Linux To Ring Up $35B By 2008

al@opensourcebrowser.com pastes "For a theoretically free operating system, Linux is -- and will continue to be -- a cash cow, a research firm said Wednesday as it predicted the OS will bring in more than $35 billion in revenues by 2008. Framingham, Mass.-based IDC said that overall revenue for servers, desktops, and packaged software running on Linux will reach $35.7 billion in the next four years."

Comments

I write OSS for Linux

[Limburgher]

So, where's my check? :)

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Limburgher]

Yes. Did you? I can still charge for support and distribution, I just have to make the source available.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[infiniti99]

I think his point is that while Linux may be making a lot of money, the actual developers rarely see any of it. Yes, some open source is funded, but most of it is not. Imagine of some of these millions were to go to a project like KDE? Geezus, the whole thing would be done by now.

I don't know who is getting all of this "Linux money", but it certainly isn't affecting the projects I care about. I'm not saying that developers should be jealous of these companies that have taken their products and made money with them. After all, that's part of the freedom that has been given to them. But it is depressing that not much of this money goes back to the community. I don't say this because the developers should be rewarded or get rich, I say it because the money would speed up development.

Many of us probably can name many OSS projects we'd like to see completed. These Linux sales numbers won't impress me one bit until I see my favorite programs being sponsored.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[Limburgher]

Excellent point. How do we define "completed" in terms of software, though? Bug-free? Feature-complete? Both either moving targets or chimeras, depending on the project. Even time-tested tools like grep get updated.

Re:I write OSS for Linux

[sloanster]

I don't know who is getting all of this "Linux money", but it certainly isn't affecting the projects I care about.

As always, the money goes to the entrepeneurs. Forget about your favorite projects, if you want to see the money from linux, you need to create something of value to those who have money to spend. I do it by upgrading small and medium businesses to linux and becoming their permanent linux guy, you might do it by writing the killer linux program that small business wants.

One thing ought to be crystal clear at this point, however, even to the most challenged of us - and that is, there is a lot of money to be made in connection with this whole linux thing if you keep your skills sharp, and your eyes open.

Take note, mcses who consider themselves linux savvy because they managed to install redhat inside vmware on their windows pc 2 years ago and learned how to type "ps -ef" just aren't going to cut it. The demand out there is for the real deal, genuine linux talent, which can be earned by anyone willing to work hard and apply themselves.

BUT WINDOWS IS CHEAPER!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

GET THE FACTS!

Errrr, Dupe

[MrWim]

See here

$358

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw $358 and was not surprised.

Re:Karma points to..

[Anti Frozt]

Hopefully not the RIAA; otherwise, I would peg the revenue estimate at around $20.

$35.7bn?

[Nine Tenths of The W]

Wow. That's a lot of SCO licenses.

Re:Karma points to..

[goon america]

From the article:

The numbers are higher than earlier estimates by most analysts, in part, said IDC, because it changed it methodology to account for not just Linux on new hardware, but also Linux that's redeployed on existing hardware, and even cases when the open-source OS is used as a guest operating system, such as in a server partitioned with virtualization software to run multiple OSes.

So, not only are they counting the hardware that linux is running on as being "spent on linux," they're also counting existing hardware on which linux will be installed as being "spent" on linux as well.

And yet...

[elid]

...Microsoft generates $10.6 billion in annual revenue from Office alone.

(source)

And Its Net Economic Benefit Is Even Greater

[geoffrobinson]

Linux allows companies and individuals to use their money in other areas as well. This helps the economy overall. Cell phones on Linux will be cheaper, etc.

Also, companies can use that money in other areas, which I would assume would make them more productive.

A lot of this revenue is probably for services I would assume.

Is it much?

[asac]

Microsoft will earn $38 bn in 2005.

IBM received $23.2 bn in 2004.

How will those figures look in 2008?

Warning

[Ars-Fartsica]

These are the same people who claimed B2B sites would be transacting $10 billion a year by 2006 whilst praising ATM networking, 3G networks and AOL.

Yet the same people completely missed portable MP3 players, VOIP, etc etc

Don't count your money before it's made.

[SetupWeasel]

Didn't we learn anything from 4 years of George W. Bush?

That's where the number comes from!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

It's just $1billion duped many times on Slashdot!

TCO!

[Dark Paladin]

[sarcasm]
See! Windows is a lot cheaper than Linux - I mean, look how much money you have to spend on it!

Hm? How much would it cost to do the same thing with Windows? That's not the point - look! Shiny object!
[/sarcasm]

don't need me anymore

[ToasterTester]

Well with that much money guess they don't need us writing free code anymore. They can afford to pay and spread the wealth.

TCO studies

[vlad_petric]

Believing TCO studies from Microsoft is like believing safety studies from medication manufacturers.

Oh, wait a sec ... I meant the other way around.

Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion

[Animats]

More interesting is the actual value for 2004 - $15 billion.

That's a nice number, Note that in comparison, Microsoft's 2004 revenue is about $36 billion. Apple is around $10 billion.

Re:Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion

[Animats]

True. Red Hat makes about $150 million per year. That's revenue. Profit is about $5 million per year. Which is not much, considering that Red Hat didn't have to pay for the development of Linux.

Re:Actual revenue for 2004 is $15 billion

[gregorio]

More interesting is the actual value for 2004 - $15 billion. That's a nice number, Note that in comparison, Microsoft's 2004 revenue is about $36 billion. Apple is around $10 billion.

The 15 billion figure is the *total* direct and indirect profits *related* to Linux. Including Hardware.

IDC 96% off

[bstadil]

You are quite right. These clowns predicted Itanium sales of $30B in 2001.

Why is anyone taking this seriously?

Kinda misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

They're counting money for hardware that would have been spent anyway, regardless of what OS is running on it. It's like a car company taking credit for $35 billion spent on gas. In the end, if I don't buy a Honda, I'll buy a Ford and spend money on the gas regardless.

The only credible argument is that less will be spent on hardware supporting Linux than would be spent supporting other operating systems. Perhaps, that's an arguable point. But even then, the cost difference would not be $35 billion.

I see they discovered the secret formula!!

[Dano Watt]

You know, the three step program.

1) Distribute OS for free
2) ???
3) Profit!


All successful companies follow it, and so far, it hasn't failed yet.

In other news, beating dead horses has reached an all time high.

Cash cow?

[daishin]

Its a cash penguin damnit!

Software Sells Hardware

[stankulp]

IBM said it first, but it's still true today.

You don't buy computer hardware because of its architecture. You buy it for the software it will run.

Linux runs just about any sort of application you could desire, it's free (as in speech, not as in beer), but businesses have to buy hardware and hire IT people to run it.

IBM used to give the software away for free to get people to buy the iron.

The more things change...

Lots of projects are "funded"

[diegocgteleline.es]

If you look at the kernel, pretty much all the core kernels are IBM/Redhat/Suse workers. GCC (which BSD users also use) have lots of redhat people in their lists. Lots of gnome hackers are paid to (project Utopia in Novell, Sun and Redhat, etc). Openoffice is not something that a couple of geeks can do in a weekend too. X.org has keith packards who did lots of work. KDE has several Suse/Mandrake/Lindows contributions. There're Freebsd hackers too, etc, etc etc..

OSs programmers probably won't see money, but instead companies hire people to work on their projects and they give you the code (lots of times those people are guys who were one of the main developers of the project and they got hired)
Which is fair. We give them our work, they got money, and they hire people to work on our projects and release the source of the modifications. We get better software, they get money.

Well, my point is, "is not true that they give absolutely nothing back". NTPL, good SMP support, latest improvements in the incoming GCC 4.0, Gnome usability, Gnome accesibility from the Sun guys, openoffice...there're LOTS of things that wouldn't have happened without those companies.

I wonder....

[blair1q]

Do you think Linus Torvalds looks at that $35 billion valuation for Linux and thinks, "I wish I'd invented that..."

In real terms

[SuperBigGulp]

$35B as in Beer?