Is Mark Shuttleworth streching the truth?

[Lostincyberspace]

In this article (http://blogs.computerworld.com/ubuntus_shuttleworth_i_dont_think_anyone_can_make_ money_from_the_linux_desktop) by Computer world Mr shuttle worth states that there is not money to be made with desktop Linux.

While it is true, what one could get for free, one will most likely not buy. But for all the computer users put there who just want to have there computers work charging 5-10 dollars for a preinstalled version would be understandable. And if you preinstalled only 10% of the market share of 60 million desktop pcs that would be 6 million pc's and at 5 dollars a piece that would be $30 million. But If Ubuntu becomes a major distribution I think its market share could be between 40-50% easily which would be around 25-30 million pc's and around $125-150 million a year.

I do agree that right now you can not make money in linux sales. but within the next 10 years it would be more than possible.


The information about sales is for the US based on data till 2007. The world sales could potentially be much higher, by at least 1 order of magnitude.

[Changturkey]

If Dell continues to promote Ubuntu, you never know.

[eentonig]

Problem is, this "$125-150 million a year" will need to be divided between a lot of bigger and smaller enterprises that will want to take a part of that profit. And frankly, 150 divided by .... doens't leave much profit for a single company. So I agree that as such, there's not much profit to be made.

Support professionals howver, will have a lot of opportunities to make money.

[Vadi]

Looks like you pulled those numbers out of thin air, so I'd be careful on who's stretching the truth here.

[Lostincyberspace]

Looks like you pulled those numbers out of thin air, so I'd be careful on who's stretching the truth here.
http://www.c-i-a.com/pr0203.htm
That is the the source for computer sales, the rest is all basic mathematics, most should be able to check them selves.

Edit: If you are talking about the estimation for the rest of the world, that is just a guess, because of how few people have pc's in china, India and other developing countries.

[Vadi]

Show proof that Dell pays Canonical $5-10 dollars for a preinstall? (when they can download the OS themselves for free from ubuntu.com and are under no obligations to pay Canonical when redistributing it, just like you are)

[handy]

HP are using Ubuntu now too.

[Slug71]

I know **** Smith Electronics used to sell computers with Xandros pre-installed. Not sure if they still do.

[ad_267]

I was in **** Smith today and saw Hardy Heron for sale for $10. All their computers came with Vista though.

[Vadi]

You yourself are welcome to sell Ubuntu for however much as you wish.

[I-75]

Show proof that Dell pays Canonical $5-10 dollars for a preinstall? (when they can download the OS themselves for free from ubuntu.com and are under no obligations to pay Canonical when redistributing it, just like you are)

As I understand it, Dell computers with Ubuntu comes with the codecs. Meaning that someone got paid, someone has to pay something for those codecs. Beyond that Dell maybe has deal with Canonical with some kind of support or something that justifies the $5 to $10.

[DoctorMO]

OK seriously guys we need to start getting ourselves out of the culture trap that Microsoft has lead us to. A quote:


Your just not thinking 4th dimensionally!

The following are my own thoughts and opinions only.

On Mark and Canonical:

1) Canonical is wholly owned by Mark Shuttleworth
2) Mark has said he doesn't want to floating or selling shares in Canonical.
3) Mark Shuttleworth doesn't need any more money or want to have more (no pure greed).
Conclusion: Canonical doesn't need to be profitable, it just needs to earn enough revenue and to have revenue growth that supports the growth in support and direct contributions that will fix bug #1. It's all about bug #1, remember that no matter how much Canonical makes, Mark will just reinvest that money into growth.

On making money:

1) The software licenses give liberty to anyone given them.
2) You are allowed to sell the software, if you are the owner you can sell the first copy under GPL for a high price and the next person can release it for free. (see hostage-ware)
3) Once the software exists, it doesn't cost much to redistribute and is on the internet almost free.

Conclusion: You can not really make money from selling existing linux or ubuntu like it was a propritory software license. We don't artifically limmit supply like Microsoft or Adobe. So we don't have much to DO in order to give people copies and liberties.

Business is all about the verb. What are you DOING that adds value or that gives access to products or services. Once software is written, you are adding almost no value to redistribute it, but then this balances out with how much it costs you to redistribute. You also don't want to be diverting too much money from one activity into another one. If you get the maths wrong you can end up starving resources from sections of the business that bring in the money.

So what are the valuable activities in the Free Software industry that can make money?

1) Support, this is an extra add-on which gives users extra help which benefits their ability to utilise the software. Weather installing it for them personally or writing a book.
2) Distribution, this is actually a valid activity that can make money. If you have the fastest servers and the best sys-admins. Why shouldn't you earn money from it? There are various ways to organise collection and prioritisation is one way.
3) Ancillary development, anything from OEM integration, packaging, translating, documenting(see support).
4) Make Merchandise, building a good brand with a good feel good user base can enable you to produce various physical branded products with which to sell.
5) Physical Bundle, Adding the software to a blank cd or blank computer can add value. It's still possible to sell these products even when you give the software it's self away.
6) Software Development, this to my mind IS THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect which is currently being overlooked. If you want to see movement, change, bug fixes, improvements, new features... you pay for them. Since all the above are used as cash cows to support main line development it's about time we started laying the ground work for getting money from doing the actual work it's self.

OK so what's the reason we aren't currently each paying $20 each 6 months to push development of the next version? Well it has a lot to do with market share. If we want to push the market and break the hegemony, we need to invest a lot of energy into it which the market will not do by it's self.

Once the market is corrected and there is no longer a vice like grip on the market: the only scalable business in Free Software development is Free Software development it's self. Customers have the liberty to make their own software improvements, but customers also have the liberty to make their own dinners and we still have restaurants.

Some of this development money will come from OEMs. They will hire a certain amount of people, but I'm also betting they'll invest in Canonical to keep a central figure that can integrate everything. All the rest of the money needs to come from users just likes the ones that use this forum.

Thoughts and feelings?

Best Regards, Martin Owens

[Vadi]

As I understand it, Dell computers with Ubuntu comes with the codecs. Meaning that someone got paid, someone has to pay something for those codecs. Beyond that Dell maybe has deal with Canonical with some kind of support or something that justifies the $5 to $10.

Codecs aren't made by Canonical. They're made by another company that sells them exclusively to OEM's.

Don't know where you've been.

[Lostincyberspace]

Show proof that Dell pays Canonical $5-10 dollars for a preinstall? (when they can download the OS themselves for free from ubuntu.com and are under no obligations to pay Canonical when redistributing it, just like you are)
Sorry I didn't make It clear I was trying to say they could charge $5-$10, not that they currently do (which I believe they don't), and most people would take no notice/ wouldn't care as long as it came preinstalled, which is the way most people are.

And the people who do not want to pay that, can then put it on themselves like they do now.

Vadi I wasn't trying to incite any problems I just think it is more than possible, in the near future, to make money off of open source software.

If I were in Mark's place I would like to think I would make the same decision as him, though in bank rolling it my self.
But if Mark dies or some other thing happens if Canonical is not prepared then there could be some major problems. I was just trying to point out that it is possible to make money in the near future, for desktop pc's.

Fortunately Ubuntu is not desktop only, and there is the server side of things which is were Mark has indicated he wants to take Canonical for profitability, for the company, not himself.

I thank you Vadi for seeing my flaws and allowing me to explain my self. I appreciate, your difference of opinion and welcome it thank you for standing up and saying some thing, that others hadn't said.

[Lostincyberspace]

The following are my own thoughts and opinions only.

On Mark and Canonical:

1) Canonical is wholly owned by Mark Shuttleworth
2) Mark has said he doesn't want to floating or selling shares in Canonical.
3) Mark Shuttleworth doesn't need any more money or want to have more (no pure greed).
Conclusion: Canonical doesn't need to be profitable, it just needs to earn enough revenue and to have revenue growth that supports the growth in support and direct contributions that will fix bug #1. It's all about bug #1, remember that no matter how much Canonical makes, Mark will just reinvest that money into growth.


I agree wholly



On making money:

1) The software licenses give liberty to anyone given them.
2) You are allowed to sell the software, if you are the owner you can sell the first copy under GPL for a high price and the next person can release it for free. (see hostage-ware)
3) Once the software exists, it doesn't cost much to redistribute and is on the internet almost free.

Conclusion: You can not really make money from selling existing linux or ubuntu like it was a propritory software license. We don't artifically limmit supply like Microsoft or Adobe. So we don't have much to DO in order to give people copies and liberties.

Business is all about the verb. What are you DOING that adds value or that gives access to products or services. Once software is written, you are adding almost no value to redistribute it, but then this balances out with how much it costs you to redistribute. You also don't want to be diverting too much money from one activity into another one. If you get the maths wrong you can end up starving resources from sections of the business that bring in the money.

What I am talking about, is for all the people who do not want to have to do it themselves, and/or don't know any one who would do it for them, and just want it to run when they get it. This would be a fee that work in with OEM's to be added on to the computer.

And as I said be fore for all those who do not want to pay for it can download and install it themselves.
[qoute]
So what are the valuable activities in the Free Software industry that can make money?

1) Support, this is an extra add-on which gives users extra help which benefits their ability to utilise the software. Weather installing it for them personally or writing a book.
2) Distribution, this is actually a valid activity that can make money. If you have the fastest servers and the best sys-admins. Why shouldn't you earn money from it? There are various ways to organise collection and prioritisation is one way.
3) Ancillary development, anything from OEM integration, packaging, translating, documenting(see support).
4) Make Merchandise, building a good brand with a good feel good user base can enable you to produce various physical branded products with which to sell.
5) Physical Bundle, Adding the software to a blank cd or blank computer can add value. It's still possible to sell these products even when you give the software it's self away.
6) Software Development, this to my mind IS THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect which is currently being overlooked. If you want to see movement, change, bug fixes, improvements, new features... you pay for them. Since all the above are used as cash cows to support main line development it's about time we started laying the ground work for getting money from doing the actual work it's self.
[/quote]
I agree these are more good way's to make money on Canonicals part.


OK so what's the reason we aren't currently each paying $20 each 6 months to push development of the next version? Well it has a lot to do with market share. If we want to push the market and break the hegemony, we need to invest a lot of energy into it which the market will not do by it's self.

I wouldn't make it per version of Ubuntu, just for when it is purchased from the OEM, with every thing the way it is now. So no pay $20 every 6 months that would be stupid, but $5 every 3-5 years is more than acceptable to me.



Once the market is corrected and there is no longer a vice like grip on the market: the only scalable business in Free Software development is Free Software development it's self. Customers have the liberty to make their own software improvements, but customers also have the liberty to make their own dinners and we still have restaurants.

This is crucial but to be able to reach that stage OSS has to be come main stream, and then back down the flawed concept's of today's market place.



Some of this development money will come from OEMs.
This is what I am talking about, the OEMs pass the money along to Cannonical that they charge the customer at the time of purchase, the $5-$10 that I was talking about.

[daverich]

you know..

I dont think it's an understatement to say that linux is a beautiful thing.

I'm more and more fed up (and I don't think I'm alone) with the monetary system,- the whole thing is a sham and completely un-necessary.

Whether humans are enlightened enough to be nice and live together without it is another thing...

The point being, maybe Mark doesn't want money to be the driving issue here,- it's about making something great, for the good of everyone.

I certainly appreciate it,- and I certainly appreciate that linux and the open source movement is a small glimpse at what our future on this planet could be like.


Kind regards

Dave Rich

[Paqman]

I think he's absolutely right. There's no way you'll ever make any money selling a desktop Linux distro. There are too many free ones around, and they're all good. You're never going to make many sales, even if your distro was significantly better than the others.

Canonical's business plan is to sell services, not bits.

[DoctorMO]

I wouldn't make it per version of Ubuntu, just for when it is purchased from the OEM, with every thing the way it is now. So no pay $20 every 6 months that would be stupid, but $5 every 3-5 years is more than acceptable to me.

$5 every 3-5 years? that isn't enough. Do you know how expensive programmers are? Even if you got 10,000 people to do that, you'd only be able to hire 1 developer for that time. Very bad.

Users need to take direct responsibility for investing in the software that they want to see improvements in. It's no good expecting Canonical or an OEM like Dell to constantly provide users with freebies. For a start it's not sustainable and secondly it isn't scalable. We do want lots more development, lots more bug fixing, better ideas?

We can share our advancement and work together towards better software. But if you don't help us fund it, it will not go as fast.

[I-75]

Codecs aren't made by Canonical. They're made by another company that sells them exclusively to OEM's.

Don't know where you've been.

# 1 This was the first time anywhere I ever heard anyone suggest that Dell was paying Canonical purely for Ubuntu ( and nothing else), and the only rational explanation for that particular angle (if there was one) was that Dell could be possibly paying for some kind of support. Much like people walking into Best Buy could buy Ubuntu with support.

# 2 Beyond that I am fully aware that Canonical doesn't MAKE the codecs. They (Canonical) could sell Ubuntu to a OEM (Dell) with the codecs built in for a cost to cover the cost of the codecs (which are then paid toward the licensees).

However the cost would NOT be $ 5 , but $39.96.

http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?currency=USD&products_id=244

[50words]

Good news! We can make it profitable.

donations@ubuntulinux.org

[macogw]

# 1 This was the first time anywhere I ever heard anyone suggest that Dell was paying Canonical purely for Ubuntu ( and nothing else), and the only rational explanation for that particular angle (if there was one) was that Dell could be possibly paying for some kind of support. Much like people walking into Best Buy could buy Ubuntu with support.

When you buy a Dell with Ubuntu, you have the option of buying a year of tech support from Canonical for $250.

[Lostincyberspace]

$5 every 3-5 years? that isn't enough.
3-5 is the average length of time before people get new computers.


Do you know how expensive programmers are? Even if you got 10,000 people to do that, you'd only be able to hire 1 developer for that time. Very bad.



While it is true, what one could get for free, one will most likely not buy. But for all the computer users put there who just want to have there computers work charging 5-10 dollars for a preinstalled version would be understandable. And if you preinstalled only 10% of the market share of 60 million desktop pcs that would be 6 million pc's and at 5 dollars a piece that would be $30 million. But If Ubuntu becomes a major distribution I think its market share could be between 40-50% easily which would be around 25-30 million pc's and around $125-150 million a year.
.
But with $30 million that would be around 300 programers.



Users need to take direct responsibility for investing in the software that they want to see improvements in. It's no good expecting Canonical or an OEM like Dell to constantly provide users with freebies. For a start it's not sustainable and secondly it isn't scalable. We do want lots more development, lots more bug fixing, better ideas?

We can share our advancement and work together towards better software. But if you don't help us fund it, it will not go as fast.
Is this not arguing my point? Because this sounds of what I am trying to say is this is a way many people can do that in one easy step.


# 1 This was the first time anywhere I ever heard anyone suggest that Dell was paying Canonical purely for Ubuntu ( and nothing else), and the only rational explanation for that particular angle (if there was one) was that Dell could be possibly paying for some kind of support. Much like people walking into Best Buy could buy Ubuntu with support.

No one has said they are doing it, I have said they Could do it.
I get that you would not want to pay for it and you would not have to, just the people who want it to be installed by the OEM will pay. The people like you and me who want to do it themselves would still be able to download it them selves, for free.


# 2 Beyond that I am fully aware that Canonical doesn't MAKE the codecs. They (Canonical) could sell Ubuntu to a OEM (Dell) with the codecs built in for a cost to cover the cost of the codecs (which are then paid toward the licensees).

However the cost would NOT be $ 5 , but $39.96.

http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?currency=USD&products_id=244
What I am talking about has nothing to do with the codecs.
It would mainly be a Convenience fee, for having it installed by the OEM's.

[Dragonbite]

And if you preinstalled only 10% of the market share of 60 million desktop pcs that would be 6 million pc's and at 5 dollars a piece that would be $30 million. But If Ubuntu becomes a major distribution I think its market share could be between 40-50% easily which would be around 25-30 million pc's and around $125-150 million a year.

Honestly, those numbers seem to be a bit high. Even with the strives on desktops that Linux has made so far, getting 40-50% would be a monumental achievement and shift the entire computing environment!

Even now, the desktop Linux market is shared between multiple distributions with HP coming out with their own something-or-other on their Netbook, plus the ever-increasing prediction does not account for possible moves by Microsoft and Apple to reclaim/claim a greater portion of the market share from Linux.

Of course.. you never know...

[smoker]

why would an oem pay $5 dollars a pop (or whatever fee) to any distro, when there is that much choice of free linux out there, wouldn't they see this as making their computers slightly less economically appealing to the consumer?

[Bannor]

Good news! We can make it profitable.

donations@ubuntulinux.org

This is speculation but I don't think it is too far from the truth.... being that you are a consumer rights lawyer you might even confirm this.


if you give away Linux the recipient has no right to expect that it will work flawlessly or that it will be Secure. If you sell it then you put your self on the hook for what could be very expensive emergency repair work or lawsuits. Pc's come in so many configurations out of the box not to mention any number of end user additions that you would need to charge a lot more than 5 bucks, just incase you missed something in testing (see windows vista sp1)

also doesn't gpl make it near impossible to make significant profit off their software.

[phrostbyte]

I think it is the one (really probably only one) major flow in the open source development is the difficulty to raise money towards development. I did at some point propose some ideas to resolve this issue but they generally aren't popular with most people I tell them to.

[phrostbyte]

3-5 is the average length of time before people get new computers.


But with $30 million that would be around 300 programers.


Is this not arguing my point? Because this sounds of what I am trying to say is this is a way many people can do that in one easy step.


No one has said they are doing it, I have said they Could do it.
I get that you would not want to pay for it and you would not have to, just the people who want it to be installed by the OEM will pay. The people like you and me who want to do it themselves would still be able to download it them selves, for free.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with the codecs.
It would mainly be a Convenience fee, for having it installed by the OEM's.

You know what is crazy, I did some calculations awhile ago and if Ubuntu could raise just $1 per person uses Ubuntu, per distro release, they would generate enough revenue to hire hundreds of additional developers. Really it doesn't take much. But anyway I think bug #1 would be fixed very quickly if Canonical happened to stumble upon a few billion dollars somehow.

[DoctorMO]

why would an oem pay $5 dollars a pop (or whatever fee) to any distro, when there is that much choice of free linux out there, wouldn't they see this as making their computers slightly less economically appealing to the consumer?

Because it's in their best interest to make sure that Ubuntu continues to improve. Vested interest is one of the most powerful ties.


But with $30 million that would be around 300 programers.

That's nice, but Canonical already employees 200 people and Canonical is tiny compared to the thousands working for RedHat, IBM, Intel and so on. The amount of work that needs to be done is staggering.


Is this not arguing my point? Because this sounds of what I am trying to say is this is a way many people can do that in one easy step.

no where we disagree is that you think that paying Dell will by proxy support Ubuntu. Where as I believe only users themselves with their own vested interest in seeing software improve can provide the scale of money to further development. If Users want to see improvements, they must be prepared to pay for them.

[Solicitous]

I still like the idea of selling a little 'pocket book' for each release. Red Hat used to do it years ago (up until RH9 - and I bought every book they had). I'd love to have an official looking Ubuntu CD for each release, but at shop.canonical.com 20 CDs are the minimum purchase, which works out at $41.20AUD + freight for me....well I don't have a need for 20 CDs (and I'm not willing to go through shipit and get canonical to pay to send me 1 official CD). But offer an official CD with perhaps a printed install book (enough to even give to someone as a first time installer/user enough info to start using Ubuntu) and stickers etc (something so when I opened the box I'd go "WOW I am an Ubuntu user)....I'd pay $30-$40 AUD per release. That would help generate some money from the desktop users.

My opinion anyway.

[Lostincyberspace]

no where we disagree is that you think that paying Dell will by proxy support Ubuntu. Where as I believe only users themselves with their own vested interest in seeing software improve can provide the scale of money to further development. If Users want to see improvements, they must be prepared to pay for them.

Okay I agree with you there. I was just kind of thinking of a way to get those who don't have a vested intrest to be kind of tricked in to helping out.

[bp1509]

d

[DoctorMO]

linux desktop is a failing business model b/c 99.9% of desktop users won't pay for support. Yet, 99.9% of the time, somewhere in the business food chain that copy of windows most people use was paid for by somebody.

Linux desktop isn't a business model; Linux is a kernel project. Ubuntu desktop isn't a business so it doesn't need to have a workable business model. Canonical is a business, but it has no share holders so only needs to earn what ever the sole owner wants.

Again I think you drawn into thinking that users are only able to buy physical products. Your stuck thinking about the proprietary world because it's easy.

But that model is wasteful and disconnected from the users. Microsoft won't learn to do anything better because their users don't pay pre development they pay post development.


Okay I agree with you there. I was just kind of thinking of a way to get those who don't have a vested intrest to be kind of tricked in to helping out.

If you don't have a vested interest it's because a) you don't use ubuntu, b) ubuntu already does far more than you ever need of a computer or c) you do have a vested interest, you just don't think you do.

I would still encourage those in group b to invest in research; you never know what useful software will be developed in the future. Those in group c (the vast majority of users unfortunately) need to be brought on-board somehow.

I reckon a proper market place is needed. Probably a website, that lets people put real money into development and get problems solved. It would have to be heavily linked to bug trackers and project management such as launchpad and it would have to work along the tariff model (you pay $30 up front and then can split that as needed between projects). The users get to choose how their money gets spent and they should probably get karma when the work completes that they helped pay for.

[Frak]

For one, Dell has to pay for trademark use. The OS flashes the name "Ubuntu" everywhere, which is prohibited for commercial distribution without permission (probably through simple payment, see my next statement).

Let's look at the relations between the United States and China.

The United States, every year, pours billions of dollars into the Chinese economy, not directly, but through outlets, like Walmart or Target (but mostly walmart). The United States ATM faces a debt problem, for which China owns nearly half (in U.S. security bonds). China at any time could at any time use these securities for their own malicious use, but they don't. Why would a country not use power over another to do their bidding? They don't have to, nor do they want to. The United States and China are large, incredibly large, trading partners. The US gets cheap goods while China gets an ever flowing money supply. If the US were to disappear, China's economy would crumble and the massive population would suffer. If China were to disappear, the United States would fall due to rapid inflation and debt. Thus, to keep both forces in check, China and the United States have checks against each other and the entire relationship is mutual.

Now, for Canonical...

Dell wants to use Ubuntu based on large demand from, well, geeks. They could have chosen Gentoo for the techs, Linspire for the not-so-knowledgeable, or a commercial distribution such as Redhat or SUSE. Gentoo doesn't fit their easy-to-use design, Linspire has bad commercial ties, and those commercial distributions are just too business oriented. Ubuntu, among others of course, was a clear solution. It was cheap, well-supported, backed by a company, community, and development group, and it has a fan-base. Besides those points, it could easily be modified to fit a media-oriented lifestyle. This is where I come to my next point:

Why would Dell pay Canonical for using a free OS?

Trademarks. Period. It is so simple, so clear, sitting in front of our noses it is unbelievable. Canonical forbids commercial use of Ubuntu without their permission, unless all trademarks are removed. Catch is, though, then Canonical no longer provides support for it. Furthermore, if Dell based their own OS, based on current developments, who knows what scrutiny it could undergo. "I want this Dell, you're a corp. you can do it..." In this way, Dell pays Canonical a certain amount, Canonical provides certain support and development services, Dell sells their units, and both make a profit, and Dell has nothing extra asked of them. They can point all referrals to Canonical and they can redirect it to the appropriate place.

Of course, this is my take on it. It seems pretty logical to me.

[JC Cheloven]

I don't know how, but it seems that Canonical is starting to make "some serious money":


Ubuntu, which now claims eight million active users, is also starting to make serious money for its commercial parent, as Chris Kenyon, Canonical's director of Business Development, (...)

from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10076035-16.html

I'm glad to hear that people in the scene of free software is able to make money from it. It's good for its continuity, I think.

[handy]

It would be beneficial if in the future, all those who study computer science were compelled by their course, to contribute to FOSS software in some fashion, there could be large projects being administered by tutors.

This would have a great deal of benefit to all concerned in the FOSS world I would think.

[Lostincyberspace]

My father is a computer science teacher, and since this is his first year he isn't doing much, but he is planing to have all the students, next school year have the student's contribute to FOSS project meaning full for their final (they have the whole semester to do it though, and he has preapprove it)

[handy]

My father is a computer science teacher, and since this is his first year he isn't doing much, but he is planing to have all the students, next school year have the student's contribute to FOSS project meaning full for their final (they have the whole semester to do it though, and he has preapprove it)

Fantastic! I think that there may be others doing the same thing. I expect that as time goes by it will become more & more popular. I certainly hope so.

[Lostincyberspace]

The best benefit from it is the student's have experienced programmers, that are generally willing to help them out quite a bit. While the other programmers have someone who is likely to open up and help more in the future.

[Vadi]

Lostincyberspace, you still haven't justified how can Canonical charge party A and not party B.

(why would they be able to charge OEM's for distributing Ubuntu when they can't charge people?)

[Frak]

Lostincyberspace, you still haven't justified how can Canonical charge party A and not party B.

(why would they be able to charge OEM's for distributing Ubuntu when they can't charge people?)
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

Remember, too, that Dell sells support straight through Canonical.

[Vadi]

That it does. I believe what we are engaging in is now defined as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt), so I'll drop.

When a person has a built a user-base of 8+ million people on a platform, and says that parts of the operation as still finacially understable, I have no reason to disbelieve them or pull numbers out of thin air ;)

[Frak]

That it does. I believe what we are engaging in is now defined as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt), so I'll drop.

When a person has a built a user-base of 8+ million people on a platform, and says that parts of the operation as still finacially understable, I have no reason to disbelieve them or pull numbers out of thin air ;)
So...

Free cake?

[DoctorMO]

When a person has a built a user-base of 8+ million people on a platform, and says that parts of the operation as still finacially understable, I have no reason to disbelieve them or pull numbers out of thin air

It's the growth acceleration that isn't stable. I do believe that even without Marks money, Canonical would still grow; just not as fast.