Ever hear the argument that a company that sells software and sells support are most likely making their software harder to use so they can sell more support? I've heard it applied to Open Source in general, and Linux specifically. Especially when the software is free, the major money is made in support, so their motivation is to generate support revenue by making it harder to use. It has been argued that this motivation is the reason Linux will not take over the desktop.
The thing about the logic is Linux would just need to be almost as easy to use as Windows to become a viable desktop alternative, since it is already cheaper and more secure. (This is assuming things like hardware and software support are covered.)
If you argue that Windows is easier to use then Linux today we only need to look at the fact there is far more money made today off supporting Windows then Linux, so I don't think there is any danger of companies providing support for Linux loosing business by making the program easier to use, thus attracting more users. I don't have any hard numbers, but I imagine more support revenue is generated per copy of windows installed then per copy of Linux installed.
In fact when we look at the real world we would see that these companies supporting Linux would want to make it even easier to use then Windows. Then we would see more large scale deployments of Linux, which is where the real support money is to be made. I seriously doubt Red Hat (or any other Linux supporting company) is looking to make much money off supporting a single end-user in using Linux. But once they convert all the single end-users then the corporations, schools, etc. are not far behind.
Now there may be some out there who are making their software more difficult to generate more support revenue, but they are the exception. Not only are they the exception, but they are in a loosing battle.
Subject Tags: [Programming] [Software] [Linux] [Windows] [Desktop] [Usability] [Support] [Red Hat] [Microsoft]
2 comments:
To summarize your point: 1) Windows is perceived to be easier to use than Linux, 2) more money is made providing support per Windows license than Linux license -- therefore, software that is easier to use must bring in more support revenue than software that is more difficult to use.
I do have a few comments on this: First, you admit that you don’t have hard facts regarding the per licensed copy / support revenue figure, which seems like an important omission since it is one of your main arguments.
Second, discussing usability and not including OS X seems inappropriate. It is also the perception that OS X is easier to use than Windows. Does it then stand to reason that more revenue is generated providing technical support to Mac users? Do you believe this to be true?
Also, if your ease-of-use-will-cause-penetration-into-the-corporate-world theory was true, then wouldn’t it also be true that the Mac should have gained a majority use there by now?
I don’t think that Mac proponents, who make ease-of-use a central theme, would also suggest that once a person has purchased a Mac that they will then need to call technical support many times a year.
No, ease-of-use means not needing to call a technical support person ever – thus, never paying for technical support.
Just MHO.
Doug R.
To summarize your point: 1) Windows is perceived to be easier to use than Linux, 2) more money is made providing support per Windows license than Linux license -- therefore, software that is easier to use must bring in more support revenue than software that is more difficult to use.
I do have a few comments on this: First, you admit that you don’t have hard facts regarding the per licensed copy / support revenue figure, which seems like an important omission since it is one of your main arguments.
Second, discussing usability and not including OS X seems inappropriate. It is also the perception that OS X is easier to use than Windows. Does it then stand to reason that more revenue is generated providing technical support to Mac users? Do you believe this to be true?
Also, if your ease-of-use-will-cause-penetration-into-the-corporate-world theory was true, then wouldn’t it also be true that the Mac should have gained a majority use there by now?
I don’t think that Mac proponents, who make ease-of-use a central theme, would also suggest that once a person has purchased a Mac that they will then need to call technical support many times a year.
No, ease-of-use means not needing to call a technical support person ever – thus, never paying for technical support.
Just MHO.
Doug R.
Post a Comment