Dell Says Several Countries Have Triple-Digit Growth for GNU/Linux

Dell is in the business of selling PCs and servers. If they write, Emerging Markets are Embracing Linux

Although the United States continues to play a very influential role in the evolution of Linux, it is other countries and regions that are driving real Linux growth and adoption. China, India, Brazil, Germany, France, and Italy are but a few of the countries adopting Linux at triple-digit growth rates. Linux’s low Total Cost of Ownership and outstanding reliability continue to be major driving forces.”, I expect they know what’s going on and are working to supply GNU/Linux wherever they can.

According to NetApplications GNU/Linux in those countries is like this:

Country Share (%)
China

0.77

India

2.35

Brazil

1.07

Germany

1.84

France

1.73

Italy

1.52

If so, “triple-digit” growth means that other OS will likely lose 2-3% of its share annually. It’s all good. From Dell’s perspective if a few percent share is worth providing, in a year or two it will be essential for all OEMs to provide GNU/Linux more widely.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Dell Says Several Countries Have Triple-Digit Growth for GNU/Linux

  1. oldman says:

    “Clarence, please have your Ego tell us when IBM stopped being a “big hitter”, and why.”

    Mr. K barked…

    Clarence Yip, yap, yap, Yip, yap
    …..

    why.

  2. kozmcrae says:

    “IBM certainly was able to fend them off and IBM wasn’t the big hitter anymore.”

    Clarence, please have your Ego tell us when IBM stopped being a “big hitter”, and why.

  3. Clarence Moon says:

    That’s a pretty old story, too, Mr. Pogson, and still not something to bolster your case. If you remember the details, the tale was told about how Microsoft tried to close the deal when IBM was asking for the same sort of deep discounts as were being given to Compaq and Dell at the time.

    Microsoft said, “Sure, but you gotta play ball the same way as the others!”. That amounted to getting $7 per system discount by essentially offering exclusivity for Windows, using Windows internally, and putting the “IBM recommends Windows” slug line on their advertising. IBM demurred, since that was the same as putting OS/2 in the ground for good.

    Microsoft then sweetened the pot by offering a favorable settlement for the outstanding payments for Windows 3.x that were in dispute and that IBM later settled for around $35M, if I remember. When IBM still wouldn’t sign up, Microsoft decided to abandon the carrot and go with the stick, telling IBM they would be cut off if they didn’t either pay up now or take the deal.

    In the end, IBM got Win95 in time for the introduction and Microsoft eventually got paid and IBM didn’t get the $7 discount.

    That much is history. As to it being illegal, I don’t think so and such was never even hinted at by the people who might know better and who would have been thrilled to prosecute Microsoft for anything that they could actually hang on them. So unless you think you know more than Janet Reno and company, you will have to find a better story.

    For what it is worth, I thought that the tale, although it could be painted to show Microsoft to have a mean streak, wasn’t much worth a darn as far as proving monopoly power, for which it was given. After all, if Microsoft goes to the mat with their best shot and they can’t get IBM to even take a discount, how much of a monopoly could they really have? IBM certainly was able to fend them off and IBM wasn’t the big hitter anymore.

  4. M$ used an audit unrelated to Lose ’95 as leverage to get IBM to do things M$’s way. M$ interfered in IBM’s business. Since that was about copyrights/licences that was abuse of copyright.

  5. Clarence Moon says:

    Nope. That’s the first thing I found in lots of hits…

    Nonsense. It is the only thing you found after whatever digging you were willing to invest to prove your point and what you found was some fear expressed by someone at Compaq who was not a senior manager and who feared what turned out to be a will-o-the-wisp that never saw daylight.

    Then you hypothesize events that never took place as possible proof of your thesis. Can you point to any actual “illegal lever” used against HP or IBM?

  6. Nope. That’s the first thing I found in lots of hits on my database of exhibits from US DOJ v M$.

    It is illegal to devalue a trademark, make exclusive deals as a monopolist, bribe OEMs and retailers to exclude competitors’ products, and bundle stuff to hide the price preventing competition (at least I think it should be…). Imagine the uproar if “corn-flakes” were bundled with PCs so that if you wanted a box of corn-flakes you had to buy a PC or if you bought a PC and you had to buy a box of corn-flakes and prices were not marked for the PC or the corn-flakes. There would be an uproar, especially if you replaced “corn-flakes” with something that cost $100+ but M$ has been allowed to get away with that for decades. They ramped the price of the OS up from a few $tens to a few $hundreds and were not prosecuted. It’s like a mugger selling you the right to continue living for all your money. It’s not legal just because people are used to handing over the money.

  7. Clarence Moon says:

    Oh, you are just ranting, Mr. Pogson. You hunted all over and the most egregious thing you found was Microsoft’s saying they were going to include something called Marvel, which was apparently some AOL sort of service, as a part of Windows 95, which might have cut down on Compaq’s referral fees from AOL.

    It seems odd to me that Compaq would get any money that way, I don’t remember much about the day to day stuff in 1995. Why would AOL pay them for people using Compaq computers to access AOL? Did AOL pay Sony and HP and Dell and Gateway, too? In any case I do not recall ever hearing anything about Marvel. Perhaps Microsoft dropped the idea when Compaq objected.

    What illegal levers, since you say “and otherwise” do you think that Microsoft used against HP or IBM?

  8. You can say it, but it would not be true. M$ uses every lever, legal and otherwise to get OEMs to do what M$ wants. They bullied IBM and HP into things that were against their business interests. They bullied ISVs and retailers, too.

  9. Clarence Moon says:

    Microsoft Marvel? Did it ever ship? You seem to have to reach pretty deep into the history bin to come up with any example of how “M$ has treated OEMs with contempt”, Mr. Pogson. Demanding that OEMs take the freeware in Windows as a part of the whole enchilada when you use Windows doesn’t seem all that mean. It is the same for everyone and that’s what you all say you want, namely a level playing field.

    Today you can opt out of IE and WMP in Europe by law and everywhere by fiat, as far as I know. Could we not say that is the case because the OEMs finally insisted on it and Microsoft is eager to satisfy their whimsy?

  10. Yes. A few years back I made a presentation to teachers advocating the use of thin clients, exposing the innards of an ATX PC and all the waste therein. It’s a bit dated now, but */Linux on ARM matches it beautifully. Eventually the PC will be in the monitor, keyboard, mouse or connector. The amount of material and energy needed to build and dispose of a personal computer has changed dramatically. Those beasts weigh 10kg+ and do nothing more than a smart thingy will do for many people.

  11. kozmcrae says:

    Clarence and his Ego said:

    “Regardless of how you techies want to glamorize the situation with references to “Moore’s Law”…”

    Up until a few years ago there was not a viable alternative to fill the market created by cheaper hardware. There is now. Let Apple create new high-end mobile devices. Let Microsoft try to cash-in on it. Android will give people the features they want priced in a range they will accept.

    This is my second attempt at luring some member of the Cult of Microsoft into the steaming pile I left for them.

    The trouble with the Cult of Microsoft is that their heads are stuck back in the last decade. We no longer live in Microsoft’s sand box. The world has moved on but your defense of Microsoft has not.

  12. Clearly, M$ does not want the low margins of suppliers of PCs, but M$ has treated OEMs with contempt until recently when the OEMs became serious about supplying GNU/Linux and Android/Linux:
    e.g. Compaq was abused by M$ in having to distribute a competitor’s stuff with no compensation:
    “Marvel requires Windows 95, and Microsoft has stated that it will bundle Marvel with every copy of Windows 95. They have asserted in so many words that Compaq, along with every other OEM, has no choice – · we have to take Marvel (if we want Windows 95). In addition, Microsoft has firmly stated that they will pay NO bounties or revenue sharing of any kind for Marvel. This is in spite of the fact that every other online service pays substantial bounties to Compaq for each customer who connects to their service from a new Compaq PC.

    Marvel implications for Compaq
    * Marvel will hurt Compaq.
    — It allows Microsoft to gain control of our customers, and enables Microsoft to market directly to them without benefit to Compaq.
    – It directly threatens our profitable revenue streams from our existing online service partnerships. We currently receive $2OOK per month from America Online alone, and that revenue stream is growing quickly. If Marvel procedes as they plan, that revenue is likely to rapidly diminish. “

    see http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/1001.pdf

  13. Clarence Moon says:

    In reality I believe that M$FT views OEM’s as necessary evils that M$FT puts up with until they can take over what ever function these OEM’s provide in house.

    Ballmer, at a minimum, went to Harvard and knows much more about the folly in your statement than you seem to understand, Mr. Bear. The hardware business has been a classic race to the bottom for companies stuck in that mode. Regardless of how you techies want to glamorize the situation with references to “Moore’s Law”, it has evolved into a cutthroat melee of OEMs and component vendors all constantly cutting prices and looking for lower and lower costs of labor to stay on the treadmill.

    What’s next? Slaves? From all reports, Chinese manufacturers have pretty much arrived at that point already, housing and feeding workers who never leave the campus (plantation) until they can find a way to successfully commit suicide.

    Microsofties, on the other hand, have it sweet. Why would they ever want to take over the hardware? Google wants to take over the hardware, a desire made obvious by their tender for Motorola Mobile. Unable to sell their software, they are looking to the hardware to recoup. We shall see how well they treat the other phone makers in the near future.

  14. Kozmcrae says:

    MK said:

    “It’s been the same old song for years: Major growth!…”

    Where have you been? You ever hear of Android? You want to be careful how you answer that.

  15. lpbbear says:

    “Believe me, that is not going to change very quickly and my experience tells me that it will never change unless Microsoft wants to abandon the business.

    Microsoft has always done what was needed to placate the OEMs. Witness the creation of the special versions of XP and Win7 to suit the netbooks a couple of years ago. They will continue to do that sort of thing, I believe, in order to keep their singular position.”

    I think you are wrong in the above comments.

    In my opinion M$FT only cares about OEM’s and other companies/business that ride along on the Windows gravy boat only as long as it doesn’t affect their bottom line. In reality I believe that M$FT views OEM’s as necessary evils that M$FT puts up with until they can take over what ever function these OEM’s provide in house. In fact I think M$FT views them as expendable competitors rather than “friends”.

    I believe M$FT in its wettest dreams would just love to control hardware AND software in much the same way as Apple does and that in fact Windows 8 is a huge step in that direction.

    Probably the only thing that will keep M$FT from achieving the ultimate lockin I believe Windows 8 is meant to be is if consumers tell them to take a hike with their crappy Metro/Win 8 interface. OEMs may hate it but it will take a consumer backlash to derail it and its M$FT rules the world goals.

  16. I can have it that way, Clarence. More people can afford small cheap computers than big expensive ones. Google also wants to have more hours of the day when people use Google’s services. The way to do that for young, mobile people is to have Google’s services follow them around on smart thingies. They can even avoid downtime when batteries run out by using ARM. It’s all good for Google. No upside for M$…

  17. Clarence Moon says:

    Hence, Android/Linux pays them big time in increased markets

    You seem to have a dichotomy of sizable proportions here, Mr. Pogson. On the one hand, you say that Android is giving Microsoft fits because the phones and tablets are displacing PC sales and so robbing Microsoft of their life’s blood. On the other hand you are saying that the Android phones and tablets are in addition to traditional PCs and so represent an increased chance that someone will look at ads that provide Google with their clicks and corresponding revenue.

    I don’t think you can have it both ways, Mr. Pogson. If the Android devices are additions to the scene, then Google is not getting any payback. If they are, then Microsoft is not being hurt.

  18. Not necessarily. Dell could be starting from a very small base. BRIC countries certainly have room to grow in use of IT, however. These days, China consumes as many PCs as USA and has no hangup about OS. I think India is not much different as the government has supported GNU/Linux and encouraged local development of IT. Dell and Canonical are seeing growth not just migrating from that other OS to GNU/Linux but uniting smaller organizations to avoid duplication of effort and non-standardization. GNU/Linux can flourish while encouraging local industry while Wintel acts as a parasite, discouraging local industry. Programmers in India or China are just as good as those in Redmond, Washington, USA. Entrepreneurs producing and distributing PCs in BRIC countries can be just as aggressive as large multinationals. Working together they can do anything and they don’t have to agree to sending half the revenue to M$.

  19. Arup says:

    If one takes population of China and India, that triple digit becomes one significant number.

  20. Those sources are specific to certain sites not certain regions of the globe. NetApplictions and others do provide localized information and the growth is there. See California, USA, for example… Q42010=2.86%. Q42011=18.69%. That shows 653% per annum increase. California is a huge population, 37.7 million. Italy has 60 million.

    Most sources show less than “triple digits” so Dell must be reporting its own growth. From the last 10-Q:
    “For the third quarter of Fiscal 2012, revenue from the U.S. decreased 6% to $7.7 billion and represented approximately 50% of total net revenue. Revenue from outside the U.S. increased 6% to $7.7 billion. Revenue from growth markets, which we define as non-U.S. markets excluding Western Europe, Canada, and Japan, grew 11% year-over-year from 25.4% to 28.5% of total net revenue. Total revenue from Brazil, Russia, India, and China, which we refer to as “BRIC,” increased 14% year-over-year to 14.4% of our total net revenue for the third quarter of Fiscal 2012. We are continuing to expand into these and other emerging countries that represent the vast majority of the world’s population, tailor solutions to meet specific regional needs, and enhance relationships to provide customer choice and flexibility.

    For the first nine months of Fiscal 2012, revenue from the U.S. decreased 5% to $22.9 billion and represented approximately 50% of total net revenue. Revenue from outside the U.S. increased 7% to $23.2 billion. Revenue from growth markets grew 14% year-over-year to 27.9% of total net revenue. Total revenue from BRIC increased 16% year-over-year to 14.2% of our total net revenue for the first nine months of Fiscal 2012.”

    Clearly Dell’s results show that USA is not growing nearly as well as other places and there may indeed be hot spots.

  21. MK says:

    Suppose NetApplications is biased, so lets look at stats from Wikipedia and W3schools:
    http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm
    http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

    Any major growth there? Nope. Can you offer an explanation why the 3 digit growth claim doesn’t show anywhere.

  22. Clarence Moon wrote of Google and Android/Linux, ” I still fail to see how they are ever going to recoup their expenses”.

    Google makes revenue on advertising. They have nearly a lock on the market so they have to increase the size of the market to grow their revenues. Hence, Android/Linux pays them big time in increased markets. People can respond to ads at home, at work and between home and work and while shopping…

    Clarence Moon wrote, “Linux fails to gain any traction on the desktop because it, too, tries to be a broad-based product, but its only appeal is its price.”

    Most distros are not “commercial” in that they don’t employ salesmen and generally are unable to support millions of users. That is not the case for RedHat, Suse, Ubuntu, and Mandriva GNU/Linux. Several of those have connected with OEMs and are supplying demand by government and business for stable, reliable, supported software. Such bulk buyers do not care so much about the purchase price as the reliability and support. GNU/Linux has wide appeal there and that appeal is growing. For individuals, price scarcely matters because they can get GNU/Linux for ~$0. The appeal for individuals is performance, package management, reliability and ease of installation, use, and maintenance. GNU/Linux wins in a large way there. The whole world sees malware as a cost of that other OS and GNU/Linux and MacOS have much less malware, huge plusses.

    So, “its only appeal is its price”, is wrong.

  23. Clarence Moon says:

    the enemies M$ sees and that Clarence sees are in their own imaginations

    I don’t see an “enemy” anywhere, Mr. Pogson. For one thing, my personal fame and fortune is tied to selling enterprise application software to relatively large businesses and corporations. I am involved in Windows server software, but others in the company are just as deep into Linux and Unix compatible versions. Red Hat and SUSE are distributors for us, as are Dell and HP. We have all sides covered and any progress anywhere is good for me.

    I, too, am merely passing on my own wisdom as I see it. For one thing, there is the competition with Microsoft aspect.

    Microsoft itself supplies products that compete, on paper at least, head to head with some of our own bread and butter stuff. But ours is better and we sell much more of it than they do.

    It is simply a matter of contacting your customers and convincing them that you are better. If you are not willing to do that or are unable to afford to do that, you will lose customers no matter how good your product may be. Or you will never have them in the first place.

    Microsoft Windows is a sort of one-stop shopping experience where they mostly hope that one size fits all. They are very vulnerable to tailored products that better suit some target set of customers. That is true of almost any market segment in any industry, by the way.

    Why is Android successful where the conventional forms of Linux are not? Simply because Android is tailored to the needs of cell phones and tablets and Apple refuses to market iOS. Google paid the cost of getting this message to the consumers and OEMs and has a very successful product (although I still fail to see how they are ever going to recoup their expenses).

    Linux fails to gain any traction on the desktop because it, too, tries to be a broad-based product, but its only appeal is its price. Since virtually all computers sold to consumers in stores and on-line these days are pre-loaded with an OS, it is up to the OEMs to choose which OS and they have profited for over two decades by partnering with Microsoft. Believe me, that is not going to change very quickly and my experience tells me that it will never change unless Microsoft wants to abandon the business.

    Microsoft has always done what was needed to placate the OEMs. Witness the creation of the special versions of XP and Win7 to suit the netbooks a couple of years ago. They will continue to do that sort of thing, I believe, in order to keep their singular position.

  24. MK, that’s true. GNU/Linux has been growing well for a decade at least on the desktop but M$ paid SCO to spread FUD, paid gazillions of people to astroturf, added the BSA to its sales staff, threatened patent suits, bribed OEMs and retailers with “promotional fees”, and managed to keep GNU/Linux off most retail shelves until now.

    Folks like NetApplications are clearly biassing their sample. I proved that when California showed a huge spike of adoption just because 10K people at Google switched to GNU/Linux. Sampling only during business hours or sampling only corporate users is a neat trick but it did not fool me. I wrote that GNU/Linux had 10% share years ago based on what I saw and IDC’s reports from back in 2003 that GNU/Linux was tied with MacOS.

  25. MK says:

    It’s been the same old song for years: Major growth! Linux is gonna win some market share! This year, for sure! Next year! The year after next! One would have thought it should at least have 10% by now.
    It’s become boring, but zealots never tire.
    Let’s face it, Linux usage does grow, but at this rate, we will all die of old age before it reaches 10%.

  26. Clarence Moon wrote, “I think that what you really want is to see Microsoft go out of business entirely and out of the PC OS business at a minimum.”

    Written like a true Microsoftie. Why is it that M$ assumes the name of the game is to destroy competition rather than to supply a good product at a good price?

    I have no interest in the destruction of M$ although I think the world would have been much better off if they had been broken up. I see no reason why there should not be ten times as many businesses producing OS as there are now and one of them could be M$ if they can continue to find buyers in a free market.

    At the moment, the enemies M$ sees and that Clarence sees are in their own imaginations. M$ set out to harm competition in so many ways in so many localities that they will soon have no true “partners” left. That will be their doing, not mine. I am just watching the train-wreck. Wise people pass on wisdom. Two of the best bits of wisdom are

    1. Judge a tree by the fruit of it.
    2. You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    M$’s time for judgement has come. A few years ago people looked at me strangely if I mentioned that there were practical alternatives to that other OS. Now hundreds of millions of people are using practical alternatives to M$’s OS. About now no one on Earth will accept that M$ is the one true way. At that tipping point, Wintel falls apart. It’s so large Clarence may not have realized it is about to fall but gravity is inevitable and FLOSS is persistent.

  27. kozmcrae says:

    Clarence said:

    “I think that Microsoft could lose 50% of its sales revenue and still be a wildly successful company.”

    Wildly successful is not good enough for Microsoft. They want it all. By their measure they are failing in some non trivial markets. By anyone’s measure they are failing in the mobile phone market. Only the drooling fanboys are saying Microsoft *is* a success in the mobile phone market because of a “just you wait and see” planned marketing push.

  28. Clarence Moon says:

    I care about how many PCs actually drank the Koolaid.

    But you have absolutely no way to determine that, Mr. Pogson. You postulate a price per copy and when that doesn’t support your desired conclusion you add some factor to change the formula so that it comes to the answer that you want.

    I think that what you really want is to see Microsoft go out of business entirely and out of the PC OS business at a minimum. Perhaps that will happen some day, but nothing is very clearly pointing to that day, certainly not the abstract calculations that you make so frequently. Look to the SEC reports and Gaussian Distribution to see the history and the trends and what is real variance and what is will-o-the-wisp.

    I think that Microsoft could lose 50% of its sales revenue and still be a wildly successful company. They have a long way to go before there is any suffering in Redmond.

  29. kozmcrae says:

    Clarence and his Ego cannot accept any growth in GNU/Linux, therefore he sees no growth. Having seen no growth he must account for no growth in some way. Any way.

    The Cult of Microsoft is a good label for those who defend the interests of Microsoft and their partners. A cult believes they hold the only truth and the rest of the world lives in a distorted reality.

    The best we can hope for them is that they never come out of their cocoon. They have been living in their lies for so long that the truth would be a soul shattering experience. That experience is a when, not an if.

    It’s been prophesied that 2012 will be the end of the World. Well maybe it will for some people.

  30. I don’t care about M$’s sales. I care about how many PCs actually drank the Koolaid.

    M$ sold a lot of PCs with the “right” to upgrade to XP. Paying for the privilege of installing one OS from M$ instead of another does not install one more PC with M$’s OS. Paying M$ a lump of money per user or per site does not put M$’s OS on one more PC unless the number of users increases and the economy has been slowly growing lately so that is not a big matter. If some sucker organization pays M$ in bulk and changes 500 XP machines to “7” does not increase the world’s supply of infected machines by one unit because they ship the old machines wiped most likely and those buyers who put that other OS on the old machines are already counted in the revenue. ie. M$’s OS is on fewer machines year after year which means the world is becoming a better place.

  31. Clarence Moon says:

    They have ~$1.5 billion of unearned income from people who pay in advance etc. That means they get about $3billion per quarter for actual installations…

    You must see the flaw in that argument yourself, Mr. Pogson. Revenue recognition in one quarter for sales closed in a previous quarter do not imply that nothing was sold in the current quarter, merely that some unstated amount of future revenue was put into the pipeline for recognition in the future. The sales results for Windows, by your math, which seems to divide revenues by $50 to arrive at unit counts, would show 90 million PCs per quarter, which agrees with various industry estimates from Gartner and IDC.

    There is no decline in evidence.

  32. Clarence Moon wrote, of installations of that other OS, “so is Windows use on a total license installation basis.”

    Do the maths. M$’s revenue is declining. They charge per licence…

    1. Q2 2011 – $4.74 billion
    2. Q3 2011 – $4.8 billion
    3. Q4 2011 – $4.7 billion

    M$’s revenue per licence is $50+, so those numbers reflect more than PC’s produced by OEMs. They have ~$1.5 billion of unearned income from people who pay in advance etc. That means they get about $3billion per quarter for actual installations, perhaps 60 million installations when the world is shipping 90 million PCs. There are about 150 million more PCs per annum, 37.5 million per quarter, so M$ is getting an increase of only 22.5 million more PCs per quarter. GNU/Linux is probably getting as many considering OEMs, individuals and organizations installing. Depending on source, GNU/Linux has installed-base share of 1.5 to 10% but with 100% per annum growth. So, it’s a race, not a done deal. Consider the mobile space and it’s all over. Consider the acceleration of GNU/Linux and it’s all over on the next turn.

  33. John says:

    Part of the reason that Microsoft Windows is “popular” is that people have no choice. Talking about PCs or laptops at the moment, if you go into a major retailer (or even to an online retailer) you can buy either:

    1) A choice of personal computers running Windows (or)

    2) A very limited choice of computers (made by Apple) running OS/X

    Even worse – I cannot buy a PC WITHOUT an operating system even if I don’t want Windows or OS/X.
    I run Ubuntu (11.10 at the moment although that will change to 12.04 shortly). I do NOT want to buy Windows/Microsoft Office or any other proprietary software. If I buy a (non-Apple) PC at a major vendors then I am FORCED to buy a copy of Windows.
    Why?
    I don’t want it and I also don’t want to boost Microsoft’s sales statistics. If every shop which sold mobile phones FORCED customers to buy (say) Verizon SIMs (even if they wanted say T-Mobile – “But you could buy a T-Mobile SIM *AS WELL* if you want to!”) people would be rightly outraged.
    Modern Linux distributions like Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, OpenSuSE are easily as good as Windows on a day-to-day basis – and yes I use both Windows (when I have to) and Linux (on my own PCs) on a daily basis. Why do shops not have a couple of PCs running Linux so customers could decide for themselves? The answer is that Microsoft drops the “standard discount” (for that read increases the price is shops sell Linux PCs as well) to maintain their utter stranglehold on shops. The shops cannot offer any choices even if they want to for fear of alienating existing Windows customers.
    I’m sure that Windows 8 will be just as “popular” as Windows 7 was. When you have a choice of one item on the menu it is difficult to pick anything else. Even worse, customers and brainwashed into thinking that cannot be any other alternatives.
    Faced with this utter monopoly (which would be illegal in any other industry) it is no wonder that Linux isn’t growing as fast as it could. I suspect that if well configured/well specified PCs running Linux were show along with the usual Windows me-too boxes it might be a different story.

  34. Clarence Moon says:

    If so, “triple-digit” growth means that other OS will likely lose 2-3% of its share annually.

    There is the old saying “A rising tide floats all boats equally”, Mr. Pogson. I think that has been an operative phenomenon in these markets for Linux and Windows providers both. Linux use is going up in these regions, but so is Windows use on a total license installation basis. The Linux “share” is not going to see the same growth, namely “triple digit”, since the market growth is what is causing the number of Linux users to grow. For example if the Linux rate is 1% in Brazil and there is a doubling of the market size, the Linux size will also double, but the share will remain the same 1%. If the base were originally 1 million units per year, the original 10,000 Linux installs vs 990,000 Windows installs would change to 20,000 Linux installs vs 1,980,000 Windows installs. That is a triple digit growth for Linux, but the gap between Linux and Windows would widen by 990,000 units and Microsoft would be some $50M richer, if Brazil pricing is comparable to US pricing, which may not be the case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>