Untitled
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| number6x Jul 28, 2008 1:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:"Will a $19.99 Ubuntu Succeed Where the Free Version Hasn’t?" Ubuntu is an incredible success! The PC market was growing at a much faster rate when Windows was introduced, and the competition Windows had to face at the low end was not entrenched like Windows is now (Windows being the established entrenched competition to Ubuntu and other Linuxes). Windows didn't really get popular until after Windows 3.1 had been out for a while. I would guess around '93 as being the break through year for a product delivered in '91. Windows itself came out in late '85. I would say, realistically speaking, Windows took about 7-8 years to succeed. And that was with the help of already having the MS/DOS market pretty well sewed up. Ubuntu was first shipped in October 2004. Ubuntu had the help of the already existing GNU/Linux market. Let's see how its doing in 2012 before saying if it has or hasn't succeeded. At least give it as much time as Windows had. |
| number6x Jul 28, 2008 1:11 PM EDT |
Sorry forgot to add a title! |
| tuxchick Jul 28, 2008 3:09 PM EDT |
Well at least you didn't murder anyone. http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/27589/ |
| aweber Aug 12, 2008 9:39 PM EDT |
people often determine quality by price. I hope it succeeds |
| gus3 Aug 12, 2008 11:08 PM EDT |
It worked for my old company. $50-$300 got nobody. $1,500 (yes, a 30x markup!) and more brought in some HUGE customers. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 13, 2008 5:24 AM EDT |
I used to be a chef for a catering company, and our biggest clients were all furniture companies. The rep from one told us that they had couches that cost in the neighborhood of $300 to produce, so selling them at $600 would produce a 100% profit, but no one would buy them...so they put the price at $2000 and they would fly out the door. Sometimes peoples is dumb. |
| gus3 Aug 13, 2008 6:15 AM EDT |
Yet, for a long time (10 years in computer time counts as "long"), Linux flew in the face of that. Neal Stephenson illustrates it in In the Beginning Was the Command Line (language alert): http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 13, 2008 4:21 PM EDT |
Whether it admits it or not, Red Hat is making more of an effort on the desktop, if only to add value to its big server clients who also want some desktops. I saw this today on LXer -- http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/106947/index.html -- which said a Dell laptop can cost up to $350 less when shipped with Ubuntu vs. Windows. That's the kind of thing that could really move some preinstalled Linux hardware. |
| grosspatzer Aug 15, 2008 12:34 PM EDT |
Maybe Canonical should charge $999.99, it seems to have worked pretty well for one iPhone "developer" :-) http://www.thestreet.com/story/10433049/1/the-five-dumbest-t... |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 15, 2008 2:16 PM EDT |
Look at what Canonical charges for support: http://www.canonical.com/services/support If you're OK with 9-to-5 instead of 24/7, it looks pretty reasonable. Compare it to Red Hat for servers: https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/ And desktops: https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/desktop/ I don't think Red Hat offers 24/7 desktop support. I'd like to see somebody compare Red Hat and Ubuntu on the server, to explain what Ubuntu has to offer in that market over Red Hat. On the desktop, I can see why some installations might want Ubuntu while others would go for Red Hat, even though one is the biggest name in desktops and the other is ... not. But certainly on price, if you're paying for support and planning to continue to do so, from a financial standpoint, Red Hat looks like a better deal all around. The big question is about quality. How do Red Hat and Canonical compare in that regard? |
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!