Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek)
Serdar Yegulalp has a follow-up
article on his previous
prognostication. "One thing I didn't talk much about in my
recent feature article about the future of Linux was whether consumers will
be paying for Linux apps in four years. Truth is, I don't think most of
them will -- if even any at all."
(Log in to post comments)
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 15, 2008 19:52 UTC (Fri) by nbarriga (guest, #49347) [Link] There are 2 pieces of software I would pay for, in the current Linux world: Good videocard drivers. Games. This is likely to change as the quality of videocard drivers goes up and more free/open source games are released.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 2:42 UTC (Sat) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] The problem with paying for good videocard drivers is that having video drivers really work depends on a close relationship with a number of open source projects that aren't too interested in working with non-open-source code. So I think it would be more plausible to pay for a video card with good drivers.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 18, 2008 2:35 UTC (Mon) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] I would be happy to pay for good open source video drivers. Granted this scenario is a bit unlikely, but I'd be happy to do so.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 19, 2008 8:02 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] It's sort of unlikely because "good open-source video-drivers" is an expensive undertaking, so even if you announce you'd donate $100 to the first project to deliver it for your card, you'd need a LOT of pledges for the money to make much difference for the likeliness of it being written. Smaller, simpler, cheaper stuff can work like this though; I've had excellent returns on two occasions with donating $50 to some project, and in the comment write that I'd donate another $50 if the project ever supported [insert-wishlist-item-here]. The $50 also ain't enough to make a difference, really. But it's enough to show the developers that yeah, I do care about that feature. And people like being appreciated, they tend to like it even more than being rich.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 15, 2008 20:02 UTC (Fri) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] The original article seems nonsensical to me. Of course I'll gladly pull out the wallet for things of value, and I think I speak for many linux users. Just because I want to maximize my bang for the buck, doesn't mean I won't spend money for something excellent. In the past I've spent a good amount of money on linux software - not only for shrink wrapped boxed distros, but also for office suites (before ooo), commercial games (mainly 3D FPS) and other utility software. One thing I can tell you for sure is that I will never spend another dime on microsoft software.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 5:47 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] To complete the picture: There are really good proprietary application. But they also have competition from free programs. Suppose you have a nice proprietary application called PropApp. If it is successful, you'll soon have some free software guys trying to reproduce its functionality. And the software of those guys will eventually become part of your distribution. Also recall that proprietary apps are "freedom-reduced". After all, free software is about making it easy for someone else to help you with your software problems. Specifically: * Their packaging tends to be bad (no dedicated packager for "my distribution") * Installing them requires going through extra hoops * They constantly try to cheat you in order to prevent reverse engeneering So when developing PropApp you have to compete against a "competitor" that has better prices, better distribution channels and an inherent usability advantage.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 13:19 UTC (Sat) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] An inherent usability advantage? BULLSHIT! Sorry, but I'd happily pay good money for a certain Word Processor to run on linux. And that's competing against the freebie Open Office! Namely, a certain program called WordPerfect. WordPerfect contains some functionality which (from my experience talking to people in the OpenOffice project) would be very difficult to replicate in Open Office. IMHO that functionality (Reveal Codes) is actually a major usability issue. And I'm quite prepared to pay for it. Whether I (and others) would pay enough to keep WordPerfect in business is another issue :-( but their loss would be a big loss to everyone - Free and proprietary alike. Some proprietary apps will survive, because customers NEED GUARANTEED support and updates (for legal reasons, amongst others). I hope niche apps like WP likewise will survive. What I hope we get is a vi/emacs - style war between FLOSS catering for the majority, and proprietary *flourishing* catering for those who have minority interests. Cheers, Wol
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 16:09 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] The advantage of usability is again due to the fact that the software is not in a constant conflict of interests with you. There are some things OO.o does not do and WordPErfect does. OTOH, WordPerfect's lack of decent support for bidirectional languages make it a non-option for me. > Some proprietary apps will survive, Sure. > because customers NEED GUARANTEED support and updates > (for legal reasons, amongst others) You can have a support contract for free software as well. And a free software integrator is in a better position to maintain the whole platform. Not just a single application.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 15, 2008 22:45 UTC (Fri) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] This guy is looking at it backwards. You pick the application you want, and then you choose the platform on which to run it. Anything else is irrational.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 1:24 UTC (Sat) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] > You pick the application you want, and then you choose the platform on which to run it. Anything else is irrational. Sorry, but I chose my platform years ago, and it doesn't matter whether you think it's rational or not. After all it's my money and I'll vote with my wallet. No vendor will dictate my choice of OS. If they don't offer anything for me, then I will find a way to live without their product, it's that simple.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 4:26 UTC (Sat) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] Only if screwing around with your computer is the main thing you do with your computer. If you actually do useful things with your computer then the applications are clearly more important. If there's only one application that does what I need, or if there are more than one but they all run on the same platform, then I need to run whatever platform is called for. I'm not going to say "To hell with my clients, I'm running Linux."
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 7:43 UTC (Sat) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] > Only if screwing around with your computer is the main thing you do with your computer. LOL, I don't have time to screw around with my computer. I get enough hands on computer time on the job. I need my computer to just work. Linux does that. > I'm not going to say "To hell with my clients, I'm running Linux." I think you must have confused me with an mcse. My consulting clients hire me specifically for my linux skills. Full stop. Think about that.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 8:08 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] and if my clients told me that they wanted me to install/configure/run a windows system I would tell them that it would be a waste of my time and their money, they would be far better off contacting a windows consultant for that job. If they want I will continue to help them (including helping with the Linux side of the integration of the new app and designing the additional security mechanisms that they need to put in place to protect the windows box) if this means that I never do business with them again, so what, it means I have time for other jobs, doing things that I am better at, and more interested in, and will please the customers more.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 12:01 UTC (Sat) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] But where are you when you have one app that only runs on os a and another that only runs on osb and another that only runs on os c and none of the oses play properly together for whatever reason? Headacheville. all the best, drew
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 18:48 UTC (Sat) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] > But where are you when you have one app that only runs on os a and another that only runs on os b and another that only runs on os c and none of the oses play properly together for whatever reason? I've never encountered a case of 3 mutually antagonistic app/platform combinations, but it could be possible. In my case, I keep a mac in the house, and every year when it's time to run tax cut, I use the mac. It's not ideal but it's not bad, while I'm looking for a good native linux solution. Wine is another possibility for legacy apps, or virtualization if the app doesn't work under wine.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 17, 2008 16:03 UTC (Sun) by seyman (subscriber, #1172) [Link] > In my case, I keep a mac in the house, and every year when it's time to run tax cut, I use the mac. What happened to letting no vendor dictate what OS you run ?
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 17, 2008 21:15 UTC (Sun) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] > What happened to letting no vendor dictate what OS you run ? Oh, that's an easy one. The vendor offered a choice of windows, mac or web. Since I already had a mac, I chose to use the mac version. Mystery solved. I'm still looking for a good linux solution though, and will most likely move off of turbo tax. They send me a customer satisfaction survey every year. and ask what I feel is lacking in their current offererings. I answer: "a fully supported, native linux version of your software". Time will tell which vendor is nimble enough to go after this market.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 5:50 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] My application is "surfing the 'net". Linux does that well, which is why I chose it as a platform. Now all of the sudden there's a different application to be done with my system. Must I replace the whole platform for that? This is irrational.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 7:22 UTC (Sat) by bockman (guest, #3650) [Link] In principle I agree that application choice should dictate platform choice.But is not as easy as you put it:
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 18, 2008 11:58 UTC (Mon) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] From the customer's end, yes. From the vendor's end, no. I have a platform already, that I picked to run my existing applications (e-mail, web surfing, movie playback etc). If you want me to consider your software, you have two choices:
Note that one of these is much harder than the other; there is a strong resistance to platform change (with reason - I've had to use both Windows XP and Mac OS X recently, and neither of them felt "right" in all sorts of little ways, although I'm sure I'd get used to them with time). The article is pointing out that even if you meet one of those two requirements, I may still not be interested. You also have to ensure that your commercial application is sufficiently better than the free alternatives to be worth the money, bearing in mind that if your application is any good, free alternatives will aspire to beat you.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 1:50 UTC (Sat) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link] s/commercial/proprietary/
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 2:22 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I don't mind paying for open source software. As long at it's Free.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 16, 2008 20:18 UTC (Sat) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link] Back in the early days of Linux, many companies already had readily-linuxifiable Unix ports of important software, and lots of early Linux adopters were willing to pay for good software. It also seemed that Linux developers were more willing to take measures to ensure binary compatibility. Gradually these things changed (2001-2003 seemed to be somewhat of a turning point), much to the detriment of Linux adoption. I think the main thing holding Adobe, Corel, Quark, Autodesk, Nuance, Encyclopedia Britannica and other reference/educational software companies, most game companies, and many others back from developing Linux ports of their software is the expectation that more copies would be pirated than sold. Though I'm all for open-source alternatives, open platforms such as Linux won't be able to get competitive footing on the desktop without developing a healthy commercial software ecosystem. This is a big part of the difference between OS X's rapidly growing marketshare and the slow desktop Linux uptake. A few markets continue to prominently feature Linux versions of commercial software, but they're somewhat removed from the consumer space- outside of server software, scientific/math software and high-end 3d modeling are the only two that come to mind.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 17, 2008 6:59 UTC (Sun) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] A casual look at the site of Autodesk and Corel shows that the system requirements include either XP or Vista and no mention of an OSX version.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 17, 2008 10:00 UTC (Sun) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] That doesn't make sense to me. Their software is already being pirated, on Windows. Do they really expect the amount of pirating to be any different depending on the platform? How hard it is to pirate something seems rather orthoginal to the platform it is running on.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 17, 2008 13:48 UTC (Sun) by seyman (subscriber, #1172) [Link] > Do they really expect the amount of pirating to be any different depending on the platform? I think that Jensend's point is that the companies fear they won't sell enough copies to make a linux port of their software worthwhile, especially given the speed at which the Linux desktop innovates and the grief they're going to get from the vendor of that other operating system.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 19, 2008 0:30 UTC (Tue) by juhl (subscriber, #33245) [Link] Speaking as a developer employed to write a commercial application, I'd say that even if they don't sell very many copies on Linux, porting the application will propably still be worthwhile, since the porting effort itself is likely to expose bugs they didn't know about - and getting those fixed makes the Linux port worth it all alone. We recently ported our app to Linux as an in-house project, and just compiling it with G++ (we use the Intel C++ compiler on Win32) revealed a lot of bugs. Also, getting access to tools like Valgrind on Linux revealed a few more bugs. Just running it on Linux exposed some areas of the code that didn't perform well generally (they just happened to run acceptably on Win32). The point is, just by changing platform and compiler we found lots of bugs - once we fixed those bugs we could provide a much better product to our Win32 customers. So even if we never sell a single Linux license, the Linux port has still paid off massively (and since we try to write cross-platform code from the get-go, it didn't take more than a few days ;).
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 18, 2008 8:33 UTC (Mon) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link] There are two other explanations I think you've overlooked. The dot-com bubble popping will have led companies who were in the process of broadening their product lines to concentrate on what sold reliably. Also, the promise of Linux as a desktop platform moved from being hype to geek-culture myth. As a result, the Linux editions of various software packages would have been shelved. K3n.
Commercial Apps For Consumer Linux: D.O.A.? (InformationWeek) Posted Aug 18, 2008 19:18 UTC (Mon) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] > Also, the promise of Linux as a desktop platform moved from being hype to geek-culture myth. I'm afraid that smug little assumption flies in the face of current trends. Even the mainstream vendors are now getting into desktop linux. It's been moving slowly, but it's moving.
|
|
||||||||||||