Khaotic Musings
Random musings on Linux and Free and Open Source Software.
Saturday 30 May 2009, 7:07 AM
Asus and Microsoft Smacking Netbook Linux? And You're Surprised?
A few people have recently sent me links to articles, such as this one, here on ZDNet UK, which report that Asus and Microsoft are joining forces to reduce the demand for Linux in the netbook market. These correspondents claim surprise that Asus, which was just recently a booster for Linux on netbooks, should have now switched sides, and be seen to be backing Microsoft.
I can't say I share this surprise. At no point did Asus switch sides.
To Asus, Linux was nothing more than a means to an end; namely, find some mechanism to make a lower-cost, small-form-factor portable PC possible. Microsoft wouldn't come to the party, either on morphing Windows to fit such a small-form-factor device (Microsoft was instead pushing Vista up that Sisyphean hill at the time), nor on price ("What, drop the price on Windows to make a cheap laptop possible? Are you nuts?").
So, Asus did something clever: they reached for Linux, which they could morph into a viable desktop environment, suitable for something like the original Eee PC, and which would also reduce their product bill-of-materials by a substantial amount, by avoiding the OEM Windows licence fee.
The Asus Eee PC was a rocketing success, perhaps the most successful new PC launched this decade. So much for desktop Linux not being viable for the masses.
If Asus had had their way, however, they would have shipped with a customised and super-cheap version of Windows. They calculated that if they could make the Eee product a success, Microsoft would come kowtowing to them, rather than the traditional power relationship of mid-tier vendors like Asus kowtowing to Microsoft.
So yes, in short, Asus used Linux as leverage cluebat, to ensure that Microsoft came to the pricing party with Windows.
And, as you can tell, it worked.
Microsoft dropped the OEM price for XP by some (to them) alarming percentage. Even more damagingly, the success of the Eee, necessitating the resuscitation of Windows XP to fill a hole that Vista could not, seriously wrong-footed Microsoft in the process - so much so that it was probably the biggest single reason for Vista losing market momentum and becoming the perceived dud that it is now.
So, here we are today.
Asus has guaranteed access to cheap Windows. It's essentially making 'netbooks' at inflated (ie, notebook) prices - none of its netbooks since the 701 model sold at a lower price. So, what's Asus market-position difference between now and 18 months ago, when it, like Acer and any number of mid-tier PC makers were Microsoft's biggest boosters, shipping nothing but PCs running Windows? Not much. So, you see, Asus never switched sides.
In reality, firms like Asus (and Acer, et al) were never, ever, pro-Linux. I'm surprised that people thought they were.
In general, the less brand-name power a PC vendor has. the more pro-Microsoft it is, as it can bank on Microsoft's brand. This is why it's much easier for IBM and HP to be pro-Linux than Lenovo and Asus.
The Asus gameplan has worked out quite well. The only thing that can derail it now are real, low cost netbooks. You know, like the dozens coming on the market later this year, all running Linux or Android on ARM CPUs...
I can't say I share this surprise. At no point did Asus switch sides.
To Asus, Linux was nothing more than a means to an end; namely, find some mechanism to make a lower-cost, small-form-factor portable PC possible. Microsoft wouldn't come to the party, either on morphing Windows to fit such a small-form-factor device (Microsoft was instead pushing Vista up that Sisyphean hill at the time), nor on price ("What, drop the price on Windows to make a cheap laptop possible? Are you nuts?").
So, Asus did something clever: they reached for Linux, which they could morph into a viable desktop environment, suitable for something like the original Eee PC, and which would also reduce their product bill-of-materials by a substantial amount, by avoiding the OEM Windows licence fee.
The Asus Eee PC was a rocketing success, perhaps the most successful new PC launched this decade. So much for desktop Linux not being viable for the masses.
If Asus had had their way, however, they would have shipped with a customised and super-cheap version of Windows. They calculated that if they could make the Eee product a success, Microsoft would come kowtowing to them, rather than the traditional power relationship of mid-tier vendors like Asus kowtowing to Microsoft.
So yes, in short, Asus used Linux as leverage cluebat, to ensure that Microsoft came to the pricing party with Windows.
And, as you can tell, it worked.
Microsoft dropped the OEM price for XP by some (to them) alarming percentage. Even more damagingly, the success of the Eee, necessitating the resuscitation of Windows XP to fill a hole that Vista could not, seriously wrong-footed Microsoft in the process - so much so that it was probably the biggest single reason for Vista losing market momentum and becoming the perceived dud that it is now.
So, here we are today.
Asus has guaranteed access to cheap Windows. It's essentially making 'netbooks' at inflated (ie, notebook) prices - none of its netbooks since the 701 model sold at a lower price. So, what's Asus market-position difference between now and 18 months ago, when it, like Acer and any number of mid-tier PC makers were Microsoft's biggest boosters, shipping nothing but PCs running Windows? Not much. So, you see, Asus never switched sides.
In reality, firms like Asus (and Acer, et al) were never, ever, pro-Linux. I'm surprised that people thought they were.
In general, the less brand-name power a PC vendor has. the more pro-Microsoft it is, as it can bank on Microsoft's brand. This is why it's much easier for IBM and HP to be pro-Linux than Lenovo and Asus.
The Asus gameplan has worked out quite well. The only thing that can derail it now are real, low cost netbooks. You know, like the dozens coming on the market later this year, all running Linux or Android on ARM CPUs...
Thursday 28 May 2009, 6:54 AM
Radical Idea: Charge Vendors for Software Deployed in Schools
Many years back, when I had the time to make the rounds at various government education departments, I asked the brass why on earth they didn't charge software vendors (like Microsoft, Adobe et al) for software the government's schools put in front of students?
What I meant by my question was this.
Rather than our public-sector education organisations paying for software, they should in fact not only get the software for free, they should actually be billing the software vendors for the right to place their wares and branding in front of millions of school students. Much like television and radio stations offer up a bidding system to advertisers who want to capture the eyes and ears of the 'audience', schools could operate a bidding process where vendors bid for accessing student's attention for their software.
I couldn't get one single cogent answer from my audience as to why this wasn't a viable idea. The idea would not only reduce the software costs to our schools by hundreds of millions, but perhaps, with the right kind of negotiation, wipe out the costs to schools for much of their IT needs, as the vendors' payments might just cover the costs involved for hardware acquisitions, networking and support.
Why aren't education departments worldwide pursuing this?
Why indeed.
You might ask: "Why would Microsoft et al pay to have their software placed in front of school-kids?"
And chances are, you'll already know the answer.
Imagine what would happen if a generation of school kids was raised, from an early age, to be Linux, OpenOffice.org and Gimp users?
What's that I hear you say? Kids can't use that software? Rubbish. I know of many experiments which had school classes split into two; one group learning something like the Gimp for image editing, the other Photoshop. At the end of training, the groups were swapped. And while yes, the Photoshop-trained kids complained that the Gimp wasn't intuitive, the Gimp-trained students said the same thing about Photoshop!
Now, imagine once more, if a whole generation of school kids was raised on Linux and open source software. Imagine what that would do to the current proprietary vendors who enjoy a strangle-hold in certain platform and application market segments. Imagine what that would do to their markets. Imagine again how much said vendors would pay to ensure that that never happens. And now you can begin to understand the incredible leverage that national school boards and departments of education have.
And yet, they do nothing with that power.
Why is it so?
What I meant by my question was this.
Rather than our public-sector education organisations paying for software, they should in fact not only get the software for free, they should actually be billing the software vendors for the right to place their wares and branding in front of millions of school students. Much like television and radio stations offer up a bidding system to advertisers who want to capture the eyes and ears of the 'audience', schools could operate a bidding process where vendors bid for accessing student's attention for their software.
I couldn't get one single cogent answer from my audience as to why this wasn't a viable idea. The idea would not only reduce the software costs to our schools by hundreds of millions, but perhaps, with the right kind of negotiation, wipe out the costs to schools for much of their IT needs, as the vendors' payments might just cover the costs involved for hardware acquisitions, networking and support.
Why aren't education departments worldwide pursuing this?
Why indeed.
You might ask: "Why would Microsoft et al pay to have their software placed in front of school-kids?"
And chances are, you'll already know the answer.
Imagine what would happen if a generation of school kids was raised, from an early age, to be Linux, OpenOffice.org and Gimp users?
What's that I hear you say? Kids can't use that software? Rubbish. I know of many experiments which had school classes split into two; one group learning something like the Gimp for image editing, the other Photoshop. At the end of training, the groups were swapped. And while yes, the Photoshop-trained kids complained that the Gimp wasn't intuitive, the Gimp-trained students said the same thing about Photoshop!
Now, imagine once more, if a whole generation of school kids was raised on Linux and open source software. Imagine what that would do to the current proprietary vendors who enjoy a strangle-hold in certain platform and application market segments. Imagine what that would do to their markets. Imagine again how much said vendors would pay to ensure that that never happens. And now you can begin to understand the incredible leverage that national school boards and departments of education have.
And yet, they do nothing with that power.
Why is it so?
Monday 25 May 2009, 2:51 AM
The Great Government Software Wedge
I noticed the following news story (Tough talks delay G2009 licence deal) on a New Zealand IT trade site this morning. In short, the New Zealand government has wedged itself into a corner by not ensuring strong competition in one of its key technology procurement arenas - computer software. As such, its supplier, in this case Microsoft, can now rake it over the coals, and ask pretty much any price; the government as customer has nowhere else to turn.
For years, members of the open source industry have called for an increase in competition for the procurement of infrastructure and desktop productivity software in the government and public sectors in most western countries - many non-western countries are already working towards ensuring that they're not trapped in software price wedge scenarios by foreign software vendors, they're well ahead of us, people.
Echoing calls that we made some years back, we note that there has been increasing interest and attention from government procurement and policy staff (for example, in the UK) towards seeking alternatives to existing entrenched platforms and software. Failure to do so will result in government agencies being caught in a vendor lock-in scenario which will be extremely costly to maintain and escape from.
Specifically, there is a growing volume of system and application software which have become commoditised in recent years: file, print and email servers, DNS, web, proxy and other edge-of-network servers, firewalls, smaller database and application servers, desktop operating systems and desktop productivity suites are all now available in quality open source implementations, that support a broad range of operating systems and carry no licence costs.
The global open source industry strongly recommends that governments begin the process of preparing migration plans to these platforms over the coming years. This will be the best way of increasing competition in this space and ensuring competitive prices from all software vendors in future.
In order to kick-start this increase in competition, it may be necessary to take a leaf from other areas of government procurement practice.
To cite one example I'm aware of, the Australian governments already have it within their power to exclude specific providers from procurement bids, if they deem those providers are endangering the competitive landscape through a monopolistic position.
Exactly such a scenario was enacted by the Tasmanian state government a few years back. In Tasmania, the government elected to exclude Telstra (Australia's former monopoly telco) from a wide-ranging tender. The government realised that in a market dominated by Telstra, this kind of action is the only way to break the vicious circle which keeps other competitors out of the market.
Here's a quick and simple recipe that government agencies and procurement bodies can follow to increase the level of competition in the public-sector software market:
Governments should determine the quantity of
software purchased from proprietary vendors which
could be replaced by commodity open source
equivalents like Linux, OpenOffice.org, Sendmail and
Apache where it makes sense.
Governments exclude entrenched proprietary vendors
from just a single round of desktop, server and
infrastructure software tenders, to help reduce that
supplier's monopoly position within the market.
Governments look to specifying the use of open
standards and protocols that promote competition
amongst vendors in future tenders, rather than
limiting choice.
For years, members of the open source industry have called for an increase in competition for the procurement of infrastructure and desktop productivity software in the government and public sectors in most western countries - many non-western countries are already working towards ensuring that they're not trapped in software price wedge scenarios by foreign software vendors, they're well ahead of us, people.
Echoing calls that we made some years back, we note that there has been increasing interest and attention from government procurement and policy staff (for example, in the UK) towards seeking alternatives to existing entrenched platforms and software. Failure to do so will result in government agencies being caught in a vendor lock-in scenario which will be extremely costly to maintain and escape from.
Specifically, there is a growing volume of system and application software which have become commoditised in recent years: file, print and email servers, DNS, web, proxy and other edge-of-network servers, firewalls, smaller database and application servers, desktop operating systems and desktop productivity suites are all now available in quality open source implementations, that support a broad range of operating systems and carry no licence costs.
The global open source industry strongly recommends that governments begin the process of preparing migration plans to these platforms over the coming years. This will be the best way of increasing competition in this space and ensuring competitive prices from all software vendors in future.
In order to kick-start this increase in competition, it may be necessary to take a leaf from other areas of government procurement practice.
To cite one example I'm aware of, the Australian governments already have it within their power to exclude specific providers from procurement bids, if they deem those providers are endangering the competitive landscape through a monopolistic position.
Exactly such a scenario was enacted by the Tasmanian state government a few years back. In Tasmania, the government elected to exclude Telstra (Australia's former monopoly telco) from a wide-ranging tender. The government realised that in a market dominated by Telstra, this kind of action is the only way to break the vicious circle which keeps other competitors out of the market.
Here's a quick and simple recipe that government agencies and procurement bodies can follow to increase the level of competition in the public-sector software market:
Governments should determine the quantity of
software purchased from proprietary vendors which
could be replaced by commodity open source
equivalents like Linux, OpenOffice.org, Sendmail and
Apache where it makes sense.
Governments exclude entrenched proprietary vendors
from just a single round of desktop, server and
infrastructure software tenders, to help reduce that
supplier's monopoly position within the market.
Governments look to specifying the use of open
standards and protocols that promote competition
amongst vendors in future tenders, rather than
limiting choice.
Thursday 21 May 2009, 3:05 AM
Report: Desktop Linux in Business Environments
Freeform Dynamics Ltd, and IBM have just released a business report titled Linux on the Desktop Lessons from mainstream business adoption.
While I'm part way through, it's already obvious that it contains a good deal of useful information on the realities of desktop Linux in a business setting.
The report's preamble states:
"The Microsoft Windows based desktop has been a fact of life in the mainstream business environment for so long now that it is often just accepted as a given. Some organisations, however, have been actively exploring and indeed successfully deploying alternatives, and the Linux based desktop is one of these. Based on candid ‘warts and all’ feedback from over a thousand experienced adopters, we take a practical look at the use of desktop Linux in a real world business context."
The key findings are:
* Desktop Linux adoption is primarily driven by cost reduction
* But deployment is currently limited, and challenges to further adoption frequently exist
* Selective deployment based on objective targeting will yield the highest ROI and acceptance
* Linux desktop roll out is easier than expected for properly targeted end-user groups
* A focus on usability reflects a maturing of thinking
You can download the (PDF) report from here.
While I'm part way through, it's already obvious that it contains a good deal of useful information on the realities of desktop Linux in a business setting.
The report's preamble states:
"The Microsoft Windows based desktop has been a fact of life in the mainstream business environment for so long now that it is often just accepted as a given. Some organisations, however, have been actively exploring and indeed successfully deploying alternatives, and the Linux based desktop is one of these. Based on candid ‘warts and all’ feedback from over a thousand experienced adopters, we take a practical look at the use of desktop Linux in a real world business context."
The key findings are:
* Desktop Linux adoption is primarily driven by cost reduction
* But deployment is currently limited, and challenges to further adoption frequently exist
* Selective deployment based on objective targeting will yield the highest ROI and acceptance
* Linux desktop roll out is easier than expected for properly targeted end-user groups
* A focus on usability reflects a maturing of thinking
You can download the (PDF) report from here.
Thursday 21 May 2009, 1:43 AM
Dell Demos Ubuntu NR & Latest Android Release on Netbook
Not normally in the habit of posting video links on here, but this one, posted just a few days ago on the official Dell YouTube channel, has Doug Anson, a Dell technology strategist showing off the new Mini 10v running both Ubuntu Netbook Remix and Android.
Ubuntu Netbook Remix and Android on Dell Mini 10v
Now if they would only make such systems widely available, and at a reasonable price. ;-)
Ubuntu Netbook Remix and Android on Dell Mini 10v
Now if they would only make such systems widely available, and at a reasonable price. ;-)
Previous
