casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github
Posted Jan 31, 2013 16:31 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333)In reply to: casual contributions and Github by fb
Parent article: LCA: The future of the Linux desktop
HP did have Linux desktops and laptops you could buy.
Nobody bought them. So HP stopped selling them.
It's easier for HP to just have systems that they test with Linux and if large customers want a Linux laptop HP can tailor it to suit that customer.
One of the most bizarre things I've noticed with Linux users is that they tend to reject any system being sold with Linux on it and rather go out and buy a Apple product that runs Linux like shit, a Thinkpad because of the bragging rights, or the Windows version of the Linux laptop because a few options are not available for the Linux version (invariably because they don't work well with Linux) or that the Windows version is slightly cheaper.
There is simply no reason for OEMs to market Linux systems when even existing Linux users won't be their customers.
Posted Jan 31, 2013 18:46 UTC (Thu)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link]
Posted Jan 31, 2013 19:09 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (9 responses)
When I bought my HP 8440p laptop the other year the only model that HP actually offered with pre-installed Linux – at least here in Germany – was the lowest-spec one with the slowest CPU, the least memory and the crummiest display and graphics chip.
So forgive me for getting the top-end model instead and putting Linux on it in place of the pre-installed Windows 7. It's a great little laptop and I would buy it again any time, thank you very much. I suppose if HP had offered machines that one would actually want to purchase they might have seen different results – but then again these results might have been a little bit uncomfortable.
Posted Feb 1, 2013 0:09 UTC (Fri)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (8 responses)
It's the oldest trick in the book: to show that there's "no demand" for something, make it as unattractive as possible so that people won't buy it, and then point to the lack of interest in the product as a "justification" of the strategy of not offering it in the first place. It is, however, actually possible to get Thinkpads with some GNU/Linux distributions pre-installed, but not necessarily direct from Lenovo as a "consumer": instead, retailers seem to be able to obtain them from the distribution channel and do the necessary bundling, and this is quite evident when one considers the frequency with which Thinkpads appear amongst the vendors that do bundle GNU/Linux. Really, one should be able to buy the bare hardware. Even Windows users would benefit from that, potentially, given that some of them are likely to have more licences than they can use and don't need another one foisted upon them, but scary noises about "piracy" are always made when this guaranteed revenue stream comes under threat.
Posted Feb 1, 2013 1:50 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (1 responses)
Only people who bought Windows in a box have "more licences than they can use" - and these are scarce. OEM Licenses are non-transferable and Enterprise license is null and void without some other license (lookie here: A licensed, qualifying Windows operating system must already be installed on the device that will be assigned the Volume Licensing upgrade license). Now, you may try to argue in court that all these restrictions are, in fact, illegal bundling, but I doubt you'll succeed: licensor can basicaly place any restrictions it want on the license - and it'll stay (see Apple vs PsyStar, etc).
Posted Feb 1, 2013 15:29 UTC (Fri)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link]
Posted Feb 1, 2013 17:24 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (5 responses)
Why do they want to show justification? How does this trick put the company ahead of where it would be if it simply never offered Linux at all? Or offered it in a way that it was truly valuable?
Posted Feb 1, 2013 18:49 UTC (Fri)
by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205)
[Link] (4 responses)
So that they have a ready answer when the press and/or consumers come complaining about the situation -- the crapware vendors and Microsoft put heavy pressure on them not to admit the truth. It saves them some bad PR and might even give some good PR, since they are, after all, offering a Linux product.
If they were to offer Linux in a truly valuable way, of course their vendors would be very upset, and might even withdraw their support.
Posted Feb 1, 2013 20:02 UTC (Fri)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link]
Posted Feb 1, 2013 20:45 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (1 responses)
Have you actually read the article? Not even close. Crapware vendors pay them money. Nothing more, nothing less. Price of Windows+Crapware for major vendors is negative (that is: vendors actually receive more money from crapware vendors then they pay Microsoft) and for some strange reason Linux-lovers are unwilling to pay more for a system with Linux preinstalled to compensate for the loss. Crapware vendors don't care, but Microsoft is very aware and it makes it hard to sell computers with Linux (actually any OS other then Windows): Linux system must be separate entity, you can not offer dual-boot and you can not offer pick-your-OS-at-the-checkout-time service (not if you want to keep the discounts). This is well-known phenomenon, I don't see where your make it as unattractive as possible so that people won't buy it, and then point to the lack of interest in the product as a "justification" of the strategy of not offering it in the first place idea comes from. Hardware vendors do offer the best possible Linux support they realistically can, but well, they are businesses, to sell Linux systems with a loss to satisfy some strange ideas is not something publicly trading company can justify for long.
Posted Feb 1, 2013 21:42 UTC (Fri)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
I'm being quoted there so I'll respond to that. By unattractive I mean offer a token product at the low-end (presumably because Linux users are cheapskates or poor or something) so that when people look at the specification and realise that it's not very attractive as a product - the screen isn't very big, or there's less memory, or the CPU has half the number of cores, or whatever, compared to the next model up in the range - they then mumble about it not meeting their needs or expectations and then go and buy the next (or next but one) model up, wipe the disk, and install Linux on it themselves. Result: one Windows sale, no Linux sale. Why would a company offer something unattractive - an "economy" model - instead of something else? That's the interesting question. It's not necessarily the case that the more expensive computer costs more for them to put Linux onto it and roll it out as a separate product, so you can't claim that the token Linux product at the low-end is dipping a toe in the water whereas a token mid-range or high-end Linux product would be sticking their whole leg in the water, especially since some of these vendors ship Linux on their workstation and server offerings already. Why would a company use the lack of a response from customers as justification of a lack of Linux products? I would imagine that there's a continuous stream of requests and enquiries on sites like Dell's IdeaStorm (or whatever it's called) as well as from random customers. Doing nothing doesn't look very good, and doing just a bit more than nothing is the next best thing and looks a whole lot better. Result: "people don't buy these things when we offer them, but we will continue to review demand going forward" plus business as usual.
Posted Feb 2, 2013 22:31 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
You obviously believe having the public believe in your business plan is more valuable than I do. I think that if, when the press comes asking why it doesn't have Linux products, HP were to say, "no comment," its sales would be the same as if HP said, "because we've proven there is no demand for them."
Maybe you're also of the ilk that say things like, "the oil companies will probably use this development in the Middle East as an excuse to raise the price of gas." In my experience, oil companies never offer excuses for raising their asking price. Every time Shell has reason to believe a different price would generate more revenue, Shell just changes the board.
And I don't think I've ever heard a driver say, "I'm going to buy more gas today, even though it costs more, because Shell needs the money."
Posted Jan 31, 2013 22:49 UTC (Thu)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link] (8 responses)
I do it myself. Why would I want to purchase a laptop that has worse screen resolution, no SSD and no customization options?
There are Linux users who are cheap and would want such a low-end laptop. I am not one of them. I want the extras.
So far the only laptops I really like are Thinkpads, Samsung Series 9, and Apples.
As for existing Linux users buying Linux preloaded...why would they? They've obviously already managed to install Linux themselves or they wouldn't be Linux users. Doing a fresh OS install holds no fear for them.
Posted Feb 1, 2013 15:30 UTC (Fri)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link]
Posted Feb 1, 2013 19:00 UTC (Fri)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Feb 20, 2013 22:10 UTC (Wed)
by JanC_ (guest, #34940)
[Link] (1 responses)
Apparently "Windows 8 laptops" can't be bought without an OS anymore, so they have to stop doing business...?
Posted Feb 21, 2013 7:55 UTC (Thu)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link]
Posted Feb 5, 2013 23:21 UTC (Tue)
by achiang (guest, #47297)
[Link] (3 responses)
Top of the line Dell with Ubuntu pre-loaded. Not very configurable, but not low-end either.
Disclaimer: I work for Canonical.
Posted Feb 6, 2013 16:40 UTC (Wed)
by ThinkRob (guest, #64513)
[Link] (2 responses)
A 1366x768 TN panel is "top of the line"?
Oh dear.
This kinda supports the parent posters point about the Linux options tending to have poor hardware...
Posted Feb 6, 2013 17:53 UTC (Wed)
by achiang (guest, #47297)
[Link] (1 responses)
They announced a 1080p version at CES, not sure when it's shipping.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/06/dells-xps-13-getting-a...
Posted Feb 20, 2013 22:06 UTC (Wed)
by JanC_ (guest, #34940)
[Link]
Posted Feb 1, 2013 18:53 UTC (Fri)
by pkern (subscriber, #32883)
[Link]
casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github
Nobody bought [HP's machines with pre-installed Linux]. So HP stopped selling them.
Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products
Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products
Even Windows users would benefit from that, potentially, given that some of them are likely to have more licences than they can use and don't need another one foisted upon them, but scary noises about "piracy" are always made when this guaranteed revenue stream comes under threat.
Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products
Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products
It's the oldest trick in the book: to show that there's "no demand" for something, make it as unattractive as possible so that people won't buy it, and then point to the lack of interest in the product as a "justification" of the strategy of not offering it in the first place.
Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products
Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products
Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products
The crapware vendors and Microsoft put heavy pressure on them not to admit the truth.
If they were to offer Linux in a truly valuable way, of course their vendors would be very upset, and might even withdraw their support.
Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products
I don't see where your make it as unattractive as possible so that people won't buy it, and then point to the lack of interest in the product as a "justification" of the strategy of not offering it in the first place idea comes from.
Guaranteeing "no demand" through poor products
So that they have a ready answer when the press and/or consumers come complaining about the situation
casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github
casual contributions and Github