proprietary drivers and secretive hardware [was: Supporting Ubuntu growth]

[Hubert Figuiere]

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:00, Gareth Evans wrote:
> I'd imagine the reason that vendors do not make software for ubuntu/linux
> in general is because it does not make money (which vendors have been known
> to like).  While of course it is cheaper to make the software, there can't
> really be any meaningful return on it if it's going to be free (as in
> beer).  Of course, there are some vendors such as Novell, etc that have
> caught on that you can make a lot of money on supporting the free product -
> which I hope will be the case for many more vendors.

Not. It is more about conservatism. They want to keep the same business model, 
and the problem is that Linux by itself does not allow technically that 
business model: proprietary software with a pay per use[1].

Think about that whole music industry that now require DRM because they still 
want to control who play what now that duplicating CD with hifi quality is 
easy and cheap, and that exchanging music is easy too with the advent of 
broadband. So instead of trying to find new ways to make business, they try 
to find new way to protect their business.

Imagine, what would have happened if in the early 20th century, the candle 
sticks manufacturers would have outlawed lightbulbs because it was killing 
their business?

Markets evolve, and business has to evolve. The only fact that Microsoft 
spread FUD about free software and linux is because they pose a threat to 
Microsoft. The day Microsoft won't be able to make excessive revenue on 
Microsoft Office (90% profit) or on Windows licenses (55%), they will have to 
shutdown unprofitable businesses: MSN, XBox, etc. that are actually losing 
money.


Hub

[1] yes, software you buy us pay per use, as you don't own it. It is a 
service, not a good, beside the eventual documentation and physical media, 
but even these are less and less provided.