[Boost-users] Why Linux May Never Be a True Desktop OS

From: Andreas Sæbjørnsen (andreas.saebjoernsen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-25 10:35:38

http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html
Why Linux May Never Be a True Desktop OS E-Mail
Article<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/mailit/?id=50091>
Print Version <http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html#>
[image: Why Linux May Never Be a True Desktop OS]

By Rob Enderle
TechNewsWorld
04/24/06 5:00 AM PT

With Linux, the customer often expects to get the product for free and wants
the retail price of Windows deducted from his/her purchase price. There are
no funds passed back to the vendor and, because Linux is different,
customers tend to place more service calls -- at $85 a call. As a result,
the vendor generally ends up losing money.

 *The Formula for Total Customer Experience*
Nothing is more powerful than seeing real users interact with your
e-Commerce application, Web site, or software. Use Morae, a single,
collaborative software solution, to identify barriers to conversion, while
watching real users navigate your site. Free White
Paper!<http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html>

This week I'm speaking at the Desktop Linux Summit in San Diego on why the
PC OEMs don't, and probably never will, fully support Linux on the desktop.
This is somewhat of a deja vu for me since a decade ago my team made a
similar presentation at IBM <http://www.ibm.com/> (NYSE: IBM) [image: Latest
News about IBM]<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=IBM&scope=network>on
OS/2 and why it wouldn't beat Windows in its time. For the purpose of
this piece I'm using the word "Linux" as an open source OS catch-all so I
don't have to call out every distribution or variant.

Now, as it was then, the core of the argument wasn't the technology, the
strength of Microsoft <http://www.microsoft.com/> (Nasdaq: MSFT) [image:
Latest News about
Microsoft]<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Microsoft&scope=network>,
or anything, really, outside IBM's control. The reason was that IBM would
simply not do what was necessary to take the market away from Microsoft.

When I look at Microsoft these days I recall something former
Hewlett-Packard <http://www.hp.com/> (NYSE: HPQ) [image: Latest News about
Hewlett-Packard]<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Hewlett-Packard&scope=network>Chairman
Lou Platt once said: "My biggest problem is finding people who will
tell me the truth." I've never seen Microsoft as weak, from an execution
standpoint, before, but currently the firm appears weak. Taking advantage of
that weakness remains elusive for both Linux players and
Apple<http://www.apple.com/>(Nasdaq: AAPL) [image:
Latest News about
Apple]<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Apple&scope=network>,
however. Let's take a look at the reasons why it's been difficult for them
to move dramatically into the business or consumer desktop computer spaces.
  Classifieds
  Find IT Consultants<http://www.ectnews.com/adsys/link/?creative=3338&ENN_target=http://links.industrybrains.com/click?sid=461&scid=6962&rqctid=4330&pos=1&lid=387866&cid=63143&pr=2&tstamp=20060425102150&url=http://www.eworkmarkets.com/public/userprofile.cfm%3fMember%3dCon%26RefSource%3d622%26GCID%3dC16766x011%26keyword%3dInformation%2bWeek>
Post Your Project for Free. Get Bids from Thousands of Pre-Screened
Consultants.
------------------------------
Laptop DC power jacks parts &
service<http://www.ectnews.com/adsys/link/?creative=3338&ENN_target=http://links.industrybrains.com/click?sid=461&scid=6962&rqctid=4330&pos=2&lid=387450&cid=46176&pr=2&tstamp=20060425102150&url=http://www.laptopjacks.com>
Your laptop doesn't power up? You don't have to replace the whole
motherboard, you can just replace the part. We stock DC power s...
------------------------------
Computer, PDA & iPod
Accessories<http://www.ectnews.com/adsys/link/?creative=3338&ENN_target=http://links.industrybrains.com/click?sid=461&scid=6962&rqctid=4330&pos=3&lid=387400&cid=52321&pr=2&tstamp=20060425102150&url=http://www.laptopsforless.com>
Dell, IBM, Sony, Apple, HP, Compaq, Toshiba, Palm, iPod, and more.
Factory-direct Prices, Same-day Shipping, 30-day Money-back Gu...
   Doing What Is Necessary

When it comes to competition, typically you have the folks who are willing
to do what is necessary to win and the folks who aren't. In my personal
experience, I've seen again and again scenarios where a team would lay out a
plan for what they deemed was needed in order to be successful in a market
and then they'd watch as the executive in charge cherry picked the things
he/she wanted to do. As a result, the project failed, often disastrously.

People like to put filters over their eyes and ignore important steps they
don't want to perform on the road to achieving a goal. All of us have seen
examples of when this derails the plan. With OS/2, the last major challenger
to Windows, IBM had a list of things it needed to do in order for the
product to be successful. This list laid out staffing levels, marketing
expense, structural changes to the company and partnerships, and its
foundation was one of the most extensive pieces of research that company
ever did.

However as these recommendations went up the chain of command they were
changed or in some cases, ignored. The end result? OS/2 failed.

The requirements for OS/2's success included broad third party
hardware<http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html#> [image:
Powerful Yet Simple: HP ProLiant ML110 G3. Just $688 with the Intel(r)
Pentium(r) 4 Processor.] <http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html> and
software [image: operating
system]<http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html>support,
developer support, and Windows 32-bit support. In order to get into
the hardware, however, OS/2 couldn't come from IBM. This was probably the
single biggest deal breaker. Compaq, HP and others wouldn't support an OS
from a competitor and, much like it was with Sun and
Java<http://java.sun.com/> [image:
Latest News about
Java]<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Java&scope=network>and
Netscape and Navigator, the biggest weakness that OS/2 had was IBM not
doing what the market required of it to be successful.

After reading up <http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/18/122246> on
a subject that speaks to a likely OEM desktop requirement -- strong vendor
supported drivers -- I deeply doubt whether the folks working on Linux will
make the difficult tradeoffs needed to assure success. Think of the iPod,
for example. In order to achieve success Apple had to support Windows, as
distasteful as that must have been for the firm.
The OEM Cost of Linux and Windows Windows is free to the OEMs. In fact, not
only is it free, but
Microsoft<http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html#>,
in effect, pays them to take it. Regardless of the cost, Windows is a
logical choice, and a straight pass. Dell <http://www.dell.com/> (Nasdaq:
DELL) [image: Latest News about
Dell]<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Dell&scope=network>pays
about $80 for it and typically charges about $80 for it. There is
rarely much of a mark up. If Microsoft were to lower its price that lowered
price would be reflected in virtually all desktop hardware immediately.

Microsoft provides a number of services which include development support,
service support, marketing support, technicians, classes, databases and
support materials, and it picks up a lot of the service load as well. In
addition, it provides marketing co-op dollars, incentives for early adoption
of new products, and ensures a somewhat level playing field (which could be
good or bad) for the vendors.

Linux, on the other hand, is often viewed as "free." Even when it comes with
a fee, that fee is also passed through without any mark up. However, the
hardware vendor must now provide all of the things that Microsoft has been
providing, too. Particularly painful are services, as customers expect a
similar experience with open source that they have with Windows and will
often call the vendor to help troubleshoot. The vendor takes all of the
related costs; there are typically no dependable (on-site) resources, unless
the vendor supplies some of its own.

With Linux, the customer often expects to get the product for free and wants
the retail price of Windows deducted from his/her purchase price. There are
no funds passed back to the vendor and, because Linux is different,
customers tend to place more service calls -- at $85 a call. As a result,
the vendor generally ends up losing money on average with Linux.

This is the primary reason vendors don't want to do desktop Linux, unless
there is an extremely lucrative services contract tied to it. Given services
revenue often flows to the services division, the desktop hardware divisions
still do their best to throw their bodies in front of these efforts.
 Too Many Versions

An old rule of the desktop is that support costs go up by the square of the
number of different products you have to support. This may actually
understate the problem now that much of this support is done in remote sites
like India.

For each version of a product the support team has to be trained, support
scripts have to be created and updated; patches have to be collected, tested
and deployed; and line changes have to be tested against every operating
system version shipped. This is part of the reason that IBM hardware was not
competitive in the early nineties; the extra cost of supporting OS/2 was
theirs and theirs alone while IBM software got the largest portion of OS/2
revenue (that division was profitable, though OS/2 wasn't).

There is broad diversity among Linux buyers, and Red
Hat<http://www.redhat.com/>(Nasdaq: RHAT) [image:
Latest News about Red
Hat]<http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/search.pl?query=Red%20Hat&scope=network>,
which is the closest to a standard Linux OS, isn't yet dominant enough to
claim victory. The OEMs might be able to handle one version of Linux but
until there is only one they have to handle they will probably avoid doing
it.
 Excessive Advocacy

A few years ago I recall getting a note from an Apple guy who said something
to the effect of, "I'm sure glad all of the crazy Apple supporters moved
over to Linux." While I seriously doubt all of the crazy Apple zealots moved
to Linux, I can say that they were instrumental in getting Apple out of
large enterprises.

Zealots, regardless of cause, have a tendency to treat very poorly those who
don't share their beliefs, and, historically, they have been much more
likely to misuse e-mail [image: Integrate BlackBerry with your CRM
Solution]<http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/50091.html>or take a
dispute to a public forum. They tend to be human resource
nightmares and anyone wanting to create a powerful argument against either
platform has only to take the decision maker to any of a number of fan Web
sites to create the impression of significant risk.

This can be particularly problematic now with employee blogs starting to
spread and more internal disagreements being made public. Management
typically does not want to create an environment where company dirty laundry
is aired or where employees organize to fight executive orders. Yet zealots
appear to do this as a matter of course: their beliefs come first, even
though this is technology, not religion.

With all this in mind, IT executives want to be able to decide to abandon a
Linux or Apple trial with faith that the employees would follow those orders
and not revolt. They also want to feel in control with regard to how the
technology is used and not cede that to an external or internal employee
advocacy group without conscious thought.

In conclusion, there are a few key requirements for alternative platforms to
be successful, success being measured by significant market share, in the
general market.
 A Reliable Road Map to Linux Desktop Success

The list of clear requirements includes:

   - Clear OEM resources to match or exceed those currently provided by
   Microsoft. This would include R&D support and co-marketing dollars.
   - Embrace existing desktop requirements (roadmaps, application
   support, proprietary drivers, consistent patch releases schedules and
   documentation, clear escalation lines for support).
   - Seek out reasonable advocates who will take direction from their
   executives and not from other advocates.
   - Make it profitable for the OEM.

Recall that for Microsoft it took about 5 years, US$10 billion and Y2K to
move the majority of the installed PC base to another kernel -- and they had
to kill the old one off to do it.

In the end, I look at this short list and still doubt it is reasonably
achievable. I also wonder if Linux were actually modified to be able to
comply with this list whether it would even be Linux anymore. That deserves
a little thought. Generally speaking, you have to give something up in order
to get something else. However there are times when what you sacrifice is
actually more important than what you gain.