Canonical Close To $30M Critical Mass; Should Microsoft Worry?

ruphus13 writes "Mark Shuttleworth, CEO of Canonical, claims that the company is very close to the $30M mark, at which point, they will be a self-sustaining company. While people feel that this should not worry Microsoft, the real question is whether a 10,000 person effort on a failure like Vista can actually be the paradigm of a long-term strategy. From the article: 'Microsoft had 10,000 people [the article is unclear whether these were all developers, or administrative and support staff were factored in] working on Vista for a five year period ... huge profits in any given year can mean relatively little five years on. Canonical's self-sustaining revenue may not be threatening — but it leaves one wondering how sustainable Microsoft's development process really is.'"

Comments

Marketing MIA

[alain94040]

Developer count is not what matters. Linux has plenty of great developers. Marketing is what's missing to Linux today.

Sadly, if you google "Ubuntu Marketing", you land on an empty page (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarketingTeam/News). Maybe someone needs to update Google's index :-)

Everyone here knows that Linux has the technical goods to take on Windows. But the cheerleading is missing. Where are the ads (with or without Jerry Seinfeld) and the glossy brochures at Best Buy?

So yes, Ubuntu being sustainable is a step in the right direction.

--
FairSoftware.net -- jobs for geeks by geeks

Re:Marketing MIA

[morgan_greywolf]

I disagree. Most guides out there for ubuntu involve terminal commands.

Commands that say things like this?

sudo apt-get install foo

Yeah. That's because it's easier and faster to write that than say 'Click System | Administration | Synaptic Package Manager.' Click the 'Search' button and type 'foo' and hit enter. Right click the 'foo-1.0' package and click 'Install'. When prompted, enter your password.

Re:Marketing MIA

[FishWithAHammer]

This post is a prime example of why you, and people like you, should not be involved in building user interfaces. That's not an insult, don't get me wrong. Techie types are valuable in areas where their expertise is useful. Trying to reason out how people actually use computers--that's not an area of expertise for most techies. I wouldn't have most UI designers writing code, either.

The GUI is less flexible, yes. That's a drawback. But for the majority of people it is far more valuable because it does not require prior knowledge to operate. A button that says "Do Foo" with checkboxes "Initialize 'Bar' Subsystem" and "Provide verbose output" is easily grasped by an individual user (especially because it's very easy to add tooltips to each of these in order to provide more information". A CLI command of "foo -Bv" is much less easily grasped by an end user who is not already comfortable with the command line.

"Microsoft Word has committed an error and must be closed" is about the most useful information for basic users. What information could you give them that's actually useful and valuable? The DLL that failed? Why will they care? What error did Microsoft Word commit? Again, why would they care? That information is available for me, as a technical user, if I want it--but I have to click a button to access it and it's out of the way of those end users.

Users don't want to know how their computers work. They don't care about that. Users don't want to have to learn how the CLI works. They don't care about that. Users want a quick, relatively efficient system for doing their stuff, rather than doing the computer's stuff. The CLI is not that system because the benefits of the CLI require more time investment and effort than users want to devote to their computer's stuff when they could be working on their own stuff. A good desktop environment tells the user nothing that they don't need to know and doesn't ask for the user to waste time on the computer's stuff, as far as that is possible.

Re:Marketing MIA

[jorgevillalobos]

It doesn't matter if that's easier or faster for you, it matters if it's easier for most people (faster is good but not absolutely necessary).

Typing cryptic commands is very error-prone and disconcerting for users. You may think that the "click blah blah" instructions are long and complicated, but for most users it's what makes the most sense, and they have at least a slight idea of what's going on.

Re:Marketing MIA

[jbolden]

In the 1980s everyone used a CLI even on home systems. What do you think has happened since then has caused people to lose so much intelligence?

Seriously though. For Linux to be successful there needs to be a cultural transformation with regard to computing. The idea we are going to provide less information to avoid confusing people is a terrible culture.

Yesterday I was having a serious problem with my DVR, I would have loved some way to look at a log file and figure out what was going wrong. It is much harder to reverse engineer in the absence of information than to respond to complex information. That's why diagnostic medicine (for example) is so complex and error prone.

Re:Marketing MIA

[waveclaw]

People usually don't sign up for Open Source or Free Software. They just do stuff, put it out there and let other people use it. To quote one Mr. Torvalds, real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it.

I have customer service skills godddammnit! Anyway, I'd hope to be able to help. Like I said, where do I sign up? Is it with Canonical, or is there a generic "Linux" marketing effort someplace?

Have you thought about starting a blog?

How about taking an active part in one or more major distribution's forum?

• http://fedoraforum.org/
• http://forums.opensuse.org/
• http://ubuntuforums.org/
• http://forums.gentoo.org/

Just publishing (in a reusable format under a nice CC License)

• market research
• technical business direction
• explainations of what is possible to the business types
• what you (as a marketing professional) learn from techies

If your work is of high quality, it would make an impact.

Re:Marketing MIA

[93 Escort Wagon]

I would hope that you would use Impress over Powerpoint when trying to drive people away from Microsoft. Else you really suck at your job.

Here's the whole "Linux problem" in a nutshell. We've got a professional in marketing who's offering his services - and he gets insulted by an FOSS zealot because he's apparently not pure enough.

Re:Marketing MIA

[Microlith]

In the 1980s everyone used a CLI even on home systems.

Home systems were still few and far between. Those who had them had every reason (and likely had the desire) to know a lot about what were effectively very primitive systems.

What do you think has happened since then has caused people to lose so much intelligence?

No intelligence was lost. The audience that owns computers has expanded outside of the extremely interested and geeks to basically be a requirement of modern society. It's the car of the age: most people own one in some fashion, but how much someone knows (and indeed, can know) about the nuts and bolts of the thing is limited.

Not everyone wants to have to fuck with xorg.conf just to get multiple displays working. Hell I don't, but you still have to, even in Ubuntu.

For Linux to be successful there needs to be a cultural transformation with regard to computing. The idea we are going to provide less information to avoid confusing people is a terrible culture.

We are never going to return to the days of the 1980s when anyone who had a computer could generally be considered knowledgeable about the hardware, software, and had a bit of coding experience (if even just BASIC.) We are already at a point where for most people the computer is as mystifying a black box as their car's engine is if not moreso.

But half of what is needed to make life livable for non-propellerheads is fairly basic gui interaction and human interface considerations. This is why OS X is so nice compared to Linux and is a route that could serve Canonical well if Ubuntu were to go that way. Solve the problems that force people to screw with config files, reduce the terminal to an optional path and not required, and then you have an OS X like Linux with even more capabilities.

Or we can fight it, and insist that the broken way is the best way.

I would have loved some way to look at a log file and figure out what was going wrong.

And you're also reading Slashdot which immediately puts you out of the target audience the DVR was designed for, people who will treat the DVR for what it is: a peice of AV equipment that should just work.

Re:Marketing MIA

[jonbryce]

But nevertheless, if you use your competitor's product to do your sales presentation, it doesn't look very good.

It may be fine of course if you are selling Linux as a server product which can talk happily with Windows clients.

Re:Marketing MIA

[im_thatoneguy]

It's about presenting things in plain English and giving the customer choices.

If I load up a CMD window. All I see is a blank line.

I have no idea what I *can* do. However when I'm presented with a GUI. I can READ all of the options presented to me without asking.

A command line is like a drive through window without a window.

"Hello welcome to QuickieFood, how can I help you?"
"I don't know what do you sell?"
"We have over 1,000 items cooked fresh!"
"Do you have a Burger?"
"No."
"Really no burgers?"
"No burgers. I don't even know what you're talking about."
"How about some JoJos?"
"Nope.... never heard of those either."
"Really you have 1,000 items and no JoJos or Burgers?"
"Nope."
"Do you have a Salad?"
"We have 100 Salads."
"Do you have a Ceaser Salad?"
"Yes."
"Can I order one?"
"Do you want a GEHZDOLF with that?"
"A What?"
"A Ghezdolf."
"I don't know what that is."
"Well do you want it or not?"
"I don't know what it is how can I decide if I want it."
"I can't process your order until you decide."
"Fine yes give me a Gehzdolf."
"I'm sorry I don't under stand your request in this context."
"What context?"
"You just said give me a Gezdolf. I don't know what that is?"
"WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU JUST ASKED ME IF I WANTED A GEZDOLF WITH MY CEASER SALAD!"
"Oh a ceaser salad! Would you like a Gezdolf with that?"
"Yes Give me a ceaser salad with a Gezdolf."
"Done. That'll be $2.50 at the next window."

Meanwhile someone pulls in behind you and hear them order.
"I would like a cheeseburger with a medium fries."
"Thank you that will be $2.50 at the next window."

"The guy behind me just bought a burger and fries?"
"A what? We don't have burgers. I don't even know what that is."
"A cheeseburger and fries!"
"Oh yeah we've got those."
"But I asked for a burger and you said they didn't have any."
"I don't see the discrepancy."
"They're the same thing!"
"Are they now? Interesting."

Who here in their right mind would actually sit down at a computer and just randomly type in:
"Sudo apt get" and expect their computer to update itself?

NOBODY! It requires research and education. Most computers for the most part are SELF TEACHING. Yes that means they're slower because they're always teaching you things. But it's also infinitely more approachable to a user. You don't need to have someone tell you how to do things. You can just sit down at and attempt to match your desires with the options on the screen.

Until machines speak something approaching a spoken language in the CLI they'll be the domain of scripters and hackers.

If you could load up bash and type in:
"Please update my computer with an MP3 player."
People would LOVE command line computing! But instead using the command line is like trying to give an order to a mentally handicapped ant with a napoleon complex.

Making software more 'discoverable' often results in users actually using the computer better. Yes it might be more slow, but they can ACCIDENTALLY discover a new feature. I can't think of a time I've ever accidentally discovered a new command line function.

The other problem is even after they memorize a command line solution they probably don't understand what it is they're doing. Rote memorization and recitation of commands doesn't lead to the user feeling in control of their experience. As a kid I always typed in the Magic letters: A:\Wiz.exe and it worked! I had no idea what A was. What the slash was. What the exe was. But I faithfully memorized all the commands I needed to know to get into a game. That's not empowering the user. That's enslaving them to the IT department to tell them the magic and nonsensical gibberish they have to copy off the post it note from the help desk.

Ubuntu moves faster

[rolfwind]

That's what will kill Microsoft (and why I believe Ubuntu has become one of the top distros). Everytime I hear about Microsoft management story, it seems to be an exercise in bureacracy.

But what will hurt Microsoft is the day Quicken or Photoshop have Wine 1.xx on their system requirements, next to XP/Vista/Etc. I'm too cynical to think they'll come out with native Linux version, but eventually they'll want to tap into the 10 million+ users of Ubuntu and other Linuxes, if nothing else but to stop their competition from taking hold.

At this point, there isn't much reason to not be OS agnostic for those type of programs.

Re:Ubuntu moves faster

[Arainach]

Why not write it in QT, and have an application that can run on just about every platform out there WITHOUT bowing before Microsoft, who could eat your lunch should you write the "Killer Ap".

Because having developed in .NET and QT, .NET is far easier and more enjoyable to develop in. You may call it "crap", but it's actually a well-done platform that's great for developers. You may dislike its single-platform outlook, but as programming languages, the .NET languages are top-notch.

To many companies, being able to quickly and reliably put together code is much more important than supporting the tiny marketshare that represents Linux desktop users.

Wrong Question?

[clang_jangle]

but it leaves one wondering how sustainable Microsoft's development process really is

Only if one ignores all the sales of commercial and support contracts. Otherwise, it's pretty sustainable. A better question might be "How effective is it?".

Sumbmitters? Editors?

[MyLongNickName]

They are close to the $30 Million dollar mark! Hooray!

Okay... is that gross sales? Net profit? Payroll? My guess is gross sales, but the summary doesn't say. Without that other piece of information, this summary makes ZERO sense (and you can put any unit you want after ZERO).

Hey, guys, my car goes from 0 to 120 in 3! That makes about as much sense as the summary.

Um, no?

[dedazo]

MSFT reported revenue of $60.4 billion dollars for 2008. That comes out to about $165.5 million per day.

There are reasons why Microsoft may or may not feel threatened by things like Linux. Maybe netbooks. But I doubt a $30M company scares them much. In fact, I'd say they're much more worried about RedHat than Canonical - not because of their size, but because RH and Microsoft do really compete in the server market. How many Linux notebooks has Dell sold so far? Even by the lowered standards of Vista there's simply no comparison there.

Re:Um, no?

[Jurily]

But I doubt a $30M company scares them much.

Way to miss the point. Linux is not about money, and that, my friend, is what they are afraid of.

Re:$30 mil? Seriously?

[toganet]

And that's the problem -- people think a product or service has to make tons of $$ to be successful. Something like Ubuntu subverts our capitalist assumptions, because it actually gets cheaper the better it gets, and the more people who use it. Supply and demand work differently.

Why this matters

[Groo Wanderer]

Numbers are totally irrelevant, or at least their magnitude is. The point is that Canonical is self-sustaining. Last time I checked, Mr Shuttleworth did not need the cash to mend his shoes, he wanted to make something that was good.

When Canonical becomes self-sustaining, he will have accomplished that goal. This means development will be funded, marketing efforts will be ongoing, and with luck, people will make money.

This means that if you like and use Ubuntu, it will be there in the future. I do for both, so this is very good.

The more money it makes, given their structure, the more development and marketing they will be able to do. I don't know the financial structure of Canonical, but I doubt the people with a piece of it are more interested in money than changing the world. That likely means the people who own it will dump the majority of anything over the $30M back into the distro.

If you see what they did with $30M, imagine what an extra $10M can do?

This is a good thing.

          -Charlie

Marketing isn't just advertising

[tknd]

Where are the ads (with or without Jerry Seinfeld) and the glossy brochures at Best Buy?

Marketing isn't just advertising and promotion. It is also the act of determining what kind of product a particular target market desires. The reason why linux isn't on the desktop is because it doesn't get something right that other OSes and platforms for that particular target market. If the target market is "desktop users" then I say desktop users don't care about what is running under the hood, they only care that their apps and their devices work.

In my opinion, the correct marketing strategy for a desktop linux distro would be:

• MS Office must work, Adobe Photoshop must work
• Work on 3rd party electronic device compatibility: cameras off the shelf from best buy must work, printers and scanners must work, ipods must work.

And no, the correct answer is not "use gimp" or "use openoffice" or "don't buy ipods". If you want to sell linux, you need to offer them something that meets the customer's needs. All I hear when open source devs say "use openoffice" is the same as forcing openoffice down their throat. Instead, the first question any good salesman asks of any customer is "what do you need?" If they then answer "I need to use itunes for my iphone" then you better get linux to work with itunes and their iphone otherwise your product is not for that customer!

Notice that I never specified how one would get devices like iphones and MS Office and such to work. One could strike an agreement with the manufacturers to release drivers, apps, and such or maybe outline a standard that manufacturers can build and work with. But guess what, that means a new marketing strategy for a new customer. In this case you're going to have to make it easier for the companies (the new target market) to make more money either by sharing the workload or offering them something that benefits them.

Unfortunately, things like the GPL and even the nature of linux limit the choices in marketing strategies (as well as the one-sidedness many FOSS advocates have). But remember, the customer is king; if you can't give them what they want, they will never be your customer.

On a side note: I've always felt that FreeBSD had a better chance for being a good base for a desktop OS simply because of licensing. Example: the FreeBSD camp has always had madwifi available with no licensing issues while the linux camp has only recently gotten some fully supported madwifi drivers without tainting the kernel. But of course in a desktop environment, I have no problem with companies providing proprietary drivers. If their product doesn't work, it goes back to the store. In a corporate environment, I do have everything against proprietary software but that is because the needs of a company (different target market) are different from the needs of a home user. If that hint wasn't big enough, I was pointing out that while linux might not be for the home desktop user, it might be better suited for the corporate office user. Get MS Office working and you've probably met most cubicle worker needs.

Re:No MS shoud not worry...

[PitaBred]

What if Canonical isn't trying to make assloads of money, but are just trying to build a solid business that is profitable?

The sooner we get away from the 80's-style "If you aren't making money hand over fist now, you're worthless" thought, the better. Canonical is making a solid business providing a TON of value for it's customers via a product it's essentially giving away for free that is in many respects equivalent or better than Microsoft's products. Why shouldn't Microsoft be scared of someone who's showing the public and businesses that they don't have to pay through the ass for software? Mindshare is very important, especially in the Internet age.