airjaw
September 10th, 2008, 02:13 AM
The equation being the whole open source Ubuntu movement.
I've thought about this recently and I think some of the problems Ubuntu community is experiencing can be chalked up to Ubuntu movement not actually being a business. now there are pros and cons to that of course. Pros being that Ubuntu is free and we have the best intentions and those intentions remain pure, etc.
People volunteering, making the world a better place, etc.
What though, are the cons, that a typical business does not face?
One that I can see is that there is not enough incentive to attract and retain users. I say not enough because there are some incentives, like more users = more market share and thus hopefully more hardware support or more users = better community (hopefully). Maybe you also get a kick out of "converting" people to the Ubuntu movement. Those are incentives for sure, but not as strong incentives as a business has for attracting and retaining users. If a business spends money and time marketing its product and carefully building its brand and is rewarded with millions of new users, all is well and great and the business prospers. However, if product does not live up to user's expectations then many will in all likelihood return it. This means no more money and the business eventually goes out of business. If you don't live up to your user's expectations, you take a hike and move over for those companies that will.
I think this is much of the problem with Ubuntu that I've outlined in a few previous posts and why some people just can't come to an agreement on anything. The way Ubuntu is marketed , really just doesn't live up to reality. The problem lies in there being no incentive to change besides the goodwill of the community. There is a big difference between the mindset of a customer who buys a product and the mindset of a longtime user/supporter of a community/movement/opensource/freesoftware org like Ubuntu. For a few of latter its as much a philosophical and religious matter as it is a practical one.
You guys complain about hardware support. Its not your fault that the vendors don't support you, etc. Yes I agree. So do something about it, instead of flaming users who experience problems. These users are the key to your success, are they not? the more that leave the less bargaining power you will have with which to get these vendors to listen.
I respect a lot of the open source movement's ideals and values and I'm not trying to change any of those or any of you. I'm just asking questions for my own pure curiosity.
-Would you consider paying Vendors to start supporting hardware? Maybe draw up contracts with nvidia and ATI, pay them X sum amount of money, and they promise to provide linux drivers for Y years.
-Would you consider charging people money for Ubuntu? I know i Know this goes against all your values. But it is something to consider if your model is not working properly. By charging money, you force the owners/developers/founders of Ubuntu to do more to retain those users. If those users leave, you lose the money. you could even model this as a "donation" fee to be returned if the user is not satisfied with Ubuntu.
-no one likes working on hard bugs that aren't fun to fix. for example , UI problems. I don't know many ppl that want to work on these for fun. However, these tasks have to be done. If these tasks are not being completed in a sufficient amount of time (honestly I have no idea if they are or not with Ubuntu, i'm just posing a question here), would you consider paying people to solve them? with deadlines of course, so that they'd really need to put their mind to it.
Maybe Ubuntu could have a donation pool with which to use this money for things as they see fit. (NOT private jets or other unnecessary luxury items CEOs try to justify nowadays)
This donation pool could come from the users, other companies who end up using Ubuntu and liking it, private donors, etc etc.
Now I realize my beliefs and biases probably come through in this post but really I expressed those fully in my other posts. I only expressed them here to make larger points, so please lets not turn this into a religious war.
edit:: Just wanted to add, after further thinking, that many non-profits still charge money for their services and that money is still necessary for their success. They have vision and values just like opensource/FSF movement does and they don't have "making money" as an incentive. They still pay people money though and they will still charge for their services. Why? Maybe because they need that extra money to keep the nonprofit operating. But by charging ppl they also place some kind of standard of quality on themselves that users will come to expect. Granted it may not be as high as the services of a company, but users will still expect some level of satisfaction as they are forking up money. This forces the nonprofit to at least meet that standard or level of expectation.
For example, Humane Society vs. a normal vet. I bring this up cuz i just got my kittens a few weeks ago and i had to take them to the vet. Of course the private Vet is more expensive but the office is nicer, and I have a same day, walk in visit. in contrast, humane society's building is a bit older and it is packed with people. The wait list is like 3 weeks for an appointment. However, the price is lower. Of course I still expect some level of service from them as I have to pay them money still, but my expectation will not be on the level of that of a private Vet. If Humane Society did not charge for their services, not only would rich and poor people take their pets there, humane society would lose their incentive to provide quality care at all. After all they don't lose anything if customers are unsatisfied.
I've thought about this recently and I think some of the problems Ubuntu community is experiencing can be chalked up to Ubuntu movement not actually being a business. now there are pros and cons to that of course. Pros being that Ubuntu is free and we have the best intentions and those intentions remain pure, etc.
People volunteering, making the world a better place, etc.
What though, are the cons, that a typical business does not face?
One that I can see is that there is not enough incentive to attract and retain users. I say not enough because there are some incentives, like more users = more market share and thus hopefully more hardware support or more users = better community (hopefully). Maybe you also get a kick out of "converting" people to the Ubuntu movement. Those are incentives for sure, but not as strong incentives as a business has for attracting and retaining users. If a business spends money and time marketing its product and carefully building its brand and is rewarded with millions of new users, all is well and great and the business prospers. However, if product does not live up to user's expectations then many will in all likelihood return it. This means no more money and the business eventually goes out of business. If you don't live up to your user's expectations, you take a hike and move over for those companies that will.
I think this is much of the problem with Ubuntu that I've outlined in a few previous posts and why some people just can't come to an agreement on anything. The way Ubuntu is marketed , really just doesn't live up to reality. The problem lies in there being no incentive to change besides the goodwill of the community. There is a big difference between the mindset of a customer who buys a product and the mindset of a longtime user/supporter of a community/movement/opensource/freesoftware org like Ubuntu. For a few of latter its as much a philosophical and religious matter as it is a practical one.
You guys complain about hardware support. Its not your fault that the vendors don't support you, etc. Yes I agree. So do something about it, instead of flaming users who experience problems. These users are the key to your success, are they not? the more that leave the less bargaining power you will have with which to get these vendors to listen.
I respect a lot of the open source movement's ideals and values and I'm not trying to change any of those or any of you. I'm just asking questions for my own pure curiosity.
-Would you consider paying Vendors to start supporting hardware? Maybe draw up contracts with nvidia and ATI, pay them X sum amount of money, and they promise to provide linux drivers for Y years.
-Would you consider charging people money for Ubuntu? I know i Know this goes against all your values. But it is something to consider if your model is not working properly. By charging money, you force the owners/developers/founders of Ubuntu to do more to retain those users. If those users leave, you lose the money. you could even model this as a "donation" fee to be returned if the user is not satisfied with Ubuntu.
-no one likes working on hard bugs that aren't fun to fix. for example , UI problems. I don't know many ppl that want to work on these for fun. However, these tasks have to be done. If these tasks are not being completed in a sufficient amount of time (honestly I have no idea if they are or not with Ubuntu, i'm just posing a question here), would you consider paying people to solve them? with deadlines of course, so that they'd really need to put their mind to it.
Maybe Ubuntu could have a donation pool with which to use this money for things as they see fit. (NOT private jets or other unnecessary luxury items CEOs try to justify nowadays)
This donation pool could come from the users, other companies who end up using Ubuntu and liking it, private donors, etc etc.
Now I realize my beliefs and biases probably come through in this post but really I expressed those fully in my other posts. I only expressed them here to make larger points, so please lets not turn this into a religious war.
edit:: Just wanted to add, after further thinking, that many non-profits still charge money for their services and that money is still necessary for their success. They have vision and values just like opensource/FSF movement does and they don't have "making money" as an incentive. They still pay people money though and they will still charge for their services. Why? Maybe because they need that extra money to keep the nonprofit operating. But by charging ppl they also place some kind of standard of quality on themselves that users will come to expect. Granted it may not be as high as the services of a company, but users will still expect some level of satisfaction as they are forking up money. This forces the nonprofit to at least meet that standard or level of expectation.
For example, Humane Society vs. a normal vet. I bring this up cuz i just got my kittens a few weeks ago and i had to take them to the vet. Of course the private Vet is more expensive but the office is nicer, and I have a same day, walk in visit. in contrast, humane society's building is a bit older and it is packed with people. The wait list is like 3 weeks for an appointment. However, the price is lower. Of course I still expect some level of service from them as I have to pay them money still, but my expectation will not be on the level of that of a private Vet. If Humane Society did not charge for their services, not only would rich and poor people take their pets there, humane society would lose their incentive to provide quality care at all. After all they don't lose anything if customers are unsatisfied.