LWN.net Logo

Free is too expensive (Economist)

Free is too expensive (Economist)

Posted Mar 31, 2012 20:44 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: Free is too expensive (Economist) by jcm
Parent article: Free is too expensive (Economist)

Having a boring, stable platform would be very unsexy, but it would sell like hotcakes.

Tell that to Nokia and RIM. Unless you can explain why the same people who abandoned “boring, stable platforms” on mobile (BlackBerry, PalmOS, Symbian, etc)and went with “oooh, shiny” iOS and Android will do the opposite on desktop this theory looks suspicious.

People want both “boring, stable platform” and “oooh, shiny” depending on their mood. You said so yourself:

Most of them are running some several year old version of Windows or OSX and running a mixture of older and newer apps.

Yes, and distros assume that if you want new version of GCC then you automatically need new GNOME or KDE experiments. That's the problem. It's hard to mix and match - and this is what people expect as you've explained.

That's why “just use CentOS” “solution” to GNOME3 “problem” does nor work, for example.


(Log in to post comments)

Free is too expensive (Economist)

Posted Mar 31, 2012 23:25 UTC (Sat) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

Unless you can explain why the same people who abandoned “boring, stable platforms” on mobile (BlackBerry, PalmOS, Symbian, etc)and went with “oooh, shiny” iOS and Android will do the opposite on desktop this theory looks suspicious.

That's easy. On a conceptual level, people understand phones much better than they understand desktop PCs. Mobile phones started out as phones that weren't screwed to your wall, then at some point you could use them when you were away from home, and then in small incremental steps they grew extras such as MP3 players, calendars, little games and so on. Eventually they got web browsers and then apps. (Do remember that the first iPhone didn't actually have native apps except from Apple.) Even so their users perceive them as »mobile phones«, not as »mobile computers whose thousands of features incidentally include the ability to place and receive phone calls«, which is, technically, what they really are these days.

Desktop PCs, on the other hand, are big and ugly machines that tend to malfunction in any of a myriad different ways or get viruses so you have to find somebody to fix them for you because they're much too difficult to fix by yourself. People like their computers to »just work« because that is a very precarious state which can change completely at no notice whatsoever (in the worst case, visit the wrong web site just once and ka-boom, there it goes) and is a big hassle to get right again. Phones, like most appliances, are generally a lot more reliable than desktop PCs and so people are a lot more open to small incremental additions that seem fun and exciting because, hey, whatever happens you can still make phone calls.

Free is too expensive (Economist)

Posted Mar 31, 2012 23:38 UTC (Sat) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link]

Indeed. There's a lot of truth in there. I've blogged about my opinions on consumer behavior and how - on the whole - you get one chance to define expectations for something new and disruptive and then live with it forever. Microsoft would love to have thrown away Windows years ago, but they couldn't because they had to - shock - provide a compatible, consistent, customer and user experience. It's not actually consistently crap either. Sure, there are viruses, malware, and crashes...and what makes anyone here think that we're magically so much better that we wouldn't have all of the same kinds of problems if we were the 99% rather than the 1%?

Jon.

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds