Ubuntu resources vs. quality
Ubuntu resources vs. quality
Posted May 10, 2011 16:43 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)In reply to: Ubuntu resources vs. quality by AlexHudson
Parent article: Ubuntu cloud chief beats CTO to exit door (The Register)
I'm not sure that's a valid assumption to make. Canonical has never released any hard numbers for their _paying_ customers for any of their services. Landscape is their longest running subscription service revenue stream and we've never, ever, seen them tout the uptake of that revenue generating service. And the usage numbers for that service they don't have to estimate, they know them in exact detail. And yet they have never even issued a trending statement that talks about relative growth. Does Canonical have customers? If they do Canonical doesn't seem real interest in talking about them. Instead of hearing Shuttleworth wax eloquent about his mythical 200 million user goal to rally the troups. I'd like to see him talk soberly about sustainability business priorities and about how he and the rest of the remaining Canonical Board getting the paying Canonical customerbase to 1% to 3% the size of the total Ubuntu userbase as a way to actually get Ubuntu to be self-sustaining. The entire Ubuntu ecosystem depends on Canonical as the managing entity of the project. If Canonical can't get their business priorities together, Ubuntu as a project loses.
-jef
Posted May 10, 2011 17:08 UTC (Tue)
by AlexHudson (guest, #41828)
[Link]
So I rather imagine most of their income is via development projects with OEMs, the likes of litl, the consultancy for large Ubuntu deployments, all that malarkey. I don't think they would have ever gone down the Unity road in the first place unless there were OEM customers somehow stumping up for that work to happen.
However, are they making much money? I really like the idea that they've done a 10k desktop rollout in Germany: practically every other story like that from other vendors has gone bad in subsequent years, but this is a much more controlled environment, so should be more successful. At this stage, though, they should have many more case studies like that, so you have to think there aren't many of these big deployments about that they're supporting directly.
I also know that they've been handing out Landscape freebies to various people pour encourager les autres, so how much of a haircut they're taking on these various deals who knows - I'm pretty sure they are extremely keenly priced.
I think the problem is basically this: we assume they're not break-even yet, otherwise that would have been trumpeted already. We can also figure out that they're burning millions of dollars each year (has to be ballpark $10M when you consider staffing/office costs/etc.), and have done for the last few years (would have been much less in the early days).
So the question isn't, are they making millions of dollars in revenue, they must be. The question is, how many millions short are they, and what revenues are going to scale without scaling costs to meet that shortfall?
I'm personally not hugely worried that they don't release much information, no-one would realistically expect them to - no private business would ever do that. And as a non-Ubuntu user, the future of that ecosystem doesn't keep me awake at night either. Canonical will be here for years yet. Whether or not they continue to grow, though, or start years of minor cuts here and there and slide back - that wouldn't surprise me. The model was always one of artificial growth to capture market. It remains to be seen if the market is actually there.
Ubuntu resources vs. quality
