Slashdot Mirror
Linux Sales Down, But...
An anonymous reader writes " News.com has a story about combined Linux revenues reaching $80 million for 2001. "The Linux operating system market, from a revenue perspective, accounts for one half of 1 percent of the total operating system revenue each year, or roughly two days' worth of Microsoft's operating system revenue," [IDC Analyst] Gillen said. "On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more operating system revenue than the Linux community (will for the entire year).""
I believe sales are down as people have learned that Linux can be downloaded...for free!
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
GNU/Linux is the best OS around - althought they all suck to one degree or another. The performance and stability are amazing. Yet people continue to pay for things that do not work well. Sad. Just sad.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
Microsoft is closed January 1st for new year's eve.
And the 2nd could be a weekend day.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
This is a stupid way to measure the market penetration of Linux or any other free software.
because you can download literally hundreds of kinds of Linux, FOR FREE? No no, that couldn't be it.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
CNN - Aug 7th 2002 - Our investigative team has determined sales of Linux might be down due to the fact that it can be downloaded at no cost. This communist regime will never beat our favourite os, WindowsME.
Wow, in a down economy sales of a free product are lower. What a surprise! Next thing you know, news.com will tell us that we'll get wet if we go out in a rainstorm without an umbrella.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
are they happy ?
At some point in time Nvidia was making one tenth of a percent of 3DFx... I don't see Nvidia doing too badly right now...
Just because Microsoft is making a lot of money, doesn't mean that this will always be true. Their business plan is fundamentally flawed... who in their right mind will rent software? And who in their right mind actually agrees with Microsoft's EULA? Right now they make way more money than Linux, but if Linux wasn't a product line that was profitable, then companies like IBM and Corel would not have put any energy into it...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
"On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more operating system revenue than the Linux community (will for the entire year)."
Shouldn't it read? "On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more bugs than the Linux community (will ever in their entire lives)."
Yep. They have nowhere to go but down. And we have nowhere to go but up.
Linux sales down, but the RIAA believes that piracy is the cause.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Of course Microsoft is (currently) winning the battle for dollars. You *have* to buy Microsoft products. You don't have to buy Linux.
A more interesting look would be to see how much money Microsoft is *losing* per year, because companies are replacing Windows with Linux.
it's over for you guys.
hope you cashed out in time.
The whole point of free (as in beer) software is that you don't *need* money to get it... I'd much rather see numbers pointing to actual in-use comparisons than money comparisons.
It amazes me that so many media people still don't get that you can't measure Linux's success in dollars and cents!
Another way of looking at it is: how much more was Microsoft costing everyone after only 2 days?
...analysts have been studying revenue generated by sales of air. Apparently total US sales of breathable air is close to zero. On the other hand annual revenue for Coca Cola is around $20bn. Clearly the importance of air has been overrated in recent years. In fact sales execs at Coca Cola have already been in discussion with publishers of biology textbooks in an attempt to replace unimportant chapters on respiration with new chapters on the metabolisation of Coca Cola products.
-- SIGFPE
Users of Windows suddenly realized that what they have actually paid for is a pile of bug riddled dog crap.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
At first I was a little disappointed that Linux sales were falling. After all, the greatest thing I could imagine would be the triumph of Linux companies over Micro$tuff. And dwindling sales hardly seemed like it could be a good sign.
But then I thought things out to their logical conclusion. You see, the more Micro$ucks' sales grow, the more they think they can get away with ripping off customers by selling worse products for inflated prices (XP, anyone?). It's only a matter of time before people won't take it anymore and switch to Linux. Every sale of Windows just accelerates them toward the inevitable. With this news, it looks like we will all be using Linux before too long.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Revenues of a very popular product, AIR, are
still practically nonexistent even though all
humans require it to live! Oh, that's right,
it's free...
They may have sold $10 billion worth of OS software, but that's not what they made. You have to remove the cost of sales and marketing, paying employees, and most importantly buying the Justice department.
:)
--
They may have high profits, but Linux has high karma.
Stated simply:
Profit = Revenue - expenses
In this case, the revenues went down to $80 million. But the expenses were ZERO, because Linux is free. It doesn't cost anything, so every dollar you make is PURE PROFIT! What a great setup - gross margin of 100%!
> On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more operating system revenue than the Linux community (will for the entire year).
The Microsoft crowd must have been too hung over on January 1st.
It's the very same thing as moby said recently, he questioned why the worth of music is measured by the amount of sales. I agree with him that the music that really matters and defines our culture is not the charts.
Same for the operating system, what is it worth for humanity and our social system? How much of our resources we would have needed to spent (to microsoft) if it wouldn't be there? What money would the companies miss that use linux?
And note again becase it's free does not mean it costs anybody a job or is evil. After all not a single job should be just a occupational therapy.
(thats where the anti GPL comments fail, or where the adversaries miss the global sight. A job should be good for something, if we can save the work then better leave it, and leave us all more freetime, spent the time on the beach, etc.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
I'm sure this article only applies to the 5% of Americans who are buying Manchicken Loonix for the first time to run on their desktop PC to feel awesome. The thought of just downloading the ISO never crossed their minds.
;-)
So in essence, this article really only applies to the mentally handicapped.
For all that the BSA would have you believe otherwise, the vast majority of computers running Microsoft operating systems are running paid-for licensed copies.
For all that Red Hat and others would hope, the vast majority of computers running Linux are running unpaid-for licensed copies.
Even if the same number of computers ran each operating system, the Microsoft operating system ``market'' would be much larger, as a result of simple math.
With this overwhelming inherent disadvantage, that Linux is even on the charts at all is impressive.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Compare that to Microsoft which gets revenue for every Intel box built by most of the major PC OEMS, plus every seat in a site licensed business, etc. etc. ad nauseum. In other words, Operating System Sales revenues are irrelevant as a measure of Linux success in the real world. The real question is: what percentages of new installs in the various business sectors (consumer, small business, enterprise) and segments (server, workstation, PDA, embedded) are more important and interesting statistics, are they not?
Isn't that the point of the "free OS" anyway?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Who cares? Capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be...
-Zordok
Most people who would be interested in using Linux are tech-savvy enough to realize that it can be downloaded for free.
Even those who are not very tech-savvy are aware of that because the mainstream press trumpets the fact that Linux is free as it's best feature.
IDC based its projection of $280 million in sales within four years on efforts by Red Hat, SuSE and others to wring more money from Linux, in part by making it more difficult for users to obtain the software for free, Gillen said.
I truly wonder how RedHat, et al will actually physically accomplish this and still maintain their support in the community.
Oh wait, do they still have the support?
How did they assemble the information for the survey?
What kind of sales were included?
When it comes to Linux a lot of the sales do not derive from the sale of shrinkwrapped packages, but from consultancy services. Sometimes software is service, but these kind of surveys seldom acknowledge that. Sure, you do need help to install Microsoft Windows too, but in the Linux case the installment service might be the only cost associated with the installment, thus scewing the figures quit much.
Regards,
Mikael
Pawlo.com
It doesn't make any sense to compare the "revenues" of a priced product and a free product.
What next? A startling revelation that people all over America are paying for HBO and Cinemax, but many are getting local networks like NBC, ABC and Fox for FREE?
All your favorite sites in one place!
$26,000,000 / $0 = infinity !
Stupid "It doesn't cost anything, so it must be worthless" MBAs.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
But you can't compare revenue generated by a FREE operating system with revenue generated by a rather costly operating system. The goals are completely different.
Linux, on the other hand, is either bought standalone or downloaded. Most folks download it. It's loaded on very few computers when they're sold, plus Linux is the minority OS in comparison.
Next thing they'll tell us is rainy weather is wetter than dry weather :P
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
Its not that Linux is free. Its more that the Microsoft flogging model of required and forced upgrades fails miserably in Linux. Anyone that successfully installs Linux and uses it for a short while will
A. Not need to upgrade in a long time.
B. Realize how to upgrade for free.
[political rant mode on]
"While experts still can assemble the required Linux components for free and create the same package that companies sell, customers will be leery of using that sort of customized software, Gillen said. "
I like how people feel no shame in telling what customers WILL do.
Reports like this are very usefull as an indication of what the news organization that reports them's position is. This tells me that news.com is a BigSoftware mouthpiece.
[/political rant mode on]
A more interesting revenue comparison between M$ and Linux might be to related hardware sales. While PC sales are only now stablizing after months of shrinkage, Linux hardware sales (from the likes of IBM et. al.) probably continue to do just fine even in a slow economy because they can give the OS away for free (which is why, of course, IBM supports Linux in the first place).
I can see thousand of posts claiming that Linux can be downloaded for free and hence sales figures doesn't matter.
But Linux was always available for free & all Linux users know that. This is not something which users found in 2001.
But, say 20% of the Linux users pay, then by co-relation, more often than not the number of users are also down. If Linux server sales were up, definitely you would have seen a revenue increase
Dan Kuznetsky, a Linux zealot, who is the VP of IDC software division, overcalculated Linux server unit figures for 2000 (at 27%) & his 2001 Linux figures came significantly low and having to eat humble pie since his Linux growth prediction didn't come true
"The Linux operating system from a crash and exploit perspective, accounts for one half of 1 percent of the total operating system crashes and exploits each year, or roughly two days' worth of Microsoft's operating system crashes and exploits " "On the second day of January, Microsoft had more operating system crashes and exploits than the Linux community (will for the entire year)."
We all know that you can't meassure Linux's success by revenue.
:j
But I would add that you can't meassure Microsoft's success by revenue... their obscenely high revenue only shows how good they are at robbery, nothing about what value they provide.
He would lobby Congre$$ to implement a "no copy" flag on all PCs. Then anyone that wanted Linux would *have to* go and buy a boxed set! To summarize:
1. Lobby Congress to force PCs to not save Linux on the hard drive.
2.
3. Profit!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
In a single day of illegal price fixing, MicroSoft overcharged consumers by more than Linux has since its introduction.
The good news is that sales are up, especially for "client" computers.
The real danger to Microsoft isn't Linux's ability to generate profits, the real danger is Linux's ability to commoditize software. Eventually Microsoft's customers are going to learn that they can get more for less.
...is an interesting way of looking at things, but I wouldn't put too much stock into it.
:-)
For instance, I guess most people say that in politics winning is everything. But quite a lot can be said about losing as well. In 2000 every single Libertarian candidate in my county lost, and most of them lost big--I think the max one got was 7% of the vote (now that I think about it, I was that candidate
However, one county comissioner's race, the clerk of courts race, the county treasurer's race, and I think a judgeship's race went unexpectedly for the democrats. Our LP candidates threw almost all of the county for the Democrats in spite of the fact that it's a strong Republican county. For a 3rd party candidate, there's actually a victory to be had in throwing a race. Next time you campaign, the candidates take you seriously, not to mention the people who won with "your help."
My point in saying that is, I'm sure that MS takes that 1% of their revenue lost very seriously, because I suspect that it matters quite a lot more to them than just 1% of their operations, in the same way that a Republican candidate who lost the election with 48% of the vote takes an LP'er who got less than 2% of the vote very seriously.
(ok...ok...it's an apples to mustard greens comparison, i'm just saying that there are lots of ways of looking at that data)
Hey, if no one could download Linux for free like they can now, then they might actually show some sales! Damn, and how long did all the MBAs that figured this statistic out stay in school?
If Linux sales accounted for less than 1% of all OS sales, why is Netcraft reporting that over 50% of all webservers are running Apache on Linux?
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
Lot's of compressed O2. Although it is just an air ingredient.
Linux is free. What about usage?
Related Quotes
Quotes delayed 20+ minutes
I love the fact that CALDERA is up six cents =]
INTL BUSINESS MACHINES IBM 67.26 -0.49
INTEL CORP INTC 16.83 -0.30
MICROSOFT CORP MSFT 45.52 -0.15
CALDERA INTERNATIONAL INC CALD 1.16 0.06
RED HAT INC RHAT 4.62 -0.02
SUN MICROSYSTEMS SUNW 3.75 -0.03
I'm not sure comparing "revenues" is the best yardstick here. I think many would agree that a free OS is likely to sell for less than a commercial one... and what companies are really interested in the end is profit (or net income), not revenue.
Apple computer's revenue for 2001 is about $6 billion, if I calculated that correctly. However, their net income is "only" $200 million. Microsoft, as everyone knows, is making billions in net income, and are probably going to "win" any comparison with anyone -- except maybe in terms of consumer value.
Jamie
All I want to know... Is do you like your OS? Anyhoo, on a more serious note, another good question is are the Linux companies happy? They are of comfortable size, and make a decent profit, and aren't anywhere near large enough to handle the kind of business MS gets.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
I guess it depends what distro you are using, but why would anyone ever need to keep buying linux distributions unless they needed support. These days it is easy enough to d/l and burn your own CDs in a matter of hours. A corporation doesn't need to buy the distribution. They can just use an employee's copy of the CD or borrow from some other source. With good distributions like debian you don't even need a recent copy. If you want the latest version you just: apt-get dist-upgrade. I see no reason why linux sales can't go down as linux use goes up. Also as CD burners and network connections become better and better there will be little need to purchase such things.
Afterall Linux is free. Only those who have a slow connection will go out and buy it and also people who are just a little lazy :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ok, yeah, as everyone has pointed out, of course this is because Linux is a free os. But personally speaking, I've never paid for a copy of windows, and I know very few people who have.
Yes, there is a degree to which you pay for an OEM copy of windows when you buy it pre-installed on a computer, but missing from this whole equation is a metric of how many "free" (as in finding a car stereo in your neighbor's car) windows installations there are compared to those that have been paid for. Consider:
Account for these things and revenue to MS could be significantly higher. What _I_ would like to see is a metric of how many unpaid-for windows installations there are vs how many linux installations there are. I think the results would be surprising.
best web host ever
The economy is in the shitter. Sales for just about everything you can think of is down.
Why is this even considered news?
-- Will program for bandwidth
Today any version of Linux Running KDE 3.0 is where Microsoft was 6 years ago or so, with Windows 95.
Even though Windows XP has some $hity features, such as you are forced to register, a true hacker finds a way around it; to use the software( yes I bought my copy, but I have developed ways so i wont need to re register everytime XP thinks I made some major hardware changes). Windows XP in terms of functionality is so much better then any Linux distro will ever be. YOU ALL KNOW THIS, YOU JUST DONT WANT TO ADMIT IT.
I use Linux at work, I must say it's very decent and I hope it continues to evolve, but when it comes down to it Microsoft is so much better in terms of software functionality and next gen features. Everytime I sit down at one of my linux severs I feel like im sitting back at an old outdated Windows 95/ NT box.
Now where Microsoft needs to improve and I think they will, Corporate Image. I think in the next 3 years you will see Microsoft change their Image and policies and maybe even prices to become that user friendly company they once were (I think the greed went to their heads a little to far). I do think a $600 copy of office is a bit too much, but Id be willing to pay upto $300 or so, and common people, $100 for an upgrade to the new Windows is a great price.
You all will view this as a troll, but i just wanted to rant!
!EOF
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
.
.
ahh, the Micropoly
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
So Linux is a 'free' Operating system. It would have been much harder for IDC, to evaluate how much revenue was generate in services to the IT industry and how much IT cost where saved because of Linux.
I personnaly generate for about $40'000 revenue in 2001 in services linked to Linux (installation, troubleshooting, hardening). How much money I saved my clients is even harder to estimate.
Since the installation of those systems last year, I've only had a couple of calls from those clients for support/bug_fixes, and the uptime has been amazing. How do you estimate that cost ?
Of course, Linux can be downloaded for free. Yet, that was always the case, but Linux sales were projected to double. So what has changed.
Did not people know before that they can download it? Sure they did.
Did they have the bandwidth before to do it comfortably? Not all of them, but the size of distribution grows almost as fast as bandwidth.
I think, that Linux usage really does decrease,
AND people are saving more likely these times doing free downloads.
As soon as Linux kills Solaris, AIX and HP-UX, without making any $$$ reserves, Microsoft will kill Linux using patent and DMCA and
So far, Microsoft managed to kill every competing OS. There is no point of kidding ourselves. Just why should be believe, that M$ will somehow not kill Linux. Being free or open does not prevent anything from patent lawsuit, or technology licences, or DMCA or MS Password licence fees.
Not that I don't agree that Microsoft is fundamentally flawed, but you lose me with the rest of your comment.
Who in there right mind would use MSN/AOL? Who in their right mind would use an operatings system that gives you a BSOD every other day?
Apparently many thousands of people for many different reasons. Some of them are related to stupidity and others are related to knowing nothing else.
Linux has a grand opportunity to take the server market over, but is lacking the mom & pop usability of the desktop. Microsoft's monopoly powers aren't getting any weaker. They're improving their position as we speak.
I wouldn't count on their domination changing just because a few smart people know what's going on, because 90% of the desktop people don't have a fargon clue and/or couldn't care less (renting, EULA).
And then there is the whole Pallidium thing. Sooner or later it's very possible people will have even less viable options.
-- Scientist: You aren't going to leave me here, are you? Boagh! Thump...
One only needs to look at the way Micro$oft is targeting Linux/GNU/Open Source to see that indeed they are a threat. If it were as insignificant as some would have you think, would they be wasting their time?
Always the #1 rule. "Follow the money"
Lost sales means less money for Micro$oft. That does't have to mean more money for someone else.
Like the RIAA. Net sharing of music doesn't have to mean lost record sales. It can mean lost membership, when artists don't need the RIAA to put their music out. Again, lost money, but someone else isn't necessarily making all of it back up.
IDC declined to release the numbers of copies of Linux that were sold, but said the number stayed about level from 2000 to 2001. The number of copies that sold for "client" computers such as desktops and workstations, however, increased nearly 50 percent over 2000, in particular in Asia and Latin America, Gillen said.
Just because higher revenue comes from server sales doesn't mean it is "best suited" for servers. I think he's selling the desktop short, especially considering the huge growth of the desktop market this year (presumably from almost nothing to a little bit more than almost nothing, but none the less....)
I'd like to see a "Wealth Generated per $100 In Sales" type of comparison - how much does it cost for each OS to generate $X worth of wealth for others. Not just hard $, but soft benefits as well. Does Microsoft and Windows actually grease the wheels of innovation by generating lots of $, or does Linux provide more benefits with the sharing of code and IP?
That would be actually rather interesting, from both social and business points of view. Not easy at all, but interesting.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
That was only 2 1/2 years ago, and it's difficult to remember that the financial world was so delusional that this plan sounded like a sure thing.
Does anyone remember any Salon content ever turning up on the Red Hat site? I do recall them briefly trying to turn it into a portal...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
That $80 million in revenues for Linux probably generated about $200 million in revenues for Microsoft due to Microsoft's licensing tactics. As we all know, Microsoft's "campus" style licenses require you to pay a fee for every CPU whether it's running Windows or some other OS.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
Given that the home version of Windows XP sells for $199, and most shrink wrapped distributions of Linux sell for $50 to $80, it's hard to see how you can compare them by total dollars in sales. Even the upgrade version of Windows costs much more than a boxed copy of Linux. On top of that, you have Windows being installed on most new computers from the factory, which generates even more revenue for Microsoft.
Microsoft has been trying to blackmail corporate customers into upgrading to Windows XP, which probably accounts for most of their increase. Given that, their 11% increase says that tactic is not working very well, even accounting for a bad economy.
In the worst economic times in recent history, Linux seems to be doing very well at only 5% decrease, since they aren't forcing people to buy upgrades, like Microsoft is. Any increase must be caused by people going out of their way to purchase Linux.
A small florida company has apparently found an early 1900's patent on the words 'open source', and are expected to file suit against redhat yet this week...
No I didnt spell check this post...
That's right. Linux is free software. Sure, Redhat and others sell a boxed set in retail stores, and cheapbytes and others sell $5 CD's, but its available for free online for anyone with an internet connection. Of COURSE Microsoft will make more money than Linux will. The same could probably be said about a great many large software companies. Other factors need to be considered.
How many new installations of Linux were installed vs. the number of Windows installations?
Sure, Microsoft will probably still win, but the ratio will be a lot tighter.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
IDC reports that in one minute of one day in 2001, MS-based viruses and worms has managed to cost companies more time and money than an entire decade's worth of Linux-based viruses and worms have.
I do. Or I make my employer du jour do so. I buy two or three a year. I usually buy anything other than Red Hat just to keep the manure spread as evenly as possible. And I've made it a point to buy one copy of Debian annually the last three years. I'm an athiest, this is what I do instead of tithing a church.
Go ahead, fertilize your favorite distro today.
illegitimii non ingravare
This falls in the "no shit" category.
DUH! Linux is free and can be downloaded/updated & maintained free and anonymously...
Please take something into account. If this OS generates little to no revenue, how are the people professionally involved with this OS supposed to eat, pay bills, and the like?
It's easy to sit there and say "Well, duh, there's no Revenue.. it's a Free OS."
What's harder is to say how , if it's not gaining revenue, you pay the people who work on it professionally.
Because like it or not, it needs to make SOME money for it to survive.
Somewhere.
There is some evidence that this kind of report is crap. I found real numbers from IBM, Dell and "the new HP", and wrote an article on Linux and Main describing them. From my article:
"Sales of general purpose servers running Linux grew in 2001, to 486,000 units worldwide, while sales of Windows NT and Unix servers declined in the same time period. In 2002, while most parts of the server market shrank, Linux server sales grew 78.9 percent, Gartner said. In March 2002, Linux surpassed NetWare to become the second largest operating system used for new Intel-based server deployments according to IDC.
"Dell reported that in 2001, Linux servers represented 8% to 10% of all servers sold. Randy Groves, vice-president for enterprise computing at Dell said in a recent interview that number should climb to 10% to 12% in 2002. Peter Blackmore, executive vice-president of HP's enterprise systems group and former executive vice-president of sales at Compaq, said in a recent interview that 12% of customers are purchasing Compaq Proliant servers preloaded with Linux. He further indicated the number will move into the high teens through 2002 and 2003. In Linux servers, IBM moved up to the No. 1 spot, improving its sales 19 percent to hold 34.4 percent of the $236 million Linux server market."
I wonder where these numbers indiocating down sales are from, because everything I found indicated that 2001 sales numbers were up and sales of Linux preinstalled on servers is going up further yet.
My God! It's full of Voids!
Statistically inaccurate. The referred site includes two statistics: Israel has one one thousandth of the world's population (accurate -- Israel has a population of 5.9 million out of 6 billion on Earth); Israel has one thousandth of one percent of the world's population (inaccurate -- this would be 60,000 people. Andorra has more than that.).
I don't disagree with all of the assesments on the site, but I don't like to see numbers abused so horribly. :)
-c.
Casey
More scratches on the cave wall, thanks be to anonymity.
The Microsoft computer systems market, from a revenue perspective, accounts for one half of 1 percent of the total computer systems revenue each year, or roughly two days' worth of Apple's computer systems revenue," [IDC Analyst] Someone said.
"On the second day of January, Apple had generated more computer systems revenue than Microsoft (will for the entire year).""
what's even better news about that is that Apple is selling actual property in that figure.. not just intellectual property...
and that.. in the end... will make all the difference. because no matter how many laws they make - they can never hire enough cops or lawyers or judges to stop the spread of information and intellect.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
It is a well-known fact that the vast majority of people that use linux get it for free [beer] from the internet, this is the one of the many beauties of linux. What we have to keep in mind is the fact that with every new version of windows released, the price jumps. These days an upgrade version to WinXP can cost $100+ (isn't that what the full version of win98 used to cost??) and a full version can be as much as $280! so it's a wonder if sales are really increasing, or if they keep making more money because they keep charging more money? Not to mention the fact that as M$ cracks down more and more on 'piracy' (one person buying win and installing it on all 3 of their computers, for example) the same windows users have to keep purchasing more and more copies, which leads to more revenue (I have also heard that they are hiking prices for contracts to universities and businesses) So it's obvious that microsoft is making money... but does this necessarily mean they are becoming more popular??
Sales are likely down for a great number of reasons:
- Linux is getting easier to install everyday -- why buy prepackaged when you can do it yourself?
- Network Admins (who are the ones installing Linux) have access to better resources about installation
- IT budgets are falling drastically at the same time that Linux-savvy admins are pushing the Free-As-In-Beer argument for Linux -- Suits are more willing to listen in order to make dollars stretch
- Desktop users are less likely to pay for Linux today because Linux exposure has increased which, in turn, has made it easier to find someone (a buddy or LUG member) to hold their hand and help get them started ("Don't buy that! Here, use this Mandrake 8.1 CD I got from the 'net. It's free!"
I'm sure you can think of others...According to market research firm IDC, Linux sales declined nearly 5 percent in 2001 to $80 million, but are expected to grow to a $280 million market in 2006.
Meanwhile, Windows sales climbed 11 percent to more than $10 billion last year, according to IDC analyst Al Gillen.
Now
Better we should all think about this...
Of course we can still not give a shit about this and keep looking at our ego... after all, we are all so great aren't we?
rm -rf /home/leia
Office XP : 330 $
Adobe Photoshop : 530 $
Total : 1020 $
Linux : 10-50 $ (boxed) / free (downloaded)
OpenOffice : ~5 $ (cd) / free (downloaded)
Gimp : free
Total : between 55 $ and nothing.
qed.
Karma
Instead of looking at raw numbers, try to look at the relative falls. Always look at percents; not raw numbers.
This is like the Currency markets -- the relative prices do not matter. Say for example, it is not important that there are over a hundred yen to an American dollar -- what is important is the relative rise and fall.
So, how far did Linux revenue fall in terms of percent and how far did software operating systems revenue fall in the same period. If Linux's revenue did not fall as hard in terms of percent versus the industry's percent fall, then Linux is doing a good job.
You cannot ignore the body when looking at one organ and vice versa...
A lot of you are claiming that Linux is free, therefore the revinue must be all profit. Or something similar. Even Debian (the most free of all free distributions) admits that this doesnt mean free (as in beer). Think about redhat, profit = revinue - expenses, well its free to us but not redhat, they have to pay their programmers and there technitions and everyone else involved. I still think that this article is BS, but revinue is a better indication of popularity than many of you are sugesting.
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
A bank robber makes in one minute more than I make in a whole year.
No if we let bank robbers start endless series of appeals in the court, they will become Micro$oft.
I bet those 10 million users are thinking, "You mean I could have gotten this for FREE?? Dammit!"
Yes, Microsoft makes more money by selling an OS than Linux distributors make by giving it away. No-brainer, that one.
However, Linux distributors, Red Hat in particular, have crafted a business model around the OS, and that business model is making money. How much money is very important! Distributors are no longer in the business of proving that Linux is viable in the marketplace. That has, largely, been achieved. They are now in the business of making money. For themselves, for their investors, and for the sake of future start-ups who may adopt a similar business model.
Care to distribute and maintain an open-source product? Want to make money at it? You can bet your sweet patootie that venture capitalists will be looking at these numbers, and looking hard. Do you ever plan to IPO? Market analysts will be going over your business model with a fine tooth comb, and they'll be comparing it to Red Hat. Why? Because Red Hat, according to the above-referenced article, made nearly three-quarters, or $60 million of the $80 million available to that market in 2001.
Care about the numbers. The numbers are your life. Never forget this.
-c.
Casey
More scratches on the cave wall, thanks be to anonymity.
A Gardener study released yesterday suggests that bottled water manufacturers will have greater revenue by January 2 than all of the lakes, streams, and oceans in the world combined.
Another Gardener study has indicated that oxygen tank manufacturers will have more revenue by January 2 of next year than the (unnamed and unknown) purveyors of the free air that humans normally consume.
Gardener recommends that corporate executives switch to free water and air.
-- ken williams
Not only that, but I'd go so far as to say that between May 17 and May 19, Microsoft earned as much revenue as Linux did from June 3 to June 3 the following year. Think about it.
Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
- 1st of January is a public holiday
- 2nd of January is a Sunday
Here in Germany all shops stay closed for both days, so M$ will need a few more daysthen those who own copyright on their gpl producs include anti-dmca provisions in the GPL AND restrict redhat's use of their software so it can't be used.
Photos.
> I don't disagree with all of the assesments on the site, but I don't like to see numbers abused so horribly.
What offends me even more than the amount of money involved is the fact that some of goes to directly support violations of the Geneva Convention, namely the construction of settlements in occupied territory.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yeah, let's see BSA audit Microsoft's source code. Would they be compensated for the nausea induced?
I've seen reports similar to this apples-and-oranges comparison (revenue from free software vs. proprietary) for the last couple of years, but the last figures I've been able to find that actually mean something (market share, or how many computers out there are actually running this or that OS) are for the year 2000.
That year, M$ server OSes had a 41% market share, with around 30% for Linux. It's interesting that no one has ever released the figures for 2001. Apparently IDC knows what those figures are, but won't say.
WHY DON'T ANY OF THESE SURVEY COMPANIES WANT TO TALK ABOUT MARKET SHARE??? Is it because M$ is going down the toilet and they're afraid it will start an investor panic if the word gets out? Is M$ PAYING them not to release the information? Is it just that nobody cares and no one wants to know?
I'm an inquiring mind, and I want to know....
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
For a thoughtful mind it would be a day to morn. The article is actually telling people how stupid they really are.
Now - If we would implement the charity model. ie donate your code - get a deduction. Then OS revenue could be measures in microsoft months rather than hours.
Think about it:
You write this code. It takes 40 hours. You donate the code to charities like the FSF. The FSF receives the value of the donation, and you get a tax deduction.
Its pretty simple, and it uses current tax law. All we need are the right connections - people at the FSF to look at this and say - yep - according to the IRS we can audit the worth of donated literature and issue a tax deductable receipt.
If we get that far - the funds available to develop OS software is almost unlimited.
AIK
As many have already pointed out, this is a useless piece of information. I work for a company that can only afford to do what it is doing because GNU/Linux exists. How does the revenue of my company get counted in this "revenue" figure? How many other companies are able to do more for less because they are starting to use GNU/Linux and Free/OpenBSD and Apache and on and on?
The revenue of companies that manufacture goods, while not insignificant, is less important than the network effects on the economy of infrastructure products like operating systems. These "second order" effects are often much greater than the first order revenue. Especially when we are talking about productivity tools (as opposed to pure consumer products like toothbrushes and deodorant).
because linux vendors tend to do it like this:
potential linux users: buy linux today on cd, or use our convenient, free, legal, company-sponsored anonymous ftp site!
an anonymous reader writes "News.com has a story about combined (legitamite) Windows downloads reaching 0 for 2001. "The Windows operating system market, from a download perspective, accounts for 0 percent of the total operating system downloads each year, or roughly no days' worth of Linux's operating system downloads," [IDC Analyst] Gillen said. "On the second day of January, Linux had generated more operating system downloads than the Windows community (will for the entire year).""
;)
So, your point was that more people buy Windows than Linux. Wow. Anyone could have figured that one out. Why not compare the number of Linux installations to the number of Windows installations? Wouldn't that be a more appropriate benchmark of Linux popularity? As for the commercial side of Linux, I don't think anyone claims to be as competative as Microsoft. Why aren't there meaningful co-relations (eg. 10% more Linux sales than last year)?
Oh well. I don't do things 'cause they are popular, so this means nothing to me.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
I know this is mostly a question that should be asked of the execs at RedHat, but where will revenue come from in the Linux software world? This is an even bigger question when you wonder where revenue will come from in the Linux Home users software world.
I think that in the business world there is already a pretty solid business strategy for creating Linux revenue. Sell the software cheap (< $100), and make money off of supporting the users of the software. This model does, though, have some problems as the awareness of Linux software configuration and upkeep increases, Linux software vendors make less money on support.
The other possible solution that I see is for Linux software vendors to go into a type of trust relationship with their customers. This is fairly utopian of an idea, though, and it would take some major thought changes in industry. Basically, I see there that Linux software vendors can keep writing software, and companies make donations to their cause. When the money runs out, Linux software vendors stop writing software. Hopefully, if they write good enough software, they could keep the donations coming. It's really a kind of a "if you build it, they will come" business model.
On the desktop, though, I'm not sure of what needs to be done to make things profitable. Maybe the above, but it would require some major changes in the thought processes of today's consumers. Does anyone else have any other ideas of how Linux software vendors could develop good software, make money, and stay true to their ideals?
"The Linux operating system market, from a revenue perspective, accounts for one half of 1 percent of the total operating system revenue each year"
"On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more operating system revenue than the Linux community (will for the entire year)."
You're kidding!
You mean that Linux, which is free, generates less revenue than a commercial OS, which costs money? Wow, how long did these guys spend figuring this one out?
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
I thought I recognized the reference. Interestingly enough, google coughed up this interesting Don Lancaster article detailing patent horror stories.
I quess they used a rather tailored comb to come to that low $80 million :) Atleast it's easy to believe that finding the Linux revenues that are hidden inside business created by it in first place, inside embedded devices and inside a gazillion of developers heads who got their skills because of participating in getting Linux where it is now.
;))))))
I am not saying that Microsoft would not have hidden revenues
If the author wanted to do a truely interesting story, try writing about how much Linux has cost Microsoft in sales. Let's talk about all the potential Exchange or SQL Server deployments that went with Sendmail/Postfix or MySQL/PostgreSQL instead. Talk about how I can stretch my budget instead of padding somebody else's.
How would you measure the importance of Linux on the desktop and get some kind of indication about progress?
. ht ml
m l?legacy=c net
Definitely not easy to get at the truth. There is the difficulty of getting accurate figures for new installs, and of finding out who has in fact upgraded an old licence. On top of this there is a lot of marketing FUD aimed at boosting the share of your favourite OS. Even the sales figures don't tell the whole story as competition from lower priced alternatives may hold back price increases out of all proportion to the revenue collected by Linuxes.
I collected a few articles which talk about it:
First off on the server side with IDC reported by Wired
http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,50311,00
"According to market research firm International Data Corp., Linux will account for 32 percent of server installations this year, up from 27 percent in 2001. Windows will jump from 41 percent in 2001 to 47 percent in 2002. Unix, on the other hand, is expected to drop from 14 percent of new installations in 2001 to 10 percent in 2002"
For the desktop you can look at statistics gathered from unique hits on popular web sites, although stats can lie
http://lowendmac.com/musings/01/1219.html
News.com has had other IDC stories recently
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-243527.ht
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-938700.html gives some different figures
"Breaking into the desktop market will be tough. Although Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft isn't dominant in servers, it has 94 percent of the market for operating systems that run on "clients" such as desktop and laptop computers. Linux claims only 3.8 percent of that market, said IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky. "
And from the BSD corner "BSD Desktop Share Triples That of Linux"
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/16382.html
Is that in Enron dollars or real dollars?
is this your Aunt Lilly?
The mystery is solved!
I'll Say it Again...
*Linux is Dying.
.. because the income doesn't end up with Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake or any of the other big vendors.
How big of a percentage of Linux sales are preinstalled Linux made by consulting agencies that do not buy licenses from the big Linux-vendors? Impossible to say.. (For instance, selling Linux-servers preinstalled with Debian and doing maintnance on them.)
The Linuxmarket is totally different from the Windows-market. The income is NOT from packaged distros (which is measured here), but from maintnance, support, pre-installation, etc..
Gaute
It couldn't possibly be that Linux is FREE, could it? NAH!!!!!
I bet the ratio of users of Linux vs. Windows to dollars made for Linux vs. Windows is higher for Linux than Windows. Huh? Never mind, I have no idea what I just said - but I'm too lazy to erase it and not hit the submit button.
-- Knuckle Blood : Official Lube of Team Rusty Nuts.
Just my 2c
I just installed SUSE linux 8.0 on one of my boxen for a project. Third time I've installed a linux distro - Mandrake three years ago and Red Hat about 18 months ago.
And I must say I'm very very impressed. Three years back it was definatly a geek os (and I'm a geek - no insult), 18 months ago it was looking good, but still not at at a stage where I'd recommend it to joe user.
And now... OK it's still got room for improvement, but it's all hanging together now sufficiently well that for some quite a large constituancy I'd say it was a better buy than Windows. People like my neighbours or parents who are not interested in games but would like a comprehensive, usable system.
My mother is a Technology Coordinator at a local school system. This means she is in charge of researching and purchasing computer resources for the school. I've been campaigning for her to persuade the administration to switch from using Microsoft products to free Unix products. While it would certainly make economic sense to do this, there are two things standing in her way. 1: The school administration is fearful of anything that is not Microsoft. 2: There is little or no local support for Linux or BSD products. This means that there are no companies in her area that provide hands-on support for free software. My suggestion was that they could use the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars per year that they spend on MS taxes to hire a nerd full-time. I know that some school systems are beginning to do this, but at the school where my mother works, the administration won't hear of such a thing. They want a local company that can provide support, warranties, and guarantees. So my tax dollars continue to go towards making MS a bigger monopoly. Which leads me to another thought. Does anyone know how much money MS makes off the United States governments (Federal, State, and Local)??
Smeghead every day of the week.
Microsoft will take more money from you in two days than Linux will take all year.
Actually it only took me 52 hours to d/l redhat 6.0 on a 56kb/s line of off redhat's server.
Considering that you're already going through the trouble of setting up a preferential ballot, it would be more smarter to go with a Condorcet election system as opposed to IRV.
IRV does have the advantage of scaling well to proportional representation systems, but the US is not such a system, so that doesn't seem very useful.
I was waiting for someone to chime in with that vapid remark about how people will always manage to find business models to sell new technology (e.g. look at radio -- no one thought that would ever make money, but then people started selling ads.)... but it looks like no one will.
I loved this quote from the article:
Linux sales lost some ground to Windows last year, but they're expected to climb in coming years as distributors of the alternative operating system create new revenue streams.
What new revenue streams do they have in mind -- the money fairy? So far, the only thing they've been good at selling is stock. I am very suspicious of the idea that Linux will ever produce significant revenues.
One of the trends we are seeing these days, due to computer analysis of trends, is that the trends are no longer valid. Look at all the stock market analyists who were predicting a U-shaped recovery or a V-shaped recovery based on analyses of previous recessions. They were all full of crap. They told people to stay in the market, since the market would inevitably recover, and consequently the market now obeys a meta-law.
The people who think that technology will create revenues through some business model or another, no matter how you produce it, are basing their conclusions on recent history. But history is fallable because it filters out all the failures. Historically, commercial success did not arise out of an "if you build it, they will come" attitude; it came from people with an idea for making money, and those people were proven right or wrong.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the stock market's whole boom and bust arose out of this shared hallucination that all we had to do was build the Internet, and new business models would spring out of thin air.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
...I have generated more revenue for Linux than I will for the entire year for Microsoft.
Anyone notice what the report said about increasing Linux desktop use in the Asia region. MS should be scared as shit about this.
Reviewing MS earnings by region leads to one solid conclusion: in the past 3 years MS has only managed to achieve any growth in the Americas region.
MS has recorded ZERO APPRECIABLE GROWTH in income in the Europe/Middle East/Asia in the past 3 years. Their Asia earnings have been stuck around 700 million per quarter, and their EU/Middle East earnings between 1.2 and 1.4 billion.
The writing is clearly on the wall for MS. Its game over from a global perspective for this company. China and Taiwan's investment in Linux and the countries like Norway and Germany edging away from MS paint a sour picture for Microsoft.
There is this report from InfoWorld:/ 020807hndidio.xml
"Corporate user resentment and dissatisfaction with Microsoft and some of its practices is at an all-time high," says Laura DiDio, senior analyst with the Yankee Group and the report's author. That frustration is pushing more companies to consider Linux-based operating systems as well as Apple Computer's OS X, she says."
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/08/07
to use anything developed in someone's "spare time".
Clearly, Microsoft is a prime reason for the ecomomic downturn. Companies have to spend money each and every year for license fees of Microsoft software when they could be saving money by using Linux/BSD and Open Source non-license fee based software (yes, they could have done this in the 90's). The real software market isn't in 100's of billions it is in the lower ten's of billions. Microsoft's ecomomic model has skewed the market and this is hastening the current collapse.
their goal was to use cheap software to reduce the size of the market while maintaining their absolute market position, thus increasing their relative market share
That's hilarious. Is a $50M company in a market that's worth $2B (and shrinking) somehow better than the same size company in a market worth $10B (and growing)? Instead of increasing their own revenue, their plan is to shrink everyone else's revenue!? Do please explain to us how that would increase stockholder value.
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Goes against the grain of previous gains over the last several years. Worse still, MS profits are up, not down, as are their sales.
Hehe, cool!
And, do you think that people downloading it really makes up for the loss in development money by the companies who at least try to code decently and create a user friendly product???
Cool... Mac is corraled and Linux is dying, whoohoo!!! Bring on Palladium and we can stick a fork in it.
Well boys and girls who keep saying the reason MS is pounding your ass is because your software is free, let me reveal a little secret to you. The license fee is just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to software revenue for a product. Support contracts account for way more money, and in the support area MS has all OSS vendors completely beat. The MS Premier support is the best support I have ever seen, many magnitudes better then what red hat has to offer. No large business (which is where the money is by the way, consumers don't generate anywhere near the revenue for MS as do business) will ever buy software without a support contract. OSS needs just as much support as proprietery products, contrary to popular belief it is not enherintly better and less bug riden. And the fact that the company gets the source doesn't mean dick to them. They aren't going to rely on their programmers who aren't familiar with the code to fix bugs and add enhancements. They would rather have the people who wrote the code do so.
I installed everything in Red Hat 7.3. Why not? I have the space.
I wanted to grab a few of my CD tracks off of different CDs and make myself a personal CD. I went through all the menus, opened XMMs, KonCD, and a handful of other programs, and couldn't figure out how to do it. I searched through the help files with little result.
I know I could do it by command line. RTFM, whatever. But my wife and friends, who can make CDs on Windows like nobody's business, would have never taken the time and effort to go command line.
By source, I don't mean News.com, I mean the analyst with IDC (Gillen). I don't keep up with think tanks and analysts -- it seems that no matter what they use to support their views, it still just boils down to one opinion which could be disproven using different figures -- so I don't know anything about IDC. It seems to me, though, that the analyst knows NOTHING about the nature of OSS and how OSS companies make money. It seems to Gillen to be big news that Redhat charges for some services on a per server basis and that they do not make some higher end products (like the server install) available for download.
I question the value of the entire study, simply because it seems like another economist is trying to understand OSS software using the commercial/exploit the consumer model. I think this study was done by someone who just doesn't "get" OSS.
There may be more money in Air than you think. Also, look at sales of Scuba gear. I imagine there was also sales to fire departments and ambulance units. It may well be that "sales of breathable air" were over $1 million, though I have no idea of knowing.
This doesn't include the other aspects of the air industry such as bicycle pumps and other assorted compressors. There seems to be a fair amount of industry dedicated to building products around using "breathable air" and packaging it so that it is more convenient or so it can be used where air is traditionally not available. Also, there are billions of dollars spent each year to detect air quality and see if it is "breathable," as well as filters to make air cleaner.
Now, it may seem like I am grasping at straws. However, I think the example of air provides a rather interesting case of market economics. I see many similarities between the markets built around air and Linux. You don't make the money on linux, just like you don't make money on air. You make money cleaning it up, packaging it, but most of all, using it. How many buinesses would survive without using air? None. Hopefully, we can make the value proposition such that the same will be said of Linux.
The money IBM saves by selling their servers without Microsoft code, or having to code their own operating systems totally from scratch?
I think as long as IBM is around Linux (At least on the server) will be alive and fine, doesn't matter how much FUD people throw at it.
~ kjrose
People are getting broadband, almost everyone now has a CD writer so why would anyone buy a boxed set of linux?
And note again becase it's free does not mean it costs anybody a job or is evil. After all not a single job should be just a occupational therapy.
Umm, are you implying that OS developers don't deserve jobs? What should they do in order to feed, shelter, and clothe their families?
What is worthy of being paid to do? Should everyone in the software industry become sysadmins, and write code in their spare time? As if we didn't spend too much time already in front of a computer screen! Why is making a living in the service sector somehow more noble?
If I were actually to "buy" (as in purchase, lay down cash for) Linux -- then I would be cutting into the bottom line of cost savings that were part of my cost action plan that was key in getting Linux in the door in the first place. Yes sir -- as I stair down at the endless racks of Linux boxen in this cool data center on a warm summers day....If I had incurred a "license" cost for each cpu -- then it would have been a harder sale....But since no (software purchase orders) were needed and these things are as stable as a 200 year old oak tree, I think we can call this a success, right?
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
The fact that linux generates $80 Million is actually quite impressive for a free download! No it's not Microsoft or Sun, but is that really the point? Did we really want to trade Microsoft for RedHat? The real need has always been a stable operating system that was free of Microsofts gorilla tactics and extravagant licensing fees. That people could make a little money on, not to be richest company the world. With linux everyone has the same potential, now developers it's time to start creating useful software that you can make money with. With that killer app that no one can do without will bring new users. With the quickbooks, turbo tax, tivoli, oracle etc. will come increased revenue. It's only a matter of perserverence and time! That $80 million doesn't take in to account the increase in hardware revenues for companies like IBM. Besides, I'd love to be making $80 a year, wouldn't you?
I have started paying for slashdot, limewire, redhat and such because i want linux to be a bit bigger and attractive for companies that charge for their products and services.
The money per person isnt big at all if we all help by paying a little sum each. It doesnt have to be to the same place but to the things YOU like and want to stay in production.
HTTP/1.1 400
Ummm... right. What you mean is a copy, and a very poor one at that, of someone else's GUI. It is highly debatable how good MS GUI's are, and most people are simply comfortable with it because they have used it before. This in no way means it's good. On the contrary, I'd personally argue that it's horrendous because even though people have been using it for years many still have trouble with it!
"the ability to copy and paste between applications"
WTF? Why the hell do people always come back to this? I have not one single application that has trouble copying/pasting to/from other apps! Drop this FUD already!
"and the best support the industry has to offer"
<flaimbait> Yep, because with the shit MS calls software, you're gonna need it </flaimbait>
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
My impression of the Linux community at large is that we're not in it for the money. There are players in the market who use Linux as their moneymaker but on the whole I would say they are a very small minority. The point of the thing is to have a free alternative which does what you need it to do. It doesn't have to take over the whole market or even a significant chunk of the market so long as those of us with the know-how to appreciate the freedom to choose still retain that freedom. I still contend that every "Linux company" could go out of business but that the Linux community and market wouldn't go away. We're in it for different reasons than are Microsoft or any of the other players.
Compare us on their terms and they win, big surprise right? Compare us on our terms and we're not doing half badly. More people are aware of Linux and even if they're not using it, they're thinking about it more than they ever did before. More people are using it and in a wider range of applications than ever before, servers, embedded apps and despite the anti-hype, on our desktops.
Forget the FUD, we've got more important things to think about.
There seems to be a myth that money doesn't matter to the development of Linux. On the contrary, the distros actually do quite a bit of bug-fixing and programming. The less money they have, the less will be spent on it. More money and more revenues mean faster growth and more options. So, a loss of revenue is a bad thing for Linux.
Linux right now is in a growth phase. Regardless of the amount of revenue recieved, the number of computers running Linux has increased in the last year. Significant progress has been made on the desktop with KDE and Gnome. Programs such as OpenOffice and Mozilla have helped take up the application slack. Further, things like Code-Weaver and Ogg have helped advance the usability of Linux on the desktop and open source in general. It goes without saying that Linux has a significant server/high performance presence.
I think that there are less shrink-wrapped linux distros being purchased. It takes marketing money to put packages on retail shelves, and with the loss of funding most Linux providers don't want to do that. Caldera, Corel, and Red Hat all seem to have left the retail market. Still, I think more revenue is being generated by the overall Linux market than the story says.
There is already excelent base of NT kernel drivers for all computer parts. Why not to build a new OS based on this base. I personally not use Linux because it will not run my TV tuner card and the Bank Card reader, the drivers for these devices are 'not planed' to be released for Linux...
on the second day of January, Microsoft had already rebooted more times than Linux will have to the whole year.
I wonder how many of the "people will never pay for something they can get for free" crowd we'll get in this article?
I'd like to see the same thing!
My journal has hot
Would it not be worthwhile comparing the sales of linux to the sales of cd burners and broadband internet access? They seem related to me.
M$ has (what?) $30 billion in revenue from Windows and office combined. But, the new price for the software most folks use is now between $5 and $100, which is something like half to a quarter of what M$ wants to charge for Windows/Office. I haven't worked out what the per-year cost should be, but maybe it scales the same as the upfront costs. So, I figure that M$ will have something like $10 billion in earnings for 2005, as they start losing market share and have to lower their prices to match their competitors.
(For you forward looking investors, you might think to target Microsoft's share price somewhat lower than it is now because of this. Maybe between $10 and $20 per share is appropriate.)
Or, I suppose, it is in their interest to spend on the order of $10 billion per year to maintain their monopoly. That buys a lot of judges and politicians and lawyers, with a nice amount left over to purchase some IP and patents and things. How much is your patent for a linux widget worth?
(For you forward looking investors, you might reevaluate M$'s share price target based on the amount and quality of monopoly maintenence you see listed in their annual report. As a shareholder, you should demand to see what they are doing in this regard.)
M$ should probably also spend $1 to $5 billion to come up with new products that can replace Windows/Office as their main source of revenue. This has already been announced, actually. But this kind of spending has a less certain payoff (in the short term) compared to buying judges and lawyers.
No, not active server pages....ASP in business lingo stands for Average Selling Price. The ASP for a microsoft product is somewhere in the $200.00 range (excluding server products). What is the ASP for Linux products?....i'd guess somewhere near zero.
-ted
...this comparison of sales is silly, when one knows that she/he can buy a GNU/Linux (btw, the article can't even explain the history of Linux right) CD from Cheapbytes or LSL for a couple of bucks or download it for free, and the other company is a crook.
On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more operating system revenue than the Linux community (will for the entire year)
How many days in the year does it take for Microsoft to pay all 49,000 of it's employees?
What about, RedHat for instance?
Linux total sales == 1% Total OS sales
Linux sales == 2 days MS OS sales
2 days MS OS sales == 1% Total OS sales
365 days MS OS sales == 182,5% total sales
note that other OS vendors (specially unix ones) has
some participation. (less quantity, more expensive OSes).
This can only mean that there are some people paying
the costumers to get there OS to generate -82,5% of total
sales.
Who has ever paid for a copy of Linux 2000 or Linux XP?
Obviously, nobody.
That's because many Linux installs are sticky, and people stay with the same kernels far longer than Windows.
You buy a new version of Windows to fix bugs, to finally make your computer work, to get new hardware installed, etc.
So....how many days' worth of revenue did Microsoft lose because of Linux? We should not only be looking at how much Linux made, but how much Microsoft didn't make as a result of those sales. Somewhere along the line, a bunch of people chose Linux instead of Windows (at least upgrades) for their computing needs - money Bill didn't get. And a lost sale hurts them much more than a lost sale hurts Linux.
Linux is not a product. It is a complex system that makes computer hardware work properly. It exists mainly because of it's natural environment. Linux coders want to mainly make thing work right for themselves. They share it with others because they are not in the business of creating OS's.
Check salary survey results on dice and see how much more money Unix professionals make compared to Windows professionals.
Measures that would be nice to see are measures on the line of return on investment using Linux or FreeBSD compared to Windows.
MS is indeed afraid of Linux. You see, with other competitors they can just squeeze their profits dry and kill them off. With Linux it's not so easy, because money and profit doesn't matter here. That is one less lethal weapon that they've got. In fact it's probably one of the major reasons Netscape crashed.
So go ahead MS, keep trying. Linux ain't dying buddy.
eTrade SUCKS
'MS products will cost you in 2 days what Linux will cost you in a year'
:)
It's a cheap (and inaccurate) shot, but it's marketing after all
Ok, I've heard everybody mention the fact that Linux is free and that is why the numbers are low. I've heard others rebut the fact that not everybody sees Linux as free because it costs money in your average retail store. However...
1. I would dare to say the majority of Linux installs is of free ISOs (sorry, no evidence), which would still affect the low sales figure dramatically.
2. For those who use dialup and wish to purchase Linux, most distributions can be found for $5 or less, also contributing to low sales figures.
Also, do we know what "linux sales down" means? Does it mean retail purchases or anytime someone shells out money for Linux? What about expensive systems where a vendor version of Linux is included?
For example, if I buy a Sun Cobalt RAQ server right now, I get a nice server with Cobalt Linux installed on it. Sun has sold me the system and included a version of Linux with the sale of the system. Did the study give a dollar value to the Linux OS that was sold with my server in this case? I doubt it. There are a helluva lot of web hosting providers that use RAQs.
What about embedded devices?
>wrong. 26,000,000 / 2 = 13,000,000 26,000,000 / 1 = 26,000,000 26,000,000 / .1 = 260,000,000 26,000,000 / .001 = 2,600,000,000 See a trend yet? 26,000,000 / 0 = infinity
But 26,000,000 / -2 = -13,000,000 26,000,000 / -1 = -26,000,000 26,000,000 / -0.1 = -260,000,000 26,000,000 / -0.001 = -2,600,000,000 See a trend yet? 26,000,000 / 0 = -infinity.
Since -infinity != infinity, the result is undefined... (But all this assumes that infinity can be manipulated using real arithmetic. It can't. Infinity is outside the set of real numbers -- it is therefore undefined (in the reals))
Yes, complex infinity exists. But I am not versed in Reimannian geometry.
Mathworld explains such things better than most slashdotters
Does this really surprise anyone here? The vast majority of machines which have Linux are probably either installed on many machines from a single CD (set), or just downloaded for free.
On the second day of January, Linux had generated more Love and Community Spirt than the Microsoft Corporation (will for the entire year).""
Why pay for Linux? why pay to support Slashdot? The internet was meant to be free you troll
Once upon a time, there were skilled, trained craftsmen making buggy whips - you know, to control the horses that pulled buggies. Then along came the dreaded Model T. Before long, nobody needed buggy whips anymore.
Umm, are you implying that buggy whip makers don't deserve jobs? What should they do in order to feed, shelter, and clothe their families?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Some buy it in a fancy bottle, some drink it out of the tap. A fancy bottle has to make it better water, right? Same with software.
After surfing such sites as dog.com, sports.com, and computers.com.. its nice to head over to news.com and read about whats going on in the world!
This article is like getting a nice little pat on the head. Firm, yet gentle and loving.
They should have included a link to whatelsedoyouwantmetothink.com
all the buggy-whip manufacturers that I know have seamlessly transitioned to bdsm whip manufacturing. Doesn't even require a retooling of the production line!
and that mistake is that they approach Linux the way m$ approaches windows. They want to make a nice box with snazzy pictures on it, get your cash for it and be done with it until they come up with a new box and a new version number.
Linux has always been free and trying to sell it is just ludicrous. yes, i know it's a package, whatever, it's not that hard for someone who understands a wee bit to find the different places on the web and download the packages, or order them for very little money.
IMHO the marketing scheme should be something along the lines that they make the boxes and give them away. Then have your techincal staff stand by to deal with questions, problems and support. Not only via phone, but also have service guys stop by, or even permanently placed with the customer.
I can already see it; guy walking in with a fashionable red hat heading for the server farm.
Sell knowledge not boxes containing free stuff.
my 2 cents
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because its easier to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.
Well, after so much time spent telling people that *BSD is dead, finally they balance their reporting with a good "Linux is dead" article. ;)
So as users and admins become more skilled with their computers (a neccessity with UNIX-like OSs - remember the saying that "the only intuitive interface is the nipple"?), the need for commercial support will lessen and free Linux and BSD will rein. Sure, hardware companies will still fund developments (for both Linux and *BSDs as they do now) but their "per seat/server" licensing will fail.
Small companies can purchase support from small companies that setup systems based on free linux/bsd software that can be installed and forgotton about (OpenBSD/Slackware style) within minimal cost to them.
Large companies can get support, with their hardware, from IBM, SUN and the like. To these companies, you already pay for each piece of hardware so you won't pay another vendor for "automatic updates" and the like. It will be built into the price.
I could be wrong, but this kinda thing, to me, is proof that the software industry will go back to what it was like, pre-Gates. Ie, there won't be one. Not for OSes anyway. It will be free, or come with the server on the high end (IBM and even Apple X-Serves).
All I can say to that is "thanks be to God!"
"The future comes 60 minutes an hour no matter who you are or what you do." The Screwtape Letters - C.S. Lewis
So, Linux companies have to rely on a different source of income, like for example, service and consultancy. That's hardly news.
The figures can also be interpreted this way: Since Linux is usually installed once (or multiple times, let's say, one CD purchase) and then updated regularly (patched, whatever), there is no need to buy a new version. You can't upgrade MS systems (I am talking about major version updates, as in Win98->XP, not Service Packs, which sometimes are more of an annoyance pack then anything else, but that's a different story...) incrementally for free. An update from, say 98 to XP is in comparison counted as sales.
With Linux there is often no reason to update the whole distro, just update the kernel, binutils, modutils and whatever you fancy. All this stuff would rightfully never be counted as sales since (I guess) few people would buy the CDs to merely get a new kernel. It's small enough to download even with a 56K modem in a reasonable amount of time.
So yes, that was yet another useless article which showed exactly nothing. It's like saying Pete Sampras scored no points in the NBA last season. This is also true, but proves nothing. He didn't even try, or maybe he did but realized that he wouldn't be able to pay his bills playing basketball. That's why he is still playing tennis for a living.
I feel so sig.
you have to run Xconfigurator, right? (at least you did when redhat 6.1 was around
Fast forward three years to graphical apps that do the same thing. They add video modes to your X server's config file, and then they tell you which keys to press to change resolutions while the X server is running.
They want a nice little graphical installer, not ./configure, make, make install.
If you want to submit a patch to make GNU Autoconf create a graphical installer for applications that encapsulates ./configure, make, su, make install into a wizard, go right ahead. You'd be doing users of Linux OS[1] a favor.
[1] "Linux kernel" refers to the monolithic kernel developed by Linus Torvalds. "Linux OS" refers to all Linux distributions. "GNU/Linux" refers to Linux distributions that provide a version composed entirely or almost entirely of free software.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I guess most of Microsoft revenue comes from domestic sales, while most of Linux revenue is generated in the rest of the world.
Less is more !
Doesn't this mean that Microsoft products are EXTREMELY overpriced, while Linux is MUCH better value for money?!
Duh!
Before long, nobody needed buggy whips anymore.
The difference is that while only BDSMers and the Amish need buggy whips in 2002, all computer users still need software.
Software has to be developed, but what economic incentive is there to develop free software?
Will I retire or break 10K?
You then go on to imply that windows users don't have time to learn anything because they have lives. Well, I have a life, and I used to be a windows user, but I sure had time enough to learn some things.
So, some advice for you. Instead of feeling insecure by your lack of knowledge about the world of computing outside of MS, try learning about it instead of mindlessly going along with and accepting the status quo.
And FYI, I never said the Mac, Gnome or KDE GUIs were any better.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Anyone got a way to measure that?
Google tracks the operating systems used to access itself. Scroll down the page here to see 1% of queries coming from Linux boxen compared to 46% for Windows 98. This is probably a pretty accurate representation of desktop penetration for Linux. Of course it doesn't take into account server penetration, which is probably quite a bit higher.
Assertions:
1) Linux costs less when bought from a commercial vendor than Windows does.
2) Many people *download* Linux for free.
Conclusion:
Sales numbers are a bad way to measure market penetration for Linux.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
I've been using Linux exclusively on my home PC's since 1996. Until this year, I've taken the "well I can download the ISO for free, why pay?" approach. While this is certainly true, I've decided I want to support the community and companies that have supported my in my computer hobby. It isn't very expensive to BUY a copy of your favorite Linux distro, so why not do it? You will be benefiting our community and the open source projects we so enjoy, as well as benefiting the companies that are seen as "enemies" by the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft. It's a win-win situation. The /. crowd are the "uber-geeks" of this open source revolution, lets do our part to help it along.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
see subject
get back and your box where the dribble you speak is understood by all. (ie yourself).
Can I assume by the authors comment "Linux is best suited for use in servers, the higher-end computers that often run 24 hours a day..." that servers that "often run" implies that the OS's in these servers are most likely running MS products and Linux is best suited if you wanted to run "all the time" ;-)
Do not try to think outside the box. That's impossible. Instead, realise the truth. There is no box.
then I wouldn't run it. i think it is priced perfectly for what it does. when it crashes (and frequently it does for me - when used for development purposes), i just love blamely the 16 year old's for wrecking it. if my win2000 installed crashed as often as linux does (which it doesn't because it hasn't crash since I first installed it in feb 2000), at least I could blame bill and get all annoyed at him.
What this article shows is that the free software development model is much more efficient than the proprietary model. Linux distros cost less than windows and yet you get much more for your money including:
* Office suite - word processor, spreadsheet, drawing, presentation, database, PIM
* web server / ftp server / news server, etc
* database server
* many small and yet fun games
* more than one browser and email program
* 1,000,000,003 text editors
* windows compatible networking including a domain server which is non-existant in win2kpro/xphome
Imaging what would happen if the windows revenue was poured into the free software community.
The real success of desktop linux is in the scientific/engineering corporate and university sphere. Linux is widely deployed on the desks of scientists, engineers, and artists. It's also widely deployed in retail cash registers, as data entry terminals, in warehouses and sheet metal factories.
If Openoffice starts hitting MS Office marketshare, and thus creates a wedge of document compatibility between Windows and Linux users, we may see a real migration of general purpose corporate desktops. With an open document compatability standard, and a very real price advantage, Linux should find many new corporate adherents.
...since I went to Best Buy, paid my money and followed the onscreen instructions. It seemed like the convenient thing to do since I was building a system from scratch and the hard drive out of the box didn't have an OS installed. Silly me, I didn't realize that you could connect to the net and download the OS when your computer doesn't even have an OS on it.
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
Great. Let's get that down to zero. That would mean that Linux is so easy to install that people won't have to pay money to anybody anymore.
"On the second day of January, Microsoft had generated more operating system revenue than the Linux community (will for the entire year).""
That's why I like to masturbate into a Dixie cup every Wednesday.
Signed,
CmdrTaco
I think Matthew Wilcox's .signature is one of the better replies to this type of assertion:
"Revolutions do not require corporate support."
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Umm, are you implying that OS developers don't deserve jobs? What should they do in order to feed, shelter, and clothe their families?
No, of course they deserve, as long they do something that helps others, and they want to pay for it. However I don't see how something can be anti-business if it offers something for free others want to get paid for. Or how sharing code is anti-competative. After all the worth of computing is how much energy our social community put into it, and how much we get out. If there is a way to put less into it to get out equal it's better for all of us. However cutting down something thats cheaper just so _I_ can get money for it is hurting the social community, everbody (but me).
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Consider the "value" you get when buying Windows or a Linux distro. Now consider all the money the vendors/distributors make and how much "value" they provide / are able to produce with that money.
If we assume for a moment that the "value" you get from Windows or Linux is roughly equal, but producing that value for Windows takes 200 times as much money, can we conclude that in the overall production circle, Windows' price/performance ratio sucks big time?
In other words, after raking in so much money, you'd expect the Microsofties to deliver more "value" than that.
If you look at it from an economic or business model point of view (which should be the analysts job, no?), under the Microsoft business model it costs 200 times as much to produce something of the same value. So I say it's about time analysts devalued MS, since they are 200 times less efficient than the Linux distro vendors (who manage to produce the same output for less).
I realize that the math is slightly flawed, since there are some hidden development costs in Linux that do not enter this calculation. But the basic argument still holds true.
Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.
Nuff said.
"Troll", my ass!
Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly powers in violation of US antitrust laws. This means that no matter how you slice it, Microsoft has committed illegal acts.
Computers in general are ment to be an assist to productivity, not an industry to become master over all others.
That Ring is going to be melted down from wence it came. Microsoft is going to be put out of business, at least in the sence of the monopoly they have and continiously pursue, in defiance of court findings. They will be made equal in revenues vs. value output as comparied to other companies.
To compare MS revenues to that of Linux, is if anything, a measure of such monopolistic control. There are other companies in the world that are much larger, employ a great deal more people and generate far more value than MS.
Not having the high profit margin as MS currently has only means they are not employing monopolistic practices to the extent that MS has been.
GNU/Linux is on the opposite end on the monopoly spectrum, the fact that it is making money at all is a very strong statement and testiment to it's strength and ability to compete even when it is free as a product.
It is known that MS has often caused consumer support for it's products to be shifted to OEMs like Gateway who have to incure the expense of such support, rather than MS doing it.
With Linux, there is no shifting of support in order to increase revenues or profit margins. A company producing a distribution also provides the support, perhaps it is even where they make money, in selling greater support for a product they package and customize.
Another way of looking at the lessor revenues Linux directly generates as comparied to MS products, is to consider how much the customer base is saving or otherwise has to spend on other things like hardware or even non-computer related items! This of course is something to consider as to how money flows thru the economy and what values it generates in doing so. Rather than so much money being focused thru a controlling point such as MS, the overall free market is bound to do better.
And who are the customer of GNU/Linux? Many ISPs, a very large part of the internet...... Think about how much more an internet acount might cost you, if Free Software or such, was not being used. How about the adoption and increasing adoption of Free and Open Source Software by governments? How much more would you be paying in taxes, if it wern't for Free and Open Sourse Software?
If anything, the articles talking about how much more revenues MS has then Linux only shows how abusive MS is being in the economy, and/or how supportive GNU/Linux is of a Free and Open MARKET, as is intended of a Free Enterprise capitalistic and competing Price/Product market.
Having Linux as a comparison base...... well every equasion has 2 tatements it makes.... Here, the other statement is simple about how abusive MS is in trying to control the economy or large part of it. And there are economic reasons why we have laws against such.....understand what those valid reasons are....
Writing articles that bluntly ignore the purpose of free enterprise of competitive markets while making it sound like such ignorance of the basics is a good thing for the market..........is highly deceptive and a promotion of ignorance is bliss. Only they are not telling you it's not your bliss, just your ignorance to support someone elses bliss.
So get a fu&in clue and pass the word about this revenue indicator and what it really means. And oh so how inline it is with the corporate value scams and stock market manipulations going on today.
But if you use "Re" + "dH" + "at" in your code instead of "RedHat" (or whatever your language of choice uses for string concatenation) it will not be found by joe coder (or sed)
And searching the .o files for the strings "Red" and "Hat" is difficult how?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Does anybody have an idea of how they established the earnings? For example, did they count the money Mandrake received from their community dues? Did they count the money 'donated' to various projects, such as Gentoo? Did they only count the reported earnings of companies that are publically traded?
You mean there are people that pay for linux?
Wow. Maybe I should start a distro and sell cd's with a book that is actually useful.
Who do you assume that everyone who uses Linux is a programmer?
I never tried to imply that. Not every individual has access to programming skill, but most corporations do. If a company wants to sell copies of software to users of free *n?x systems, and it wants to support multiple distributions, it can either 1. package the software for Red Hat, Debian, United Linux, FreeBSD, Darwin, etc., or 2. package the software as a tarball that contains a shell script that compiles and runs a simple install wizard.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Why in the world would I want my software vendor to have high revenues? The reason that Linux vendors have lower profit margins is because there is nothing to stop you from switching vendors if they gouge you. Linux is all about lowering the TCO of the solution, and a big chunk of that lower TCO comes from getting Microsoft's hand out of your pocket. More and more customers are realizing this and eventually Microsoft is going to have no choice but to try and compete with the lower prices.
But since it is Unis and the military who were conected, it meant students and military people got free beer net.
You make it sound like there were other ways to access the internet. There WAS NO 'internet' in 1969. The military ARPANET WAS IT. Service(wo)men didn't have access, nor did students. It was years later that either were granted access to use ARPANET at all. (For that matter, it was decades later that either had any real access to computers; even then they were restricted to VT-100 and other 'dummy' terminals.)
It consisted of newsgroups, e-mail and FTP. There were different, conflicting methods of addressing email and other name resolution. The modern versions of these standards came not from cooperation, but from one method becoming the 'defacto' standard because of its popularity.
It's easily arguable that the only reason the tech was 'free' is because software didn't qualify for copyrights and patents at the time.
The first newsgroups were moderated and censored before anything could be passed on. It was a military network, and subject to military rules and security. Only individuals (nearly always scientists and engineers) with security clearance were permitted to use it at first. It allowed "Manhattan Project" like collaboration in a decentralized form; no single bomb could kill all of the country's best scientists at once. It allowed a higher level of dissemenation for 'sensitive' information that normally would have been classified and distributed on a "need to know" basis.
It wasn't until much later that the military released control, and the internet became 'free'. There was no 'Web', no HTTP-- It wasn't until '83 that telnet began. All servers had to be approved by the US military.
still it had a tradition of free beer and free speech
There's a significant difference between "a tradition of freedom", and being guaranteed it. If you give a slave "a tradition of freedom" s/he's still a slave-- their freedom is not secure, and can be revoked at any time. Such was the case with DARPAnet. The free speech didn't exist until years after the network existed. The "Free Beer" (in the form of software) existed because non-free software (and espescially software patents) were either completely or nearly non-existent.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.