5 ms·

i have to wonder how many ubuntu users are using ubuntu simply for the cost of owning it ($0). If that group is high, which i think it is, it may imply that a l

i have to wonder how many ubuntu users are using ubuntu simply for the cost of owning it ($0). If that group is high, which i think it is, it may imply that a lot of those same users, might not want to put money into a project. Speculation.

threedaymonk 13y ago
Do you have any basis for thinking that? I ask because my perception is that the cost of OS is effectively zero for almost all computer users: Windows or Mac OS comes free* with the computer. * Free and bundled together at a sharply discounted cost (or the cost of R&D in Apple's case) to the manufacturer aren't exactly the same, but that's not apparent to the purchaser.
- danudey 13y ago
  The cost of OS is zero when acquiring a new computer through a retail outlet, and zero only for Linux users when acquiring computers through donations, salvage, etc.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    Wouldn't a lot of people just acquire some pirated version of a Windows OS?
  - e12e 13y ago
    In my experience donated/salvaged/second hand PCs usually come with an OEM licence (also true for second hand macs). Perhaps that's different in the US? And while you theoretically pay for the Windows licence that come with a new machine a) most people aren't aware of that, and b) aren't aware that you can get that money back if don't use it.
    - scholia 13y ago
      (b) because usually you can't. Nor should you be able to...
      - e12e 13y ago
        I believe there are some strong anti-trust arguments for it to be possible to pay for only the OS you want to buy, not the one the manufacturer bundles with your device? Granted there's still a de-facto monopoly on paid for desktop operating systems for general x86 pcs -- but does that really mean that we should try to keep it that way?
        scholia 13y ago
        That's not how systems are designed and built. You're not paying for the OS, you're buying an integrated product that wouldn't exist unless it was designed and manufactured for Windows.
mtgx 13y ago
I think your speculation is quite wrong. Linux users are typically the highest payers for games, on average.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  On every[0] Humble Bundle so far, the highest average donations come from Linux users. On some, they've even donated the same amount or more in total dollars compared to OS X users - ie, Linux users have been more profitable even though they have a much smaller market share. In short, Linux users are very profitable (per-user). [0] I can't confirm that it's 100%, but it's been every Humble Bundle I've participated in (a lot), which I think is a large enough sample size for the purposes of this statement.
  - tuananh 13y ago
    I noticed that too and have always wondered why. Maybe the lack of games make Linux users appreciate it more?
    - mayhew 13y ago
      That and the fact that a lot of people want Linux to succeed as a desktop platform.
    - mbillie1 13y ago
      When you use a lot of FOSS, I think (at least for myself) I tend to pick my spots to get closed-source, for-cost software. If it'll run well on my platform, and I like the organization developing it, it feels more like... monetary collaboration, say, than simply buying another thing. If you're used to buying all your software, paying the minimum might look like just the (perfectly reasonable) cheapest way to get it? Not to suggest that there actually IS any difference between the two groups when they pay - I just feel like more a good-deed-doing partner when I voluntarily pay more for something like humble bundle, that's all. It's silly and false, but it's definitely a feeling.
    - kelvie 13y ago
Shorel 13y ago
Find how many Steam subscribers are running Ubuntu and buying games, and subtract that number from the total estimated Ubuntu users. Count me in the 'buys games' lot.
- zanny 13y ago
  Ubuntu is a very reasonable average joe OS. It is actually really crappy for gaming - when I was using Ubuntu at the Unity switch around 10.04, there were tons of absurd full screen and tearing bugs in games. Even now that most of that is fixed, Unity/compiz is still vastly outperformed by everything else when running full screen opengl apps. On Gnome / KDE I never encountered those.
  - ersii 13y ago
    I'd encourage you to try it again. I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 on my Dell XPS 13 (Sputnik Edition of course) - and I have no problems with playing Steam games. I havn't really had any problems playing any game that works on *NIX so far - not that there's all that many.. but still.
    - zanny 13y ago
      I switched to Arch a long while ago. I also prefer the KDE app suite, systemd, and pacman. I still like where Ubuntu is going, but KDE just has feature density I like. I just put relatives on Opensuse because tumbleweed is really solid. I value that Canonical can bring people to *nix, but I like my customization and a lot of the magic that KDE can pull off. Also, I love writing QML + C++, though with Ubuntu transitioning to be qt focused I could get that anywhere. I hope this means, more than anything, the year of qt is 2014, because I'd really like to get employed working in qml / qt projects.
    - lmm 13y ago
      If prior form is anything to go by they're about to break it all again with the Mir switch.
  - Shorel 13y ago
DocG 13y ago
If you are in a country, where people can't afford MS products, then they usually don't give two damns about legal issues(because there are none). All hail the pirates, because pirating is the norm. Source: From country where pirated windows used to be norm. Still is in ethical standpoint. Only OS bundled with computers has changed that.
jamespcole2 13y ago
I don't use Ubuntu because I'm cheap, I use it because it's the best tool for the job. I think in general Ubuntu users are going to be developers(read have expendable income to spend on gadgets). I think making a play for the high end is the smart move, create a device everyone wants and aspires to own and they will sell themselves. Also if your main market is developers(as I'm assuming it is for the Edge) then you need to blow them away with a beautifully designed high end device to get them to buy it and then start developing the app ecosystem.

threedaymonk 13y ago

Do you have any basis for thinking that? I ask because my perception is that the cost of OS is effectively zero for almost all computer users: Windows or Mac OS comes free* with the computer. * Free and bundled together at a sharply discounted cost (or the cost of R&D in Apple's case) to the manufacturer aren't exactly the same, but that's not apparent to the purchaser.

danudey 13y ago
The cost of OS is zero when acquiring a new computer through a retail outlet, and zero only for Linux users when acquiring computers through donations, salvage, etc.
- Dewie 13y ago
  Wouldn't a lot of people just acquire some pirated version of a Windows OS?
- e12e 13y ago
  In my experience donated/salvaged/second hand PCs usually come with an OEM licence (also true for second hand macs). Perhaps that's different in the US? And while you theoretically pay for the Windows licence that come with a new machine a) most people aren't aware of that, and b) aren't aware that you can get that money back if don't use it.
  - scholia 13y ago
    (b) because usually you can't. Nor should you be able to...
    - e12e 13y ago
      I believe there are some strong anti-trust arguments for it to be possible to pay for only the OS you want to buy, not the one the manufacturer bundles with your device? Granted there's still a de-facto monopoly on paid for desktop operating systems for general x86 pcs -- but does that really mean that we should try to keep it that way?
      - scholia 13y ago
        That's not how systems are designed and built. You're not paying for the OS, you're buying an integrated product that wouldn't exist unless it was designed and manufactured for Windows.

mtgx 13y ago

I think your speculation is quite wrong. Linux users are typically the highest payers for games, on average.

chimeracoder 13y ago
On every[0] Humble Bundle so far, the highest average donations come from Linux users. On some, they've even donated the same amount or more in total dollars compared to OS X users - ie, Linux users have been more profitable even though they have a much smaller market share. In short, Linux users are very profitable (per-user). [0] I can't confirm that it's 100%, but it's been every Humble Bundle I've participated in (a lot), which I think is a large enough sample size for the purposes of this statement.
- tuananh 13y ago
  I noticed that too and have always wondered why. Maybe the lack of games make Linux users appreciate it more?
  - mayhew 13y ago
    That and the fact that a lot of people want Linux to succeed as a desktop platform.
  - mbillie1 13y ago
    When you use a lot of FOSS, I think (at least for myself) I tend to pick my spots to get closed-source, for-cost software. If it'll run well on my platform, and I like the organization developing it, it feels more like... monetary collaboration, say, than simply buying another thing. If you're used to buying all your software, paying the minimum might look like just the (perfectly reasonable) cheapest way to get it? Not to suggest that there actually IS any difference between the two groups when they pay - I just feel like more a good-deed-doing partner when I voluntarily pay more for something like humble bundle, that's all. It's silly and false, but it's definitely a feeling.
  - kelvie 13y ago

Shorel 13y ago

Find how many Steam subscribers are running Ubuntu and buying games, and subtract that number from the total estimated Ubuntu users. Count me in the 'buys games' lot.

zanny 13y ago
Ubuntu is a very reasonable average joe OS. It is actually really crappy for gaming - when I was using Ubuntu at the Unity switch around 10.04, there were tons of absurd full screen and tearing bugs in games. Even now that most of that is fixed, Unity/compiz is still vastly outperformed by everything else when running full screen opengl apps. On Gnome / KDE I never encountered those.
- ersii 13y ago
  I'd encourage you to try it again. I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 on my Dell XPS 13 (Sputnik Edition of course) - and I have no problems with playing Steam games. I havn't really had any problems playing any game that works on *NIX so far - not that there's all that many.. but still.
  - zanny 13y ago
    I switched to Arch a long while ago. I also prefer the KDE app suite, systemd, and pacman. I still like where Ubuntu is going, but KDE just has feature density I like. I just put relatives on Opensuse because tumbleweed is really solid. I value that Canonical can bring people to *nix, but I like my customization and a lot of the magic that KDE can pull off. Also, I love writing QML + C++, though with Ubuntu transitioning to be qt focused I could get that anywhere. I hope this means, more than anything, the year of qt is 2014, because I'd really like to get employed working in qml / qt projects.
  - lmm 13y ago
    If prior form is anything to go by they're about to break it all again with the Mir switch.
- Shorel 13y ago

DocG 13y ago

If you are in a country, where people can't afford MS products, then they usually don't give two damns about legal issues(because there are none). All hail the pirates, because pirating is the norm. Source: From country where pirated windows used to be norm. Still is in ethical standpoint. Only OS bundled with computers has changed that.

jamespcole2 13y ago

I don't use Ubuntu because I'm cheap, I use it because it's the best tool for the job. I think in general Ubuntu users are going to be developers(read have expendable income to spend on gadgets). I think making a play for the high end is the smart move, create a device everyone wants and aspires to own and they will sell themselves. Also if your main market is developers(as I'm assuming it is for the Edge) then you need to blow them away with a beautifully designed high end device to get them to buy it and then start developing the app ecosystem.