Slashdot Mirror
Linux To Take Over The Low-End PC Market?
An anonymous reader writes "Desktop Linux has a recent commentary on the inevitable growth of Linux on the cheaper end of the desktop market. According to the article, the availability of under-$500 usable hardware, combined with a free operating system, free desktop office products, and free or cheap 'software as a service' online applications, opens a new market in which Microsoft cannot compete. 'Microsoft will fight this trend tooth and nail. It will cut prices to the point where it'll be bleeding ink on some of its product lines. And Windows XP is going to stick around much longer than Microsoft ever wanted it to. Still, it won't be enough.'"
I realize I should expect no less from an article on desktoplinux.com, but I'm extremely annoyed by comments like "Still, it won't be enough." I can just imagine a typical Linux fanboy laughing diabolically while typing it. While the article has valid points, comments like that are wishful thinking and immature conjecture.
They're comparing Granny Smiths apples to Golden Delicious apples:
Set of computers that can run all required email and office apps (the latest versions) along with a server to support the mail etc, all based on Linux
Vs
Set of computers that can run all required email and office apps (the latest versions) along with a server to support the mail etc, all based on Vista
The only difference is that the base specs required for one is much higher than the other, which is the whole point of the article.
Okay, so it might not be as viable in a huge company where everyone (especially admins) already have Windows training, but for a ~100 person or less SME (Small/Medium Enterprise) then the huge savings on costs would be a boon.
Not all free software is "free" per-say. Look at MySQL, making money while we all use their software. That's just one example, so here are a few more that produce free products while still earning significant income:
Sun Microsystems
Novell
Mozilla Foundation
Spiceworks(a personal favorite)
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
Many slashdotters fail to make any distinction between the honest hard working programmers/researchers who deserve their pay and the not so honest business execs, lawyers, and lobbiests on some of whom Microsoft's bad behavior can be blamed, lumping them all together as a single entity: "M$".
Nobody's hoping to see software engineers starve, it's just easy to get carried away hating Microsoft for all the monopolizing, anti-FOSS, and other damage it's responsible for. Can you really blame the GP for having no sympathy for Microsoft's bottom line?
You have it almost exactly backwards. Speaking from bitter experience.
Their costs towards their IT infrastructure simply aren't large enough to worry about license costs. Microsoft already have this market. SMEs simply buy PCs with windows already installed, and use SBS on the back end. Their savings from Linux are in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands or millions. It isn't worth their while to switch. Especially given the fact they can't afford to hire competent admins and so are stuck with whomever is locally available.
Large companies on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. They can save millions by making use of Linux, and that's exactly what they do. The CTO or CIO's may or may not be aware of it but pretty much every large company out there has Linux just about everywhere from file servers to RDBMS servers to web application servers. They can afford to hire competent admins who can run Linux as well as their other Unix systems and who understand the mathematics of I.T. systems.
The market for Linux is not SMEs. I've been there and tried to sell it. The real market for Linux is on the big end. Multinationals, governments etc. They can save vast sums.
Deleted
you are almost completely incorrect. Everyone that buys an E-machine or other discount budget pc is happy with them. It plays the silly card games they want, it goes online, it let's them type a letter. Aunt gertie is not going to be entering any UT3 deathmatches soon or getting herself a WoW addiction going. She is happy with that Pentuim III 500 she bought back in 1999 it does everything she wants and windows 98 works fine for her. (in face she get's less infections as most new viruses will not run on a non unicode machine)
If I upgrade her to A old thrown away G3 mac and she can do everything she did before, she will STILL be happy.
That is what the $200.00 walmart PC is for... Aunt Gertie, Grandma Fluffles, and creepy uncle Fred. I have supported far more happy low power pc owners than I have seen happy high power pc owners.
Funny part, most "high power" pc owners think sony Vaio = high end. sad reality is that it's low end just trendy.
Low end pc's are for the bulk of the computer users. They do not play games, they don't run bit torrent and watch movies on their computer. They check email, write and print out letters, do online banking and play solitaire.
For them, these computers are typically 300-400% faster than the 10 year old monster they are using now.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
No. I doubt you will find many of us who object to the idea of having money. It is the methods of getting it and the attitudes that MS have that people here may not be happy with. /. I am unable to speak for others, so I shall speak for myself.
In a place like
I don't like the fact that software is sent out before it is ready, just because some manager types want it to be released now.
If I buy clothes, I assume things are made and they didn't just ship me the cloth and expect me to sew it together myself.
When they release a new product, they will tell us all how fantastic it is.
A couple of years later, when it is about ready for use, they drop it and bring out the next item. They then tell us how this fixes the many shortcomings of its precescessor. I am told how bad it was. I know that in a couple of years, I will be told how rubbish this one is too.
Microsoft bears at least some, and perhaps much, of the blame for the mess we are all in with patents and copyrights.
So they think that GPL is socialism and thus theft? I think that Closed source is protectionist racketeering and thus theft.
When they were small and growing, they relied on the fact that lots of people "borrowed" their software. This enabled them to grow. It was profiting from theft.
Now they are in a position of market dominance, they object to what they once relied on. Stealing is wrong, so when people ask me for a dodgy copy of Office, I point them to a free alternative. I object to their hypocrisy, not the fact that they object to people stealing.
If I buy something, I expect to be able to use what I buy. I expect to be able to sell what I buy, when I no longer want it. I do this with books and cars, so why are MS different?
As I started, I don't object to making money. I just object to some methods of extortion and hypocrisy. I work for money and would love to have more. I will not hit people over the head to get it. My basic objection is that they are no longer a software company. They are a protection racket.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Just to note, Microsoft isn't the richest corporation on earth. And as it happens, the richest corporation on earth (Walmart) is now selling Linux PCs.
Linux is a rather high-quality OS used for ultra-high-end applications in HPC. Yet millions of people will now perceive it as the low-end. Strange.
That's the power, innovation, and advantage of open source -- you have the code, the right to modify and distribute it, so you can adopt it for whatever application suits your needs.
My blog
It's not uncommon, but it isn't fair (or, taking more objective standpoint: "is perceived unfair by a major percentage of customers") - you're paying 400% the base price to get like 40% extra functionality. Besides, people don't perceive the high-end versions as extended variants of the low-end base system, but the low-end versions as purposedly crippled high-end base.
This still works as profit source in the short run, but it annoys the customer base, undermines loyalty, encourages seeking alternatives. And once alternatives are found, you lose in the long run. You squeeze $50 for Home Premium from an user today, and lose the whole sale and the customer entirely tomorrow.
Except the analysis hardly ever takes into account reasons why people switch to other OS, and even if it does, it comes to entirely wrong conclusions (they are cheaper, they have better marketing) while your own faults - trying to squeeze last penny off the customer - are hardly ever taken into account as the 'real evil'. People hate being cheated and perceive this as cheating. And it doesn't matter you don't and your marketing people will explain to your CEO that it really isn't cheating. For people, it is, and people will hate you for that. And will jump the ship at the first opportunity... or steal from the thieves, not a crime to many.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2