3 ms·

They did (sort of) reach a mass audience through Dell's Ubuntu laptop program in 2007. It didn't quite work out then because Ubuntu wasn't ready (I owned one, i

They did (sort of) reach a mass audience through Dell's Ubuntu laptop program in 2007. It didn't quite work out then because Ubuntu wasn't ready (I owned one, it was not ready for prime time). It still isn't, but it's closer. If it was ready, then avoiding the Windows tax would be a good enough reason for retailers to push Ubuntu.

guard-of-terra 15y ago
Sadly, PC makers offset the Windows tax by installing crapware in it. It makes harder for Canonical to gain advantage.
flomo 15y ago
The issue with pushing Linux onto unwitting users is many don't understand it's incompatible with their Win32 software and end up returning the computer. Therefore Dell had to put up a big "here be dragons" page in front of the Ubuntu systems. If this were to actually work, they would need some sort of huge mass marketing campaign which convinced people they actually want or need Linux on their computer, which is very unlikely. Defining your audience as people who want to save the 5% cost of a Windows license cost from their already cheapass PC is never going to amount to much.
- rsheridan6 15y ago
  Your point is valid, but it's becoming less so. The web is taking over more and more of what used to be desktop territory, and the OS is becoming a device driver for the internet. There are plenty of people now who just need something that will run a web browser (granted, there are also still plenty who have to have MS Office or whatever). The more cheapass the PC, the more of a difference the Windows Tax makes. $50 out of $1000 is only 5%, but $50 out of a $115 Walmart computer[1] is pretty substantial (not that Walmart is likely to be paying that much for a Windows license, but at the low end a little bit of money makes a big difference). [1] http://www.walmart.com/ip/IBM-40GB-8183/16880171 http://www.walmart.com/ip/IBM-40GB-8183/16880171
  - flomo 15y ago
    The point wasn't whether people do or don't need Windows software, it's that you can't just throw Linux systems on the market unless the consumer feels they have some compelling reason to buy one. And MS does scale their license prices based on the system costs, but I think you've demonstrated one can always find a cheaper PC without switching to Linux.
    - rsheridan6 15y ago
      A cheap PC would be cheaper without an MS tax, unless MS was willing to give Windows away for free to keep Linux from getting a foothold. Sure, the money may not be much, but if you don't perceive a difference in quality, you'll buy the $.98 can of beans over the $.99 one. $115 is hardly a theoretical lower bound to the price of a PC. There are also large organizations that would like to cut costs wherever they can, and can't be expected to make up the Windows tax by installing crapware like a vendor can. The city of Munich is the most well-known example of a big player switching to Linux. The effort was not a complete failure but was something of a disappointment - I don't think Munich ended up saving any money when you consider the labor costs, etc. But if Linux had been ready and the transition had been more successful, you'd see a lot of imitators following Munich's lead. But it's probably a moot point anyway. I think Android will end up swallowing the PC market like a classic disruptive technology and stealing Linux's thunder anyway.

guard-of-terra 15y ago

Sadly, PC makers offset the Windows tax by installing crapware in it. It makes harder for Canonical to gain advantage.

flomo 15y ago

The issue with pushing Linux onto unwitting users is many don't understand it's incompatible with their Win32 software and end up returning the computer. Therefore Dell had to put up a big "here be dragons" page in front of the Ubuntu systems. If this were to actually work, they would need some sort of huge mass marketing campaign which convinced people they actually want or need Linux on their computer, which is very unlikely. Defining your audience as people who want to save the 5% cost of a Windows license cost from their already cheapass PC is never going to amount to much.

rsheridan6 15y ago
Your point is valid, but it's becoming less so. The web is taking over more and more of what used to be desktop territory, and the OS is becoming a device driver for the internet. There are plenty of people now who just need something that will run a web browser (granted, there are also still plenty who have to have MS Office or whatever). The more cheapass the PC, the more of a difference the Windows Tax makes. $50 out of $1000 is only 5%, but $50 out of a $115 Walmart computer[1] is pretty substantial (not that Walmart is likely to be paying that much for a Windows license, but at the low end a little bit of money makes a big difference). [1] http://www.walmart.com/ip/IBM-40GB-8183/16880171 http://www.walmart.com/ip/IBM-40GB-8183/16880171
- flomo 15y ago
  The point wasn't whether people do or don't need Windows software, it's that you can't just throw Linux systems on the market unless the consumer feels they have some compelling reason to buy one. And MS does scale their license prices based on the system costs, but I think you've demonstrated one can always find a cheaper PC without switching to Linux.
  - rsheridan6 15y ago
    A cheap PC would be cheaper without an MS tax, unless MS was willing to give Windows away for free to keep Linux from getting a foothold. Sure, the money may not be much, but if you don't perceive a difference in quality, you'll buy the $.98 can of beans over the $.99 one. $115 is hardly a theoretical lower bound to the price of a PC. There are also large organizations that would like to cut costs wherever they can, and can't be expected to make up the Windows tax by installing crapware like a vendor can. The city of Munich is the most well-known example of a big player switching to Linux. The effort was not a complete failure but was something of a disappointment - I don't think Munich ended up saving any money when you consider the labor costs, etc. But if Linux had been ready and the transition had been more successful, you'd see a lot of imitators following Munich's lead. But it's probably a moot point anyway. I think Android will end up swallowing the PC market like a classic disruptive technology and stealing Linux's thunder anyway.