| |||||||||||||
Free is too expensive (Economist)Free is too expensive (Economist)Posted Apr 10, 2012 10:42 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)In reply to: Free is too expensive (Economist) by khim Parent article: Free is too expensive (Economist)
But it looks these preparations will require complete divorce from the world of traditional Linux distributions. Which is sad because said distributions did many things right. A computer manufacturer could do a lot worse than team up with somebody who will provide support for one of the major long-lifecycle distributions like Debian or Ubuntu (LTS). That would ensure a reasonable time between upgrades (which are usually seamless) as well as timely security patches, and a wide, easily-accessible selection of software from the get-go. Also these distributions are unlikely to go away anytime soon. So far this hasn't been seriously tried AFAIK. It is important to emphasise that these distributions already come with lots of software that people would otherwise have to obtain, possibly at very considerable expense, from the open third-party market or an »app store«. So it's not as if one would immediately need lots of buy-in from third-party software developers (as in OS X). Certainly somebody who uses their computer mainly to surf the web, to write e-mail and letters, even to deal with holiday photographs, to catalogue books or DVDs or a stamp collection, and many other things that occur in the usual home or SOHO use, could go a very long way without having to install anything from outside the distribution's repositories. Of course if the prime purpose of the computer in question is to run the newest Windows games, a Windows machine is likely to be the better bet – but that isn't going to change however much Linux is modified. It may not actually be worth the trouble.
(Log in to post comments)
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 14:34 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] A computer manufacturer could do a lot worse than team up with somebody who will provide support for one of the major long-lifecycle distributions like Debian or Ubuntu (LTS). That would ensure a reasonable time between upgrades (which are usually seamless) as well as timely security patches, and a wide, easily-accessible selection of software from the get-go. Also these distributions are unlikely to go away anytime soon. So far this hasn't been seriously tried AFAIK. This will never be “seriously tried” because of poor ROI: if there are no lock-in then how can you recoup your expenses? This is the case where Linux's greatest strength becomes it's greatest weakness. Of course if the prime purpose of the computer in question is to run the newest Windows games, a Windows machine is likely to be the better bet – but that isn't going to change however much Linux is modified. It may not actually be worth the trouble. Of course direct attack is hopeless! Linux must do something which MacOS and Windows just can't do and then grow from such niche to the full-blown desktop. There are some ideas about what exactly this niche can be - different companies play with different niches. The problem is that it looks like all such attempts will happen with something like Android or webOS: Linux which has nothing to do with traditional Linux desktop.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 15:07 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] This will never be “seriously tried” because of poor ROI: if there are no lock-in then how can you recoup your expenses? If you're a hardware manufacturer such as HP or Dell you're not interested in lock-in – you're interested in moving boxes. Anything that looks like it might move more boxes is worth looking into. The problem is to get things going in the first place; once you have a system set up, there is no reason why supporting Linux would need to be any more expensive than supporting Windows. (In the long run it may even be cheaper.) »Lock-in« doesn't enter into it from a hardware manufacturer's point of view because nobody is »locked into« generic PC hardware that you can get from dozens of manufacturers. Even if you're into high-end kit you can always get that from any of half a dozen manufacturers. (Apple is an anomaly here because Apple is no longer a computer maker, it's a life style. People are hooked on Apple in a way that they never get hooked on Dell or Asus. However, to a large extent OS X suffers from the same uptake problems as Linux; it just doesn't matter because Apple makes three quarters of its money selling stuff that isn't running OS X in the first place, anyway.) There is nothing in principle to prevent someone like HP or Dell from offering Linux als a pre-installed alternative on all of its machines other than that the margins you get from moving boxes do not lend themselves to experiments. Microsoft has a nice little positive-feedback loop going that will ensure that as long as 95% of PC buyers buy Windows pre-installed, the hardware makers aren't keen on being the first to sink investment money into something new – and Microsoft is trying to keep things that way: The real reason Linux isn't preinstalled more is that Microsoft provides kickbacks to hardware manufacturers like HP or Dell to »recommend« Windows.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 16:48 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Yeah, sure.
Microsoft doesn't provide kickbacks in Russia, Ukraine and lots of other countries. You can easily buy laptops and computers running FreeDOS there. Guess what's the first thing people do after they buy them?
Hint: it generally involves a CD with pirated Windows.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 17:14 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] OK. So Microsoft doesn't waste money on kickbacks to manufacturers in countries where people won't pay for Windows in the first place. What does that prove? It certainly doesn't prove Linux couldn't compete with Windows on a level playing field. What is easier to come by for non-geeks in Russia and Ukraine, a CD with pirated Windows or a CD with Linux? What about CDs with pirated Windows games? Also, Microsoft could easily crack down on pirated copies of Windows if they wanted to. However, that would be utterly counterproductive because it would just make Linux look more attractive in comparison. Microsoft knows very well that hanging on to their 95% market share is worth a bunch of pirated CDs in Russia.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 17:29 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
I often hear laments: "Oh, if only Windows wasn't preinstalled. We'd rule the world with Linux, surely!"
They are definitely not true as I see a counter-example with my own eyes.
>It certainly doesn't prove Linux couldn't compete with Windows on a level playing field. What is easier to come by for non-geeks in Russia and Ukraine, a CD with pirated Windows or a CD with Linux?
A CD with Linux - broadband access is ubiquitous and cheap. I have 100mbit Ethernet connection for $8 a month, so I can download Ubuntu install CD in about 30 seconds. Of course, I can do the same for a Windows install DVD.
So I'd say they are on a level footing.
>What about CDs with pirated Windows games?
Actually, they are becoming quite rare. Why would you bother with buying CDs when you can download anything you want for free?
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 18:28 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
and how many computer manufacturers build systems exclusively for those markets?
and what slice of the overall computer industry are these markets?
I suspect that the answers to both are very small numbers.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 20:43 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] These both are wrong questions. The answers to both are: there are more then enough computer manufacturers and they represent huge slice of computer industry (China alone is large enough), but in places where Windows is free and Linux is free Windows wins hands down. It's not even a contest. And since you can not attach any non-zero price to Linux (this will immediately make your Linux offer non-noncompetitive) the end result is that there are still no chance for “serious try”. People somehow expect that “serious try” will be “identical push for Windows and Linux” but it just does not work: Windows in incumbent, identical push will always favor it, you need bigger push to succeed - and where money for said push will come from? You can not even use typical bundling strategy (where producer of demo version of commercial program pays you dollar or two) because Linux distributions are typically designed to repel any and all proprietary commercial developers as we are discussing here.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 21:12 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
where linux and windows are both 'free', windows will win due to the network effect.
but if microsoft didn't allow for the piracy of windows to maintain this, they would not both be free.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 21:57 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] This is exactly what I'm saying. It's not up to the Microsoft to determine if given country has high piracy or not. But in both cases Windows wins: if piracy is high the Windows wins because of network effect, if it's low then Microsoft makes good money and spends some of it via kickbacks to promote Windows. Windows wins in both cases. Q.E.D.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 20:35 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] There is nothing in principle to prevent someone like HP or Dell from offering Linux als a pre-installed alternative on all of its machines other than that the margins you get from moving boxes do not lend themselves to experiments. Ever wondered why systems with Linux preinstalled are always separate models (often with the same hardware but still with separate nomenclature article)? Apparently there are just this little teeeny agreement. The problem is to get things going in the first place; once you have a system set up, there is no reason why supporting Linux would need to be any more expensive than supporting Windows. Not enough. You need bigger margins, not the same margins, or else the whole exercise is pointless. For that manufacturer need some kind of lock-in - that's what I'm talking about. And indeed when nettop story started vendors tried to produce such lock-in - but unsuccessfully. In the long run it may even be cheaper. PC business is very low margin business. Companies just don't have luxury to think about long term: if they'll start producing losses then the end can come very fast. »Lock-in« doesn't enter into it from a hardware manufacturer's point of view because nobody is »locked into« generic PC hardware that you can get from dozens of manufacturers. Sure. But why start expensive and complex program which may jeopardize your relationship with Microsoft if the end result are the same tiny margins you already have?
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 22:48 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] You need bigger margins, not the same margins, or else the whole exercise is pointless. For that manufacturer need some kind of lock-in - that's what I'm talking about. As a PC manufacturer, you can't »lock in« people to your hardware (unless you're Apple, but we already said that special rules apply to Apple). If anything, a desire to create lock-in would be an argument in favour of preinstalling Linux as long as your Linux distribution is good enough and supports your machine well, because as long as you're the only one selling such a machine people will continue being your customers. This works for Apple – Macintoshes could just as well run Windows but people tend to stick with the OS X that comes with the machine. The margins on Macs aren't quite like the ones on iPhones, but we don't see Apple complain. In the same vein, if a good computer came pre-installed with a good, supported mainstream Linux like Debian (rather than the low-end boxes with weird Linux distributions that hardware manufacturers tend to offer if they offer anything at all), most people would probably stay with that because putting anything else on it would be more of a hassle than it was worth.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 11, 2012 6:05 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] If anything, a desire to create lock-in would be an argument in favour of preinstalling Linux as long as your Linux distribution is good enough and supports your machine well, because as long as you're the only one selling such a machine people will continue being your customers. Nope. Others sell similar machines, too. Both tiny firms with full selection of models (tiny selection because firms are tiny) and large companies like Dell, HP, or Lenovo - but with few models (again: Linux is not large enough to support the large range of models). This works for Apple – Macintoshes could just as well run Windows but people tend to stick with the OS X that comes with the machine. Some actually install Linux and/or Windows, but that's not the point. The point is that MacOS works poorly on anything else and Apple vigorously ensures that there will be no machines with Hackintosh preinstalled. This is where lock-in scheme starts to work and this is what you can not do with Linux. In the same vein, if a good computer came pre-installed with a good, supported mainstream Linux like Debian (rather than the low-end boxes with weird Linux distributions that hardware manufacturers tend to offer if they offer anything at all), most people would probably stay with that because putting anything else on it would be more of a hassle than it was worth. This was tried many times. It does not work. People find something deficient with tiny selection of “Linux preinstalled” offers and buy something else instead. And it makes no sense to create as many models with Linux as you create models with Windows if you expect 10x-100x less buyers.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 11, 2012 7:53 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] This was tried many times. It does not work. People find something deficient with tiny selection of “Linux preinstalled” offers and buy something else instead. When I bought my current computer (an HP business notebook), HP did offer one configuration with Linux preinstalled. That was the bottom-of-the-line configuration with the slowest CPU and GPU, the lowest screen resolution, the smallest hard disk and half the RAM of the one I eventually got. It does not come as a big surprise that under these circumstances buying the machine with Linux preinstalled is not the option most customers will take. On the »plus« side, the machine I bought in the end is also very nice for Linux, with basically everything working out of the box using Debian (I've so far not missed the fingerprint reader, and somebody like HP could probably get that supported by leaning on the chip manufacturer). It does make one wonder why HP does not offer a Linux preinstall for the top-of-the-line configuration rather than the bottom one. In my experience, installing Linux on notebooks has become a lot easier over the years. Whether this is due to improvements in Linux itself or the manufacturers moving towards supported components is difficult to tell (probably a mixture of both), but the presence of any configurations of a model with Linux preinstalled is a good sign because it indicates that Linux will probably work well on the other configurations, too. There is certainly nothing technical that prevents manufacturers from offering more Linux preinstalls – the reason why this doesn't happen more often is mostly to do with Microsoft's sleazy business practices.
|
|||||||||||||