dooms is a strong word, but the article is better than that
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Sep 26, 2007 4:43 AM EDT |
The author is right about one thing: Windows has the benefit of marketing and network effects. You don't supplant it merely by "being there". As things stand today, the Windows alternative most likely to be considered is the Mac, not Linux. Who should market desktop Linux? That's a problem for me, because I have trouble coming up with many good candidates. Red Hat and Novell are selling their services, not a product per se. The value of their services is greatest to corporate buyers and tends to be in the server rooms. I have no doubt that they would happily provide desktops and desktop support, but ya gotta go where the bucks are calling you. Other distros may target the consumer market, but we're back to that "no product" thing. There is no product to leverage, only services that consumers may or may not appreciate. People who can get things working on their own aren't likely to shell out much money for services. People who don't shell out much money don't provide the income for significant marketing campaigns. That leaves other vendors, like Dell, IBM, etc. IBM has mentioned Linux in its marketing, but IBM's marketing is aimed at selling IBM products and services, not Linux or Windows. Besides, IBM's focus is in the server room, too. As to Dell, they'll sell you whatever you want (now), but they don't have any incentive to drop a bundle on marketing Linux, either. If you want it, you can get it, but they make money either way. I suspect that we are looking at a fundamental limitation (or, if you prefer, characteristic) of free software: free as in libre implies free (or nearly so) as in gratis. You make your money elsewhere, and so you market that. |
| Abe Sep 26, 2007 9:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:Who should market desktop Linux?Let's define Marketing: It is the process of making consumers aware of a product and convince them of its benefits over other similar products. FOSS is a natural product and its natural marketing process is the word of mouth. Considering the advances in technology and advertising, people became dependent on artificial marketing brought to them by radio, TV, etc...and now the Internet for information about products. Advertising is being pushed to its artificial limits and that needs lots of funding. In other words, spend money to make money. IBM, Red Hat, Novell, among others, like Dino said, are spending in the areas they are able to reap the benefits of their money spending effort on marketing. What to do in the area of regular consumers? Being what it is, FOSS/Linux lacks those resource and consequently are depending on the natural marketing process of word of mouth through Internet articles, posts and blogs, which are part of this natural process. Has this worked? To a certain extent, it did and continues to. Is it enough? not really, and should be better. Why didn't work better? It is because consumers are confused. Confused because of all of the other articles that have been spewing partially factual weakness with Linux and mostly erroneous point of views. In other words, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubts (FUD). Most of the weakness have mostly been taken care of now, some are still being worked on. But the bad reporting continues on going and that is a big problem. There is nothing that can be done now to change the perception which was painted by bad article other than what is being done on the Internet but with more intensity and tenacity. Reaching out to more consumers by more publicity on the Internet, Public places like public libraries (TuxProjects), Schools, merchandise outfits (Office Max, Walmart etc...). Spending lots of money on TV and radio commercials is out of the question since it is not within the reach of the community, and businesses are not willing to risk a large sum without a sure return. But there still is a chance. Public Radio and TV who would like to report about new technology might be willing to do that. Nonprofit news media like CSPAN might. Working with other non-profit organizations need to be escalated. the problem is who is going to initiate that? I guess the best organization that come to mind is the Linux Foundation. |
| rijelkentaurus Sep 26, 2007 10:06 AM EDT |
Quoting: But there still is a chance. Public Radio and TV who would like to report about new technology might be willing to do that. Nonprofit news media like CSPAN might. Working with other non-profit organizations need to be escalated. But how much funding does Public TV/Radio receive from Big Industry? It's not an insignificant amount, and it casts a shadow over their supposed impartiality. |
| Abe Sep 26, 2007 10:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:and it casts a shadow over their supposed impartiality.No one is perfect, but they sure are better than any other organization I have ever known of. Yes they do get quite a bit of funding from Melinda & Gates foundations. I hear their commercial of donations all the time. But still, they are mostly publicly funded and they do a pretty good job on staying unbiased. |
| dinotrac Sep 26, 2007 10:35 AM EDT |
Abe - I think you're about 85% there as to the problem, but I'm afraid you also fall prey to what I call "Journalist's Syndrome" - ie, the tendency of journalists to conduct town hall meetings, etc, where it turns out that the real reason people dislike journalists is that they don't understand what journalism is. Consumer confusion absolutely is a factor, but there's a degree of developer confusion (for want of a better term) as well. Marketing, properly done, is a feedback loop. Marketers try to determine what the market wants, producers produce it, sales people sell it. All along the way, they try to glean from the process and the public's reactions information that can be fed back into the product to make it more successful. That process works to some extent with Free software, but I'm not sure that it's as powerful as the proprietary loop. Developers are smart people with strong ideas. In the closed world, somebody stands up and tells a developer "do this or leave". That can be a mistake, but it can just as easily make something non-developer consumers will love. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 26, 2007 3:48 PM EDT |
Here's the problem: Red Hat drags in TONS of money for server subscriptions. A desktop subscription costs a fraction of that, and even at such a low price, you lose any cost advantage over Windows. So there's not that much incentive to market desktop OSes. Apple does it because it sells hardware. Microsoft does it because it sells office and e-mail software. Who's really aggressively marketing desktop Linux? Besides Canonical, there are the people behind Xandros and Linspire. How's that working out? |
| rijelkentaurus Sep 27, 2007 7:35 AM EDT |
Quoting: Apple does it because it sells hardware. Which is why I think Sun could be successful marketing a GPL Solaris, or Linux. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!