Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

http://www.webstylr.com/2012/09/24/dear-canonical-please-let-me-pay-for-ubuntu/

by webstylr • 14 years ago

97 88 14 years ago

webstylr.com

dagw• 14 years ago

Already exists: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/get-involved/donate

nodata• 14 years ago

He wants to pay for a product, not donate.

nicholassmith3• 14 years ago

In this case the product isn't a product, it's an effort. Donations fit the model better as you're donating to the effort of a group of people to manage something, rather than to a group of people creating something from the ground up.

That's not to say the Ubuntu devs don't create anything of additional value.

RobAley4• 14 years ago

Or http://www.ubuntu.com/business/desktop#services if you want to make it a truly commercial relationship.

imrehg• 14 years ago

This wouldn't really work for a simple desktop user, seems like doing IT-department friendly crippled releases. Otherwise I was actually considering it...

lwhi• 14 years ago

Exactly - a requirement for payment will never happen. I think the author is forgetting the base ethos behind this OS - i.e. it is FOSS. If you want to support the project with your money, donate instead.

I initially thought that the idea to integrate Amazon was a very bad thing - but I think it could be useful. I use Amazon for many purchases, with the shopping lens search results from Amazon will be available via the launcher.

However, I think the lens should be easy to disable - especially since user data will be sent to a third party by default. At present the package can be removed, but this might not be intuitive enough for some users [1]

I also think the store / aggregator associated with shopping lens should be configurable to avoid providing Amazon with a monopoly over other sellers.

[1] sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping

flatline34• 14 years ago

Doesn't work. If it did work, Ubuntu wouldn't be reaching like this for revenue opportunities.

wpietri2• 14 years ago

And is impossible to find.

To find that, you have to go to the home page, click on "community", then "get involved", and then find the little "donate" tab. I went looking the other day and gave up.

Put a friggin' button in the dock on every machine that shows whether you've donated recently. If they can put Amazon affiliate links in the main interface, they can just ask me directly for money.

TimSchumann• 14 years ago

Are you willing to pay one dollar every time you open up a web browser in Ubuntu?

Or even one dollar a day?

Look into what advertisers are paying, I'm betting you're not willing to match their price.

kintamanimatt3• 14 years ago

I highly doubt they're going to make a buck a day from even 1/4 of the userbase from search ads.

Also, they're not being paid every time someone opens their browser. They're paid if someone searches in the Unity lens, sees something they like, clicks on the link, and buys something within 24 hours from Amazon. Amazon's commission rates are < 5% if I remember correctly.

I think they'll be lucky to make $100k from it.

eloisant• 14 years ago

As I recall Firefox used to make about $3 per user per year. (I'm using the past because the data I have is pretty old).

If we consider they have about 15 million users, that's about 45 million dollars. But maybe they have other sources of revenue.

Tichy2• 14 years ago

Suppose searching shops from the search bar makes sense: what would be a way to launch it that wouldn't freak out a lot of people?

Personally I find the new feature interesting, because I already use the DuckDuckGo !-Notation to search Amazon all the time.

takluyver• 14 years ago

An obvious way is to require some sort of deliberate indication that the user wants shopping results, like a separate pane, or a prefix to the search term. It's a problem largely because it's searching Amazon even when you're just looking for a file on your computer.

Tichy2• 14 years ago

Prefix would be good. I guess the Unity way is different keyboard shortcuts (it is possible to limit the search to certain categories). But I won't be able to memorize those.

realize2• 14 years ago

Getting pretty tired of these "dear company, let me pay for your product instead of showing me ads" arguments. They show a lack of understanding of business models.

rsl7• 14 years ago

So we should roll over and accept ads everywhere?

digitalsushi• 14 years ago

I am not a business guy and don't need to understand what their model is. I understand my model - that I test network software and I don't want to trudge through amazon lookups in wireshark.

realize2• 14 years ago

Not at all, I think they're insane to think their users will put up with ads. But the amount of revenue from people willing to pay is insignificant. Another way is needed.

stephengillie2• 14 years ago

What's important is to watch the money flow. The article makes a great point - If money goes like this:

  you -> developer

then the developer is only interested in making you happy, because you're the payer. However, if the relationship is like this:

  you -> advertising company -> developer

then the developer doesn't really care about you; you're just the means to an end, a vehicle to drive to the place with money. The developer and advertiser will build a business relationship, <cynical> and usually make sure their relationship with you maximizes shareholder (not your) value. </cynical>

kintamanimatt3• 14 years ago

What? Since when has charging customers not been a business model?

stephengillie2• 14 years ago

So you're saying companies are forced to accept "exclusive" clauses in ad contracts, where ad-viewers aren't allowed to have a method of paying to opt-out of viewing ads?

RyanMcGreal2• 14 years ago

I think it shows a clear understanding of business models. In an ad-supported service, the advertiser is the customer and the user is the product being sold.

RobAley4• 14 years ago

But its more nuanced than that. Ubunut (or rather Canonical) is not just an ad-supported service. It has "real" enterprise support customers, it has OEM engineering services, certification services and other things that puts Ubuntu as at least part of the product, if not front and centre. In a multivariate business model like this, the pulls in each direction tend to even out for the betterment of the product as a whole (or pull it apart completely, but with Ubuntu that hasn't happened yet).

I think the simplistic view of Canonicals business model is the problem with the article.

statictype• 14 years ago

When you read The New York Times or WSJ or even Daring Fireball, do you feel like you're the product being sold?

ivan_krechetov2• 14 years ago

Won't happen; by definition. See http://www.ubuntu.com/project "Ubuntu is free. Always has been and always will be." Therefore, would be much better to stop writing link bait posts, but rather go and donate http://www.ubuntu.com/community/get-involved/donate

wpietri2• 14 years ago

There's nothing stopping them from charging and offering it for free.

ivan_krechetov2• 14 years ago

True!

MatthewPhillips2• 14 years ago

This seems like a really bad idea to me. You can't charge for something that the user can just build themselves for free. Someone else is just going to distribute the binaries. And so what do you do about your repos, are those just for paying customers as well? You wind up with 2 Ubuntus in this scenario, both weaker than the 1 today.

mbell• 14 years ago

> You can't charge for something that the user can just build themselves for free.

Why not?

kracekumar• 14 years ago

Centos does the same, isn't Redhat making money ?

MatthewPhillips2• 14 years ago

The thing RedHat sells isn't the OS itself.

natex• 14 years ago

> You can't charge for something that the user can just >build themselves for free.

Um, sure you can. Ubuntu, RedHat, and Slackware are quite successful at this already. Pat Volkerding has been doing it for as long as linux has existed (Slackware). Yes, someone can distribute the binaries, but they can't use the {Ubuntu, RedHat,Slackware} name.

nicholassmith3• 14 years ago

The bigger issue is Ubuntu isn't a product. It's a nice community layer with some high level project management spearheading the direction and a team of core developers adding nifty features. If there is paying for the product then how is that money distributed to Jack John Johnson the guy doing patch fixes on his free time because he enjoys it. Does he get a salary? Some kind of financial bonus? Then you've got the issue of the lower level aspects being a very large part of Ubuntu, is the money in part for them? They're as much the product as Ubuntu One is.

Donations work fine, thats how the community keeps going. You're paying the Ubuntu high level team to continue what they're doing and helping cover the costs. If you like what Ubuntu does, go donate. If they're looking at 3rd party affiliates then maybe they're not getting enough donations, maybe they've been approached and think it's a good fit.

pedrocr4• 14 years ago

This idea that what Ubuntu does is just some light packaging is pretty demeaning to their true value. Ubuntu really pushed the state of the art in terms of polish for Linux distributions. You can argue how much of the total product value that is but I don't think it's at all reasonable to say "Ubuntu isn't a product" and that it's just a "nice community layer with some high level project management".

I'm also curious about why you take as a given that money needs to be distributed to "Jack John Johnson"? There's certainly nothing in the licenses that forces it, and when Apple takes BSD software and sells it nobody thinks that's out of line. When RedHat charges for RHEL nobody complains either, even though most of the software is open source as well. What line is Ubuntu crossing here?

brusch• 14 years ago

I think Ubuntu moved away from "polish for Linux distributions" some versions ago. This was the time they've started making their own user interface with Unity, they're own shop with I-don't-know-what-it's-called (App center ?) and their own online storage with Ubuntu one.

They make decisions you may like or may not like (moving the window controls to the left..) - but at least for me it was time to go - and I don't look back.

mapleoin• 14 years ago

RedHat charges for RHEL support, not for the software, they give that for free (see CentOS). Canonical also charges for Ubuntu support.

nicholassmith3• 14 years ago

It could be taken as pretty demeaning, I accepted that as I wrote it, and I don't think of it in demeaning terms. They do a fantastic job, they have as you say pushed Linux forward a lot, I have nothing but respect for them.

I won't however change my opinion. They did push the state of it forward, but so did Knoppix in many ways, and a fairly large amount of other distros. Are they all products? No, they're projects, with varying levels of success. It's a great platform, but I don't think that classing it as a product is helpful. It's a community project, approaching it like RHEL wouldn't work, they have completely different aims.

My argument isn't that Ubuntu is a quick paint gloss improvement, it's that they've taken the core work and improved it rapidly (although Unity could be argued) and teamed it with their biggest marketable quality which is that they've built a community around their work.

Do they deserve money? Yes, of course, thats why they take donations. Should they sell it as a product, as an actual thing? I don't think so.

(if you're working for Ubuntu, I love you and I'm not being mean!)

rst• 14 years ago

That argument applies to any revenue stream, not just payments to users --- and, in particular, to the controversial deal with Amazon that is making Ubuntu's revenue streams (more precisely, Canonical's) an issue in the larger community in the first place.

eCa• 14 years ago

Most/all software that Ubuntu gets from others are released under permissive licenses that explicitly permits reselling of the software. So no, there should be no expectation of money to Jack John Johnson for his freely (as in both beer and freedom) contributed software.

I would assume, were Canonical to start selling Ubuntu, that some part of the profits would find its way upstream.

ojii• 14 years ago

Am I just blind or where the heck are those ads on Ubuntu? I use it exclusively all day and I just cannot find ads anywhere (other than on websites in the browser, but that's not Ubuntu's fault).

cf0ed2aa-bdf5• 14 years ago

This seems to be a post in response to Canonical's plans to add amazon ads to searches in your home lens.

See: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/09/online-shopping-features-...

pgeorgi• 14 years ago

apt-get purge ubuntuone* landscape* unity-lens-shopping # gets rid of all Canonical tie-ins.

Not so hard, isn't it?

rlpb• 14 years ago

There are no ads. But if you use Ubuntu to search for stuff, and it searches for stuff and shows you the results, then some people seem to want to call those results "ads" where they represent products that you'd need to pay for to obtain.

taw9• 14 years ago

I switched to Linux Mint Debian Edition a while back. Cinnamon is a great desktop. Don't miss the steaming pile of Ubuntu. It was great while it lasted, but then came Unity and now they're hitting us with adverts? I don't get it. Seems like they're trying to kill demand.

jiggy2011• 14 years ago

I suppose you could always mail them a cheque, they might even cash it.

As I've said before, I don't see how this kind on monetisation would be practical for Ubuntu unless they took chunks of their software (such as Unity) and made them closed source.

If there was a sticker price attached to Ubuntu and an activation system (ala Windows) somebody would simply fork the code minus the activation and make a free clone.

Basically the same as Redhat/CentOS.

Their best way of monetising the desktop is probably to make their app store less crappy and get some paid apps in there.

If they can't get enough third parties involved , maybe they can get the ball rolling with their own proprietary paid apps.

Their main customer base right now is probably developers, so a good start might be a nice GUI DB admin tool and a good debugging proxy (ala Fiddler) and they could start monetising tomorrow.

gadgetdevil• 14 years ago

Why not donate to the maintainers of Debian, Software in the Public Interest? http://www.debian.org/donations They are the root of all those awesome dpkg's that we all know and love.

Kilimanjaro• 14 years ago

The right price for free software is not free, it's $9.

jballanc• 14 years ago

I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the obvious solution: go with the Apple model and build Ubuntu machines.

Sure, Apple made some money from selling OS X at $129. It's making less now. But new OS sales were never the reason for Apple to remain closed source. That had more to do with branding/marketing. Not many people remember that one of the reasons Steve killed the affiliate program is that the Mac affiliates were making better machines than Apple, and people were buying them instead of a "Mac". That reduces Apple's revenue, but more importantly dilutes their brand.

Ubuntu, on the other hand, has a very different brand proposition from the start. Open is their brand. But so is "convenience", and what could be more convenient than a machine for which you don't have to do research to find out if all the drivers will work?

RobAley4• 14 years ago

The trouble is Canonical is and has always been a software company, and Apple is a hardware company (or at least its roots were).

To make Canonical in a hardware direction under the Canonical brand, at a level to compete with existing hardware manufacturers, would take a fantastic amount of investment.

They are making steps in partnering with hardware manufacturers, see the recent Dell linux laptop, and the OEM engineering services they provide for e.g. set top box manufacturers.

But I think it's unlikely you will see Ubuntu brand hardware any time soon.

jackbravo• 14 years ago

Nowdays I think Chinese manufactures make it pretty easy to grab one of those unbranded computers and just sell it with your own brand. Is this not the case?

mseebach2• 14 years ago

The way to go would definitely be partnering, and Dell is an obvious choice. There could be a "Ubuntu by Dell" brand, with a "white-label" Dell store under the Ubuntu domain, and they would work together to make sure all hardware is fully supported, is tested and ships with sensible defaults. On the other side, Dell would work with Canonical to make sure only supportable components are sourced, and even, over time, apply mild pressure on its suppliers to provide decent drivers.

Dell (or whoever does this) could win considerable dev/geek sympathy and mindshare with a move like this.

ctdonath2• 14 years ago

Just as Apple's goal was to be a hardware company, which sold an operating system to help sell hardware, Canonical would do well to sell a, er, canonical hardware configuration for the purpose of selling the OS. One of the debilitating downfalls of OSS OSes is the lack of reliable/assured compatible hardware (video drivers being a notorious examples). Arrange for manufacture of a "reference design" system with a "it just works" Ubuntu distro thereon for those willing to forgo hardware options to assure a functioning, no geeking-tweaking, Linux platform.

Great idea. Hey, this is Y-Combinator - somebody get on it!

BCM43• 14 years ago

You mean this?

https://www.system76.com/

0ack• 14 years ago

"Mac affiliates were making better machines than Apple"

So by Apple killing this the consumer loses the option to use better machines?

Personally, I wish that I could buy Apple hardware with OSX as an added "option". I could knock $129 off the price by using my own OS. But, truthfully, it's not about price. By being able to use my own bootloader and my own OS^1, I could avoid the sort of hoop jumping longtime Mac users (e.g. John Battelle and Rob Pike) have recently described.

1. At least, having Apple make this easy, not make the user resort to extensive hackery to do it.

Apple makes beautiful hardware. That part of Apple has not changed. The mounting annoyances, if you haven't noticed, all come from Apple's efforts to lock down and exert total control over software.

The idea of paying for Ubuntu, as code, only shows how far afield some Linux users have drifted. There is a difference between paying for support and paying for a license to use some (free) code. If you need help, pay for support. Suggestions to force everyone else to pay for use of free code because you need help make little sense. Is that what this is, or have I misread it?

aubergene• 14 years ago

I think this is a great idea. I would love to buy an officially support Ubuntu laptop. The Dell Sputnik program looks promising.

http://content.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/d/campaigns/sputnik

AnthonBerg• 14 years ago

If you have spent a reasonable amount of time with Ubuntu, try installing Debian and playing around with it. Sadly, you will probably notice how Ubuntu have unnecessarily broken things that are working fine in Debian. Core things.

Let me propose you give money to Debian instead.

b0rsuk2• 14 years ago

Or just install Debian and see how stable it is. It's familiar enough and it will cure your upgrade fears.

I think "once every 6 months" is too often, I'd be happier if Ubuntu was released once per year but better tested.

olalonde4• 14 years ago

I think Kilo Dalton's comment pretty much sums it up:

    > 1) make a donation
    > 2) sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping
    > 3) grab a tasty beverage

flatline34• 14 years ago

What it sums up is some Linux nerds' complete disconnection from reality.

1) Donations aren't a sustainable revenue model, and won't prevent Ubuntu from taking equally user-hostile actions in the future. What they need is a sustainable revenue model where users are the customer.

2) How is this different than the crapware that comes installed with some OEM Windows PCs? How is that a model to be emulated? What happens when a feature like this can't just be installed with apt-get?

3) Water would almost certainly be healthier.

Apple used to be the reliable alternative to the Microsoft hegemony. They're squandering that position, and we desperately need something like Ubuntu -- consumer focused, polished, and as easy to use as Mac OS X (or at least, Ubuntu is a lot closer to that ideal than Linux has previously been).

For Ubuntu to maintain a consumer focus, they need the consumers to be their customers, not their product. Let me buy Ubuntu, or buy Ubuntu hardware.

olalonde4• 14 years ago

Honestly, what I get from your comment is that you don't like ads. If you don't like them, don't click them: problem solved. I have to grant you that Ubuntu hardware would be awesome but I'm afraid that it might create an incentive to drop support for non-Ubuntu hardware.

donniezazen• 14 years ago

I laughed at that comment and reply by the author. I have always wished that Ubuntu had an extra installation layer were we could choose what software to install and what not to install.

b0rsuk2• 14 years ago

I don't see anything wrong with "pay what you want" Ubuntu as long as people who pay don't get special treatment. The easiest way to ensure that would probably be anonymous contributions.

Similarly, certain definite projects like "get X functionality into Y application" could be valid targets for a kickstarter-like projects. Paid-for code released under GPL. Why not ? This measure would be best reserved for unfun tasks, something no one wants to do.

shmerl• 14 years ago

http://www.debian.org/donations

andrewaylett2• 14 years ago

What about http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=667 ?

It's difficult to envisage charging for the distribution ending well, but you can already pay Canonical for support if you'd like to, and I'm sure they'd be happy to tell you how to disable the "advertising". TBH, though, I'm not sure how Canonical's relationship with Amazon search is any different from what Mozilla do with Google search.

andrewaylett2• 14 years ago

Actually reading more about it: this is using Amazon's store search, not their web search as I initially thought. It's also getting money by adding referral codes, rather than Amazon paying Canonical to have their search engine listed. So there's some differences after all.

petitmiam2• 14 years ago

By default, Firefox has an Amazon search listed in the search engine list. Unity lens seem pretty similar.

At present, the Amazon results are only present if you do use the shopping lens or perform an open search. As long as there is an easy way to disable the Amazon results, I don't have a problem with it.

Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

Related Stories