Why are the popular software products not available for linux

[Martiini]

What is the reason that big software developers who make products like Cubase, Propellerheads Reason, Autodesk Autocad, Adobe do not make their software available for linux based systems?
All those programs are available for OSX which is unix based like linux, so why not linux?

[billgoldberg]

The new adobe air suite is available on linux.

i don't know why, but maybe they think it won't be worth the costs.

[ibutho]

I think some developers believe that Linux is quite a small and niche market, so they prefer to develop for Windows and Macs because they have more market share.

[aysiu]

There is also a general perception (justified or not) that Linux users do not want to pay for software.

[LaRoza]

The popular software products are available for Linux, indeed, one of them IS Linux.

Popular software is mostly free and open source. Expensive proprietary software may be popular with a minority of specialty users, but that shouldn't be generalized to being "popular" in general.

[Martiini]

The popular software products are available for Linux, indeed, one of them IS Linux.

Popular software is mostly free and open source. Expensive proprietary software may be popular with a minority of specialty users, but that shouldn't be generalized to being "popular" in general.

So what would you use instead of Cubase and Reason for music studio
and how can you replace Autodesk Autocad if you were a professional architect?
I was asking - WHY do software developers not take linux as serious platform? Because of GPL and the patent laws OR because linux being poor software platform to build software for?
P.S. yes, yes, I know that linux is a generic name for kernel etc.

[LaRoza]

So what would you use instead of Cubase and Reason for music studio
and how can you replace Autodesk Autocad if you were a professional architect?
I was asking - WHY do software developers not take linux as serious platform? Because of GPL and the patent laws OR because linux being poor software platform to build software for?
P.S. yes, yes, I know that linux is a generic name for kernel etc.

Read what I said earlier.

As for why they are not made for Linux, is all business.

After a quick search, I found Autocad for $1035. Obviously, this software is worth the money to those who use it. Is anyone NOT using this because it doesn't run on Linux? Would anyone willing to spend that much money on it not be willing to use Windows, even if it meant buying it separately?

There are no technical or legal restrictions here. Linux is perfectly capable of running such software (if it were made for it), and it would be easier for the developers as the GPL would eliminate licensing problems for development. Your "OR" is misleading. Neither are true. There is no business logical reason for them to make it for Linux.

They take Linux as a serious platform, as they do Solaris, Mac OS X, and others. The software they make is highly specific and expensive. They have no reason to spend the time and money to make it for Linux.

[mivo]

Anyone wondering why software X or game Y is not available for Linux really needs to ask themselves how many commercial Linux programs they have purchased. To get more commercial Linux software and games, you have to buy what's available. Don't count on others doing it for you.

I'm only referring to affordable end-user software. In case of AutoCAD and similar products, the reason is that not enough businesses use Linux in the office environment (yet). End-users really have no need for AutoCAD or Photoshop, even if they think they do. There are free alternatives that work as well, for the end-user and even some professionals. Linux is not hurting for good, professional quality software (just for games and some special interest products).

[Martiini]

So I have to be a Winows Vista user if I need to use Autodesk Autocad or professional accounting software and I have to buy a Mac if I want to set up a studio.
Is there ANY way software developers would start making those products available for linux?

[LaRoza]

So I have to be a Winows Vista user if I need to use Autodesk Autocad or professional accounting software and I have to buy a Mac if I want to set up a studio.
Is there ANY way software developers would start making those products available for linux?

I am sure they would "like" to; I am sure they would be happy to be nice.

There has to be a reason from a business perspective. They would have to lose enough business to make it worth developing.

Life is all about choices. Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows are all choices. Each one has their following.

Run a sever? Use Linux (or BSD). Do multimedia? Use OS X. Run a desktop workstation? Expect Windows.

[mivo]

Would anyone willing to spend that much money on it not be willing to use Windows, even if it meant buying it separately?

Yes. I don't use Linux because it's gratis. In fact, I have press versions of every Windows version, including Vista, and the latest Office on the shelf. I still don't use it. :) If I consider the time that was needed to familiarize myself with Linux and to "make it work" with some of my hardware, Windows would have been the far faster (and thus cheaper) alternative. Money isn't the issue here.

I understand what you're getting at, though. Companies that can afford to shell out $1000 for an AutoCAD license are unlikely to care about the OS they use. They do care about support contracts, ease (familiarity) of use, trained personnel. Gratis is a plus, but having to re-train your employees and getting Linux-trained techs costs more than a Windows license. There's also the aspect of change ... change is not desirable in the eyes of many IT managers.

[Blue Heron]

All those programs are available for OSX which is unix based like linux, so why not linux?

#1: Linux has the lowest market share, some say 1% others 3% (except the server market)

#2: Linux is highly fragmented
#2a: GNOME vs. KDE
#2b: .rpm vs. .deb

#3: companies in the Linux environment, are extremely small against Microsoft:
#3a: e.g. Canonical vs. Microsoft = 130 vs. 79,000 Employees

#4: Microsoft uses completely incompatible techniques like Direct X

...

[christianxxx]

I've noticed that for many users, it boils down to Photoshop whether they can switch to Linux or not.
If so many users had actually bought a license (and I can fairly assume they haven't as it costs $649) they would probably have enough leverage to force adobe into making a linux version.

For Linux as a professional system it might be feasible with more of the popular software referenced earlier in this thread, but as LaRosa already said, to end users there are already tons of free stuff available.

Games is a totally different story. I've had a really hard time finding the games I want comercially available, and if they were, I would really consider buying. As far as I'm concerned, it's no different than ps(2)/xbox, which I've bought many titles for already.

[qazwsx]

Well there are "popular" software like Mathematica for Linux. Why? Because Linux just rocks as platform for number crunching software. It really dosen't matter that much for more regular desktop software which OS you decide to run. Windows is the easiest way to sell product.

[mivo]

#1: Linux has the lowest market share, some say 1% others 3% (except the server market)·

I recall seeing figures that indicate that the Linux market share is larger than that of Macs, but I can't cite a source. In comparison to Windows, both are tiny and insignificant, though. (Then again, it's hard to measure the Linux market share -- most computers come bundled with Windows, so even if you install Linux, your purchase still contributes to the Windows market share.)


#2: Linux is highly fragmented

Well, there are standards. It's not like you can't run a GTK application in KDE, or vice versa. But yes, there are too many formats and not enough uniformity. I'm not sure if that is desirable, though, since Linux can't and shouldn't emulate Windows. The diversity and "choice" are its strength. Would we want to give up that freedom for some $500+ applications that most of us wouldn't or couldn't buy? Ubuntu is becoming the de facto standard Linux distro, though, so that may help a little (even though the zealots cry out in horror at the idea of a leading distro that the non-technical person may consider to be "the" Linux).


#4: Microsoft uses completely incompatible techniques like Direct X

In case of DirectX that only succeeds because it is superior to OpenGL. DirectX 10, as much as I hate to admit it, is amazingly powerful. Very few games out now utilize even a fraction of its capabilities. Little wonder that game developers use it. If OpenGL 3 were better, studios would use it instead.

[Blue Heron]

Well there are "popular" software like Mathematica for Linux. Why? Because Linux just rocks as platform for number crunching software. It really dosen't matter that much for more regular desktop software which OS you decide to run. Windows is the easiest way to sell product.

Mathematica isn't really a fair point - very expensive license, small number of users.

An extremely boost for Ubuntu, would be an Ubuntu version of World of Warcraft. - but this will not happen.

[LaRoza]

Mathematica isn't really a fair point - very expensive license, small number of users.

An extremely boost for Ubuntu, would be an Ubuntu version of World of Warcraft. - but this will not happen.

It isn't as expensive as Autocad, at least, not what I found on Amazon (it didn't have a lot, so I am probably not getting the full picture)

The last thing Ubuntu (Linux in general) is WoW. :-)

(On a serious tone, it does work in Wine, and I know some people do use it with no problems. See the gaming forum)

[LaRoza]

I recall seeing figures that indicate that the Linux market share is larger than that of Macs, but I can't cite a source. In comparison to Windows, both are tiny and insignificant, though. (Then again, it's hard to measure the Linux market share -- most computers come bundled with Windows, so even if you install Linux, your purchase still contributes to the Windows market share.)

In case of DirectX that only succeeds because it is superior to OpenGL. DirectX 10, as much as I hate to admit it, is amazingly powerful. Very few games out now utilize even a fraction of its capabilities. Little wonder that game developers use it. If OpenGL 3 were better, studios would use it instead.

Linux (and BSD) are the majority in the server market. OS X and Windows are the minority.

The desktop market is Windows dominated, because it is usually preinstalled, although Macs are rising, and Linux is also. Linux is gaining rapidly (the absolute numbers are not that high, but it is rapidly rising in popularity)

I don't know OpenGL or DirectX well enough to say, but from what I heard, they are not that far apart.

[mivo]

An extremely boost for Ubuntu, would be an Ubuntu version of World of Warcraft. - but this will not happen.

But not for technical reasons. Blizzard's concern is the technical support. Their game would only need few changes to run natively in Linux (relatively), but they don't want to have to support an additional platform. They don't have to, either, because even those WoW account holders who use Linux exclusively play the game in Wine. Blizzard gets their money, why make investments and get additional personnel?

People who want more Linux games might want to consider spending $30 on S2 Games' "Savage 2". They not only released a 32-bit Linux client, but also a 64-bit version. If it turned into a sweeping success, it would at least be noticed. ID Software have a Linux client for Quake Wars, and it even supports threaded rendering (in the newest version).

[Blue Heron]

But not for technical reasons. Blizzard's concern is the technical support. Their game would only need few changes to run natively in Linux (relatively), but they don't want to have to support an additional platform. They don't have to, either, because even those WoW account holders who use Linux exclusively play the game in Wine. Blizzard gets their money, why make investments and get additional personnel?

People who want more Linux games might want to consider spending $30 on S2 Games' "Savage 2". They not only released a 32-bit Linux client, but also a 64-bit version. If it turned into a sweeping success, it would at least be noticed. ID Software have a Linux client for Quake Wars, and it even supports threaded rendering (in the newest version).

Lets have some straight talk: Wine sucks! :?

Even when it runs, along with software like teamspeak - it's not sure it's 100% like Windows appearance. Wine will never be perfect . :(

Anyway the PC-Game Market is in the near death state.
There are not much PC only Games anymore, just look who uses the Unreal 3 Technology, one Console Game at a time.

Maybe the whole Game thing is moronism.

Where is the PS3, X-Box360, Wii emulator ???
Yes it's technically impossible ...

Anyway where is the first 1,000,000 $ (production cost) Linux only game?

[LaRoza]

Lets have some straight talk: Wine sucks! :?

Even when it runs, along with software like teamspeak - it's not sure it's 100% like Windows appearance. Wine will never be perfect . :(

Anyway the PC-Game Market is in the near death state.
There are not much PC only Games anymore, just look who uses the Unreal 3 Technology, one Console Game at a time.

Maybe the whole Game thing is moronism.

Where is the PS3, X-Box360, Wii emulator ???
Yes it's technically impossible ...



That is very unfair. Wine works very well. Wine will never be perfect, but then again, Windows itself is very far from perfect.

It is technically possible. It would take time for such emulators though. The hardware of them is probably already emulated somewhere, but they OS they run would be the trickiest part.

[mivo]

Why are the console emulators technically impossible? Console hardware is, in general, inferior to PC hardware in power. It's just more specialized. ;)

It's true that the PC gaming market is not doing well. There are some exceptions like WoW, but on the whole. sales are lower than they used to be, and more and more studios close up or develop only for consoles (Iron Lore's CEO was very bitter about this, and I really liked that studio). I'd also say that PC gaming magazines sell fewer copies than they used to, but the same is true for console-oriented magazines, so the reason is different (the internet).

Still, there are game genres that don't work well on consoles. Strategy games for one, and MMORPGs. Those benefit greatly, or require, a keyboard. Sure, you can buy a USB keyboard for the PS3, but if you look at the success of the Wii, the industry seems to discover the "casual gamer" market, so I'm not sure if the PC is dead for more hardcore games (strategy, shooters, deeper RPGs).

But I'm still undecided. I used to be a computer/PC gamer for nearly twenty years, even worked in the industry in the 90s, but these days I mostly play on consoles or don't play traditional video games at all (I play Go, an Asian board game, online). Then again, most people I know are "stuck" with Windows because they enjoy PC gaming, so it is still an important factor to many, and it's the only mainstream weakness of Linux.

As for Wine, well, I'm grateful for it. Most Windows-only apps I sometimes need, and my employers' app that I daily need :), fortunately work in Wine. Without Wine, I would not (could not) use Linux exclusively.

[elmer_42]

I would say that PC gaming is certainly not dying. I don't quite see how consoles using PC engines or not using PC engines means the market is dying. But anyway, I don't think Photoshop (and this goes for many other programs) is on Linux because they believe that they will not make their money back. They do have to pay money to get their applications on Linux. They believe that Linux users are not numerous enough to make their development time worthwhile.
On a note about Mathematica, I looked it up here (http://store.wolfram.com/view/app/mathematica/), and it costs $2500. :shock:

[Blue Heron]

I don't quite see how consoles using PC engines or not using PC engines means the market is dying.

Actually the Unreal Engine 3 is cross platform technology.
The point is, that you have a company which raised with PC Gaming can flop in their domestic market with Unreal Tournament 3, but hasn't to care because there are lots of Console game developers, who have enough money to purchase their expensive engine.

Anyway see for your self:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_3

hey, and every (ex)pcgamer knows: only a PC only game is without bad gameplay compromises
just Compare Deus Ex and Deus Ex: Invisible War

[aysiu]

I recall seeing figures that indicate that the Linux market share is larger than that of Macs, but I can't cite a source. In comparison to Windows, both are tiny and insignificant, though. (Then again, it's hard to measure the Linux market share -- most computers come bundled with Windows, so even if you install Linux, your purchase still contributes to the Windows market share.) Since it is difficult to get an accurate measure of Linux desktop/notebook market share, perceived market share is more relevant than actual market share when it comes to commercial software companies considering whether to port to Linux or not.

[Gulyan]

maybe they don't because linux is free :)

[Blue Heron]

perceived market share is more relevant than actual market share when it comes to commercial software companies considering whether to port to Linux or not.

Please all decision makers of software companies visit ubuntuforums.org daily so they think it's a great share :)

What really interests me:
What says the web-statistics of ubuntuforums.org?

Ubuntu: ??%
other Linux: ??%
BSD like: ??%
Windows: ??%

is there a public statistic, or can you make it public \\:D/

[DoctorMO]

In case of DirectX that only succeeds because it is superior to OpenGL. DirectX 10, as much as I hate to admit it, is amazingly powerful. Very few games out now utilize even a fraction of its capabilities. Little wonder that game developers use it. If OpenGL 3 were better, studios would use it instead.

Your a little uninformed, DirectX is a game development platform, OpenGL is a graphics rendering platform. You can technically compare OpenGL rendering to DirectX rendering (which uses OpenGL when talking to most of the video cards anyway since OpenGL is a what ATI and nVidia came up with)

No it's more prudent to compare SDL to DirectX. One of the main attractive forces behind SDL is that it's cross platform, so much so that I heard rumors that people like sony are considering putting SDL on playstation so that games companies only have to make one game for all platforms and just recompile for different cpus and hardware.

[Riffer]

There are some CAD products out there that run under Linux, MicroStation is the first that comes to mind.

Photoshop is another story though.

[-Phi-]

There is also a general perception (justified or not) that Linux users do not want to pay for software.
maybe they don't because linux is free :)I worry that this general perception is one of the main reasons developers like Adobe and Valve don't make linux versions of their software. I like that linux is libre, but the gratis perception seems harmful. I actually donated to Ubuntu in return for the improvements they've made over the last few years. I'd like to someday see a commercial repository for Ubuntu. Something like the Steam system that Valve runs.

- Phi

[christianxxx]

Coming from years and years of expensive M$ software, I can fully understand why Linux users seem to have a tendancy to not pay for software.
I think that M$ has dug a rather deep grave with it's pricing regime, and with that opened up for a gratis market. IMO...
A less capitalistic approach on M$ behalf might have created a very different market all together.

[Scotty Bones]

Well, there is a good reason. As mentioned before a big part of it being able to see a return on the investment. With such a small base it can sometimes be hard to justify the capital expenditure. But there is another side to this coin that iv'e seen, attitude.

FOSS' greatest strength is also, in the eyes of the mainstream, it's greatest weakness, free software. In general proprietary software is usually more robust and feature rich than its open-source counter part. But the average users needs are generally very basic and the open-source counterparts usually do a great job at fulfilling those basic needs. It's difficult to sell a product in a market where there are viable free alternatives.

How many of the members of this community have ever used a MS Office product to it's fullest potential? Maybe 1 or 2 in a million. It usually takes a few college class' to learn how to use all of it's features. For most people Open Office is more than enough to do the job. The same holds true for PhotoShop, unless you use this program on a professional basis, The GIMP or Inkscape should be able to handle the vast majority of your needs.

Now, here is where the attitude kicks in. I've seen a few threads in these very forums (no i'm not going to go look for them right now, you'll just have to trust me here) where several people will gang up on one person at the very mention of say, Nero linux. You'll see things like "Are you really that stupid, why don't you just use kaffine, its free.", but it doesn't stop there. You see this attitude with hardware as well.

Everyone is screaming that they want to be supported, weather its software or hardware. But as soon as a company does put forth the effort you start hearing, "WTF is this, I don't want your proprietary, closed s*** infecting my computer, goto hell." And in the case of HW its, "fine then, well just reverse engineer an open-source version for ourself." And I do understand their reasoning. If something doesn't work just right, they want to be able to tinker with it themselves, but you have to realize it is their code and if they don't want someone messing with it, it is their right.

Is it really that surprising that with attitudes like this from a majority of the community (linux in general) that more companies don't want to support linux. If the community isn't willing to support those companies that are willing to support them, then where is the motivation to do it in the first place? There are way to many zealots here with a "give me FOSS or give death" attitude for companies to really put forth the effort.

Until people begin to realize this Sith vs. Jedi mentality is over the top and that there really is a grey area where both open and closed source can co-exist. We will never get the mainstream support that we would like to see. Those dreams of desktop domination will never come to fruition and we will never be able to gain significant market share, which brings us right back to the beginning. It's all about the DOE.