will be a test later). I think the only people in the UK who would want it are the Scots. Hmm actually they may think even that is too expensive.

Only joking the Scots rock. Half my family are from Scotland.

Anyway....

[aysiu]

Tell them to get paid support (http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid), then, or buy a Ubuntu DVD from Amazon. (http://www.amazon.com/Ubuntu-6-06-LTS-Jewel-Case/dp/B000G62IDU)

[ironfistchamp]

aysiu to the rescue with the solution as usual. :)

[rolando2424]

I think that the no-price factor persuades more people than diassuades :D

[ironfistchamp]

Wish I had your experiences there Rolando. Sometimes I think to myself "Why bother converting them?" In all fairness it works fine for me. If people don't want the great experience of Linux then that is there problem. Then I realise I should be helping people (being Christian) and that this is the most important place to start!!! (j/k).

Ironfistchamp

[justin whitaker]

aysiu to the rescue with the solution as usual. :)

It's not so much that that bothers me, it's the fact that the solutions are always simple AND elegant.

:)

[dasunst3r]

When it comes time for me to reveal the price, I generally say something like "Free, but if you like it, they accept donations."

I get the shocked reaction too, and I encourage people to try it for themselves to see whether Linux/open-source software is right for them.

[muguwmp67]

Haha good idea RussianVodka. Isn't that illegal/immoral tho?

Actually, its probably ok if he installs it and calls it an installation fee. I'm not sure, but I think its also legal to charge if he agrees to provide the source code upon request, although that sounds like plagiarism to me.

I did not know about Canonical's paid support options. This makes it much easier for businesses to adopt ubuntu.

[ironfistchamp]

It's not so much that that bothers me, it's the fact that the solutions are always simple AND elegant.

:)

I know what you mean. But then aysiu is often a life saver in many of my Ubuntu related situations.

[wireddad]

I have not had problems with "free." It is the other stuff that turn folks off -- will it work? games? support? etc... In my experience. Just to get folks to try with LiveCD is a major victory.

[Adamant1988]

People do associate price with quality, but at the same time "Free" intrigues them. People trust things more when they have an investment in them, the old saying goes, "You get what you pay for". In that exact same breath, every one's always looking for a bargain. What it comes down to is the individuals willingness to accept risk.

At this point I've had much better luck converting those with nothing to lose. Those who have JUST had windows die and so they come to me. I say, "well, I can't get you windows back but I can get your computer working!" Of course at this point they're happy just to have a functional computer again, usually in the following days after the fixing I'll hear how much better it runs, etc. That's been my most successful conversion tactic to date.

I think the idea of Free as a price when it comes to something you're RELYING on for your day to day life is not a good selling point, people just FEEL like there is too much risk associated with that, and it takes a healthy amount of debate to convince them otherwise. Demonstrations are also a good way to show them a functional Linux desktop, but I make sure only to point out things that they can do for themselves, and are stable. No Beryl, none of that.

[AusIV4]

I've certainly run into this some.

When I explained to my mom that all of the software on my computer was free, her immediate response was "Well how do they make their money?" It took her a while to believe that some of these projects are done out of the goodness of people's hearts, that people are writing the software for themselves and trying to make it as good as possible because they actually use it. (I also explained commercial support, but some of the programs I use don't offer commercial support.)

And I can't tell you how many people have responded "Yeah, but I'll bet you get what you pay for." And I'm not sure how to respond to that.

With Windows, you pay. You pay for the operating system, then pay for an anti-virus to protect it and if you're lucky, you'll still have a working computer two years down the road. You pay for an office suite, which in my experience was markedly unstable (MS Office crashed all the time, so I switched to OOo long before I switched to Linux). I don't know many people who are happy with their Windows PCs, yet they keep paying out the wahzoo for software they don't like.

I can see that Ubuntu would seem too good to be true. It costs less than Windows, so it seems hard to believe it could be higher quality. Then to claim that Ubuntu is more stable, more secure, can breathe life back into old hardware, etc. people think you're making stuff up.

This certainly isn't the most common excuse I hear to not try Linux. Far more often people claim they need some piece of software that isn't available on Linux, or simply don't want to learn an new OS. But every once in a while I hear someone dismiss Ubuntu (or more generally, Linux) because of the price tag.

[DoctorMO]

Nah you can charge money for Linux, as much money as someone is willing to pay; it may seem like a cheap thing to do but it's a valuable way of creating a physical product and selling it even if the value is in the software that someone could download and burn. your effectively buying the advice, the packaging and the burnt disk and there is nothing in the GPL or other Ubuntu licences which say you can't do this.

It's not that your not allowed, it's just that anyone could download for free so why would they buy it? (failing to see the added value in that argument though)

So no, go out there children of Linux and sell Ubuntu CDs to EVERYBODY YOU MEET!

[aysiu]

It would have to be a very special situation for me to try to convince someone to move directly to Ubuntu, especially someone who might be suspicious about the price.

I would probably try to win her over the way I was won over--gradually.

Start with Firefox. Add in GIMP, OpenOffice, GAIM, FileZilla, Audacity... as many open source Windows applications (http://www.opensourcewindows.org/) as you can get your hands on.

This will get the person slowly used to the idea of open source being quality and free. No spyware. No frills or weird licensing agreements or trial periods and activation keys. Once that trust has been established, it's a lot easier to move to entire operating system (not just applications) that is open source and costs no money.

[OrangeCrate]

^, That's pretty much the same strategy I've used to get several friends to try and adopt Ubuntu. Most of these people were already aware of Firefox. I tell them (or will do it for them) to download OOo and take a look. I tell them to set the defaults to .docs and tell them to open up some of their documents and play with the program. That usually does it for them right there - their hooked.

I also run my live CD to show them how Ubuntu works (while checking compatibility of their hardware without them knowing it), and I bookmark the ShipIt page for them to order up their own copy if they don't want to learn to burn a live CD.

So far, I've converted five people to using Ubuntu as their primary face to the net (security was the biggest benefit), and all of them are setup as dual boots, so they can continue to use Windows if they choose. Frankly, I flat tell them that they don't have to choose either/or, that "and" is just fine.

Everyone has commented how easy it is to install and use Ubuntu - the topic of "free" has never come up. I would expect they already are familiar with the term "open source".

[dasunst3r]

I totally went backwards on that -- I jumped in head-first into Linux and then retroactively found the Windows versions of the apps (if available).

[IYY]

I agree with the OP. When you refer to Ubuntu as being 'free', people hear it as 'freeware', which immediately translates in their mind to 'crapware'. Part of it is because of the silly Capitalist notion that 'there's no such thing as a free lunch' (and it is indeed silly; most good things in life are free). And another part is that most free software, if you don't include Open Source software, is actually of very low quality in comparison to paid software.

So, I only actually tell people that Ubuntu is free if I have enough time to explain why it's free. A brief history of open source, of ways it can be profitable, of why programmers do it, etc.

I find that most people are actually interested in hearing this stuff, because it's not at all technical and very inspiring.

So my advice is to listen to some Richard Stallman talks (they are on Google Video and YouTube), read some articles about Free software, and start telling people the whole story, not just giving them a pricetag!

[Erik Trybom]

I, too, was amazed by the idea of free software long before I actually switched to Linux. Back in my Windows days I often tried to find free-of-charge software because I didn't have a credit card to pay the shareware price with. The only software I paid money for was computer games and the pre-installed usual stuff (MS Office etc).

Well, to be honest, most of the software I downloaded was crap. Some wouldn't work past 30 days. Other would have certain features locked, or - worst of all - install spyware and popup windows with advertisements. I hated it. Then I started to note that some programs, such as Mozilla, Audacity, ZSNES and so on, worked without these disadvantages. They were "open source" and I read some about the subject.

Well, after a while I found myself installing more and more Free software until most of the stuff I used was just that. The step to Linux was a pretty small one to take by then.

In short, being free is a major advantage, but being free of adware, spyware and trial versions is even better - and that is where GPL software excels. I think that the word "free" is somewhat tainted in the Windows world, because of the mentioned plagues, and that you have to make clear the difference between "Free software" and "Freeware" if you want people to try it out. Being free won't scare people away, but their expectations of software that is free might - so we have to change their expectations.

Read Aysiu's post for an excellent way of doing that.

[az]

So, I only actually tell people that Ubuntu is free if I have enough time to explain why it's free. A brief history of open source, of ways it can be profitable, of why programmers do it, etc.


I agree. The cost is really not important.

I describe software freedom when asked that question.

"There typically is no cost because part of software freedom is that the software should be freely redistributable.

You can not only get it for free, but you can change it up and redistribute it for free.

You actually would be going against the licencing terms by then not redistributing it as free software."

Now, most people cannot wrap their heads around that at first, so it works at getting a conversation started. It redirects their first impression from thinking that they have sized it up based on the cost to the fact that there is something more to know about it.

It seems to work for me. The other thing is the shipit cds. They look really sharp. That has had a profound impact on the adoption of the software. When you hand people the Dapper cd from Canonical it looks and feels like the real deal.

[aysiu]

I hate to say it, but sometimes the Ubuntu community (I may have even been guilty of this myself at one point) feeds into the idea that cost-free = bad quality.

Every now and then, we get complaints from users or trolls who say "Ubuntu sucks. Why doesn't this work? Why doesn't this work? Why is this so hard?" and someone will reply along the lines of "Well, why don't you ask for a refund then? This is free software. Don't complain."

The idea that free software should not be complained about or--the more insidious implication, that free software should be expected to be of lower quality than commercial software--is something that the community needs to work against.

Should we be grateful that someone's offering a great piece of software to us for free? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean people should be satisfied with the software if it isn't optimal. Constructive criticism (in the right places, with the right tone, and with a proper understanding of what needs fixing) is essential to Free/free software improvement.

[Hendrixski]

I hate to say it, but sometimes the Ubuntu community (I may have even been guilty of this myself at one point) feeds into the idea that cost-free = bad quality.

Every now and then, we get complaints from users or trolls who say "Ubuntu sucks. Why doesn't this work? Why doesn't this work? Why is this so hard?" and someone will reply along the lines of "Well, why don't you ask for a refund then? This is free software. Don't complain."

The idea that free software should not be complained about or--the more insidious implication, that free software should be expected to be of lower quality than commercial software--is something that the community needs to work against.

Should we be grateful that someone's offering a great piece of software to us for free? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean people should be satisfied with the software if it isn't optimal. Constructive criticism (in the right places, with the right tone, and with a proper understanding of what needs fixing) is essential to Free/free software improvement.

:) we're all guilty of it. It's one of the fundamental tenets of marketing. part of the product is its price. For example, if you make a shoe, it's different product if you sell that shoe for $200 or for $20. Why? Because people will buy it for different reasons, with different expectations. Even though it's the same damn shoe. Likewise, if you price an operating system for $50 or $0 people will think that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is somehow better... even though, it is not much different from Fedora. Though, people will still complain... not because it's free, but because they're human.

So for all the people who think that free = crap, tell them to go buy a copy of Linux :)

[aysiu]

So for all the people who think that free = crap, tell them to go buy a copy of Linux :) Which is exactly what I suggested earlier in the thread. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=2216941#post2216941)

But that brings up another one of the mixed messages in the community (again, which I'm probably guilty of): when people were talking about OOoFf (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=5993), few could understand why someone would sell OpenOffice and Firefox without letting people know copies were available for free.

And when Kevin Carmony came here to explain why they were selling free software and not letting people know it was available for free (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=138366) a lot of us, including myself, argued it wasn't ethical. It's one thing--one of the arguments went--to charge for packaging or for support, but to not even let people know the non-pay-for option is available... that's sheer trickery!

But now, in this thread, we're realizing, a lot of people want to be tricked. They won't use the software at all if it's free. It's insanity, but maybe Kevin Carmony's right after all...

[Sunflower1970]

I have told a few people here and there about it, and kind of got the "oh it's free must not be good" look from them. I brought my laptop which has Edgy on it to work today so I could play around with the Beryl settings (I just got it up and running last night). I showed them. They gave me :shock: looks. One person wants this on their laptop now :biggrin:

[Mr Wrath]

I had a similar incident recently...I was playing with Beryl on my Edgy Eft hard drive (I switch hard drives back and forth, no need to wonder if a partition is going to fail later on) at work and two guys I work with saw it and were amazed. They asked if it was *---aaagggggh Vista, I told them that Microsoft is TRYING to immitate it. They asked what all it could do. I showed them and then a few other questions followed. How much? Is that (Beryl) installed with the OS? And how much hard drive space.

I told them that Beryl would have to be installed and configured, but that I would help them with that; hard drive space...not much at all in comparison to the JUNK (bitter for spending so much on Microsoft---never again) they are now using. Price??? FREE---They gave me the look. I said, "if you're wanting a new learning experience, then here...I am here for any help along with ubuntuforums.org. If you want me to install and configure anything you would like, I can get almost anything done." I gave them a LiveCD each and are waiting on some feedback. :popcorn:

[DoctorMO]

The idea that free software should not be complained about or--the more insidious implication, that free software should be expected to be of lower quality than commercial software--is something that the community needs to work against.

Should we be grateful that someone's offering a great piece of software to us for free? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean people should be satisfied with the software if it isn't optimal. Constructive criticism (in the right places, with the right tone, and with a proper understanding of what needs fixing) is essential to Free/free software improvement.

Right it's not that we should be expecting low quality software or that we should shut up because we're getting it for free; it's more that people shouldn't simply moan about their trials mostly in the wrong places (like these forums) it'smore important that users help out with development, testing and feedback in the right places because nothing gets done when someone moans in a user community but something will get done if the user is willing to pay for it or do it themselves after all it isn't really the software that has value once it's written but the changes in that software to make it better and it would be unfair to demand more free time from someone (even though most of the time the developers will do it)

[Brunellus]

I hate to say it, but sometimes the Ubuntu community (I may have even been guilty of this myself at one point) feeds into the idea that cost-free = bad quality.

Every now and then, we get complaints from users or trolls who say "Ubuntu sucks. Why doesn't this work? Why doesn't this work? Why is this so hard?" and someone will reply along the lines of "Well, why don't you ask for a refund then? This is free software. Don't complain."

The idea that free software should not be complained about or--the more insidious implication, that free software should be expected to be of lower quality than commercial software--is something that the community needs to work against.

Should we be grateful that someone's offering a great piece of software to us for free? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean people should be satisfied with the software if it isn't optimal. Constructive criticism (in the right places, with the right tone, and with a proper understanding of what needs fixing) is essential to Free/free software improvement.
The knee-jerk response--"ask for a refund" is a succinct rejoinder for the worst kind of whining and bellyaching.

Commercial software developers might listen to you if you threaten not to buy their product. Your petulance might be the difference between their playign WoW and queueing for the dole.

But if an open-source developer doesn't think your whining is worth his time, there's nothing you can do to force him to do your will. If you really cared that much about a feature and wanted it implemented, you could pay to have it done--as IBM and other IT bigshots do. Otherwise, you learn to work around or live with it.

[aysiu]

The knee-jerk response--"ask for a refund" is a succinct rejoinder for the worst kind of whining and bellyaching. And it's a succinct rejoinder that reinforces the notion that cost-free software is of a lesser quality (the adage You get what you pay for) and that does Ubuntu and open source no favors.

I hate whining as much as the next person, but "ask for a refund" isn't any more constructive than the whining it seeks to address... or curtail.

[Quillz]

For me, telling most people than an OS is completely free is a selling point.

[Brunellus]

And it's a succinct rejoinder that reinforces the notion that cost-free software is of a lesser quality (the adage You get what you pay for) and that does Ubuntu and open source no favors.

I hate whining as much as the next person, but "ask for a refund" isn't any more constructive than the whining it seeks to address... or curtail.
I'm going to respectfully disagree.

The only way to monopolize a dev's time is to pay him to solve your problem. Otherwise, he'll go back to doing whatever it was he wanted to do before you barked at him--developing GNU/HURD, playing World of Warcraft, searching for tentacle porn, compromising government computer systems. . .

[aysiu]

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

The only way to monopolize a dev's time is to pay him to solve your problem. Otherwise, he'll go back to doing whatever it was he wanted to do before you barked at him--developing GNU/HURD, playing World of Warcraft, searching for tentacle porn, compromising government computer systems. . .
I don't see how a dev's time is relevant to this discussion.

I'm talking about scenarios in which someone posts a whining thread on the Ubuntu forums (a user forum, not a dev mailing list) and someone else responds "Ask for a refund, then."

The original post-er should be pointed in the right direction. If there is a legitimate feature request or a possible bounty, either should be channeled to Launchpad. You don't have to entertain every "suggestion for improvement," but you also don't have to tell people to go away when their energies can be redirected elsewhere.

And if you do want to tell people "Don't waste our time" or "Don't waste the developers' time" (depending on who you are), smarmy remarks about refunds aren't necessary and serve, as I said before, only to reinforce the notion that cost-free software (specially cost-free open source software) is of a lower quality than commercial software.

[hardyn]

trying to get people over the 'linux is for haxxors' is the biggest problem in getting people to switch in my experience. my moms machine is on linux now, did some shuffing of machines and discovered that i was one windows licence short.

after showing her were everything was, and explaining you have to 'save as' before sending your OOo doc. she doesn't notice anymore.. at gui level expenence windows offered her no more, and linux offers her no less.

the apprihension for people moving to linux is the precieved 'hackerness' of it. utils like easy ubuntu and automatix offer alot to the non technical so they may get their machines running like they had under windows, so they may play the closed source format. etc.

[rai4shu2]

For most people (who use Windows) their OS is basically included in the cost of their computer, i.e. free (at least from their perspective). So, I don't see how this is any different.

[Brunellus]

I don't see how a dev's time is relevant to this discussion.

I'm talking about scenarios in which someone posts a whining thread on the Ubuntu forums (a user forum, not a dev mailing list) and someone else responds "Ask for a refund, then."

The original post-er should be pointed in the right direction. If there is a legitimate feature request or a possible bounty, either should be channeled to Launchpad. You don't have to entertain every "suggestion for improvement," but you also don't have to tell people to go away when their energies can be redirected elsewhere.

And if you do want to tell people "Don't waste our time" or "Don't waste the developers' time" (depending on who you are), smarmy remarks about refunds aren't necessary and serve, as I said before, only to reinforce the notion that cost-free software (specially cost-free open source software) is of a lower quality than commercial software.
The sort of whiner who posts here is likely enough of a tightwad to laugh at the notion of offering a proper bounty.

[aysiu]

For most people (who use Windows) their OS is basically included in the cost of their computer, i.e. free (at least from their perspective). So, I don't see how this is any different.
Because when you want an upgrade to Vista, Microsoft doesn't send you to https://shipit.windows.com to get a free CD that's postage-paid.

[aysiu]

The sort of whiner who posts here is likely enough of a tightwad to laugh at the notion of offering a proper bounty.
Well, that's something we can definitely agree on.

[310ei]

I agree that the word free can cause some people to cringe when I talk about Ubuntu as a better choice than M$. In fact, more than a few people have said to me, “You get what you pay for!”.

At that point, I'll take my laptop out of the bag to let him/her give it a test-run. Afterwards, the comments are; "Wow! This is free, I can’t believe it!", "I didn’t realize you could surf or check email.", "You really have access to all of those programs?" or "I thought Linux was just a black screen with white text" (please keep in mind those are not my comments).

I know that there are people willing to try the Ubuntu operating system if they can avoid the installation process. The reason I know that is because I’ve sold more used laptops in the past 2 years with Ubuntu installed than with M$:-&FT.

My motto...
"If you SH:shock:W them Ubuntu… they will C:biggrin:ME".

[mediax]

One thing that I suspect makes Windows users wary about Linux distros is receiving a home-brewed ISO cd with "Ubuntu 6.10" scrawled on it and being told "boot that in your machine". In the Windows world, that's widely perceived as so dangerous that it's almost taboo (all those viruses and worms waiting to destroy your pc!).

I think the ShipIt CDs are a terrific step to overcoming this - although I ordered mine with a healthy degree of scepticism ("Yeah right, free disks AND they pay the postage???"). How wrong was I? :lolflag:

I've now got a nice, professionally produced and packaged CD to pass on to potential converts, and it seems to get a lot more positive response.

[Hendrixski]

And when Kevin Carmony came here to explain why they were selling free software and not letting people know it was available for free (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=138366) a lot of us, including myself, argued it wasn't ethical. It's one thing--one of the arguments went--to charge for packaging or for support, but to not even let people know the non-pay-for option is available... that's sheer trickery!

But now, in this thread, we're realizing, a lot of people want to be tricked. They won't use the software at all if it's free. It's insanity, but maybe Kevin Carmony's right after all...

I don't think it's unethical at all, and I certianly wouldn't call it "tricking" people. People will buy a product that is right for them. And price is an important part of a product. Kevin Carmony has a lot of bad press in the Free Software movement, but he's not wrong. It's all about meeting peoples expectations, giving them what they want, even if all they want is a price tag. It's just as much a part of the product as the philosophy behind it.

Conversely, I think that not offering users the option to meet one of their product needs (the need to pay for it), is unethical.

[purdy hate machine]

"Pah must be made by haxX0rz with all their syNt@x 'nd pr0gr@mMiNg!" (Yes they say it exactly like that :shock: )

Has anyone else noticed people being put off by the lack of monetary cost?


So sell it to them for as much money as you can screw out of them, if they insist on talking like an imbecile you may as well treat them like one.

[Free software]

Well ofcourse, in America (I'll assume that's where you're from) people believe that if something doesn't cost obscene amounts of money, it must be made by communist scum, for communist scum, and isn't worth bothering with. I remember back in 7th grade my history teacher explaining to us the horrors of a universal health system.

What you should have done, is when they asked "How much", you should have said "only $75, way cheaper and better than Vista!". That way you would have converted some users, and made some money in the process!

I think it's FRAUD, if you take their money. What you have to do is to secretly return their money after they have installed Ubuntu.

[ninjaaron]

"I thought Linux was just a black screen with white text"

only when you want to get actual work done.

[cariboo]

You may have noticed this thread is over 5 years old, the audience of Ubuntu has changed quite a bit in that time. I'd suggest you start a new thread, with a link to this one, as this one is closed.