Retail Shelves

Unfortunately, I can’t drive around to a lot of retailers to examine their shelves so this survey of the web will have to do. I will restrict myself to Canadian sites. The rest of the world varies, I know.

So, FLOSS is out there but the bastards still don’t make it very easy to find especially if you don’t know what you seek. What’s with that? Doesn’t it pay to advertise any longer?

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 and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Retail Shelves

  1. matchrocket says:

    I just checked my local Staples, every tablet was an Android. There were about 7 of them.

  2. dougman says:

    Totally off topic, but, I would NOT call any “C” level executive ‘stupid’, some may be a bit quirky or suffer from irrational exuberance or even possibly have a quotient loss in one or more reasoning faculties, but ‘stupid’ is not a term I would use.

  3. oiaohm says:

    dougman here is the stupid one the CEO pulling in huge incomes are the ones doing a crap job. Why spiting self between 20 to 50 different companies does not work for the company. There is just not enough time todo the job well.

    Basically you are not looking for a gates or a jobs. Welcome to the strange world of making profit.

    You can make a profit by being completely crap at job and have enough suckers employ you.

  4. ram says:

    In Australia, at retail, the Chromebooks are priced at less than half that of Microsoft platforms. The Chromebooks are selling, Microsoft is not.

    At the even more economical end of the market, Samsung Android tablets seem to have taken over.

  5. dougman says:

    I do not know any CEO that makes $500M in salary. Even if you include compensation, Steve Cook does not even approach that amount.

  6. That Exploit Guy says:

    @You Spoony Bard!
    That Exploit Guy really companies get in insane bidding war and they get to 1/2 billion dollars and they kinda look at each other and go hey this is getting stupid
    Show evidence. News reports, interviews, whatever.

    @Pogson
    Heck, no.
    Hah! I wasn’t even talking to you. Besides, haven’t Dr. Loser fixed that stupid, broken piece of software for you already?

  7. TEG wrote, “have you prepared to perform all the demonstrations I have requested yet?”

    Heck, no. I’m preparing to go hunting… I have my priorities straight and working for TEG and “partners” is not high on my ToDo list. My work on ballistics will be a project for the winter when all I have to do around here is keep the driveway clear of snow and plan my garden. I will have plenty of time on my hands once the deer is in the freezer. Being retired, I can manage my own time my own way and I don’t need advice from the peanut gallery.

  8. bw says:

    “Never say ‘Die’!” lol

  9. oiaohm says:

    That Exploit Guy really companies get in insane bidding war and they get to 1/2 billion dollars and they kinda look at each other and go hey this is getting stupid.

    That Exploit Guy having control of the project lead is worth quite a bit.

    That Exploit Guy the funny part is the pay offers are in fact in mailing list archives. The largest was a 20 company bid. So its only about 30 million each. So about the same pay as a CEO from each company.

    Take note to the end of the quote of Linus you pulled he did refer to it. “He did not want to make commercial companies feel any worse.”

    Exactly why were they feeling bad. They got into a kinda of desperate bidding war with each other to make sure their competitor did not control Linus.

    Linux Foundation employment side is to prevent any such bidding war of stupidity happening again.

    That Exploit Guy there are CEO that do pull in close to the 1/2 a billion a year. How by being CEO’s of many companies.

    Multi company bid for particular personal equals massively huge pay checks. These are limited how often they can happen due to conflict of interest.

  10. That Exploit Guy says:

    @You Spoony Bard!
    By the way, have you prepared to perform all the demonstrations I have requested yet? Or are you just going to keep failing to deliver like you have before?

  11. That Exploit Guy says:

    @oiaohm
    In light of your constant gibbering, from now on I’ll call you “You Spoony Bard!” instead.

    @You Spoon Bard!
    Linux foundation employees particular coders/developers directly like Linus. In fact the Linux foundation comes out of a bidding war to employ Linus.
    Not according to Torvalds himself:

    I actually started working for OSDL [Open Source Development Labs] back in California and part of the requirement was I don’t have to move. I was planning on taking a hiatus from Transmeta because I wanted to concentrate 100 percent on Kernel release 2.6 [which] was coming out… So I said “I’ll take a break. I’ll take an unpaid leave of absence for a year.” And OSDL came in and said “We’d like to sponsor your unpaid leave of absence for a year,” and I said “That’s good.” The whole health care situation in the U.S. means yeah, I’d rather be employed than unemployed, let’s put it that way, even if I could afford the year of absence… I hadn’t wanted to work for a Linux company, per se, because I didn’t want the polarization, but working for Linux Foundation, or back then it was OSDL, it didn’t feel like I was making any other commercial companies feel any worse, so it was kind of a very good suggestion.

    Linus pay offers went insane over 1/2 a billion a year
    Except such a compensation would surpass even that of the highest paid CEOs. You sure aren’t good at making up numbers, do you?

  12. bw wrote, “Linux is not “in many stores””.

    Well, Walmart, Dell and others have thousands of stores. That’s many.

  13. oiaohm says:

    One of the jobs of the Linux foundation is employment. Taking coders with skill in the FOSS world and matching them up with companies that there personality will match with.

    Linux foundation employees particular coders/developers directly like Linus. In fact the Linux foundation comes out of a bidding war to employ Linus.

    bw Linus pay offers went insane over 1/2 a billion a year.

    Basically the Linux foundation exists for a few key roles.

    Employing Lead Developers/Project Maintainers that are going to be fort over too hard and going to cause distrust problems between Companies using Linux. This is Linus and many other Developers/coders on the Linux Foundations direct books.

    Next half is finding the next generations of skilled coders in the FOSS world and matching them up with employment. Some can be quite shocking like one turning out to be a 14 year old child.

    bw there is a big difference here. Linux Foundation is not looking for people with degrees. Linux Foundation is looking for people with portfolios of successful production containing quality work. Not just one offs.

    Linux foundation basically treats coding and developing as a art form. You don’t judge an artist by their degrees. You judge them by the quality of work they produce.

    Lot of artists do work for fun as well. Turns out the Linux foundation acquirement method has many more advantages.

    Yes summer of code from Google is paid not highly but is paid. So to build a portfolios of FOSS work does not equal working for free either.

    bw you can formally train a coder latter. But no matter how much you train a coder you cannot change their natural skill for it.

    The biggest problem for Linux Foundation sourced coders is personality conflict. Biggest problem of employing those out of University is finding they had enough skill to complete the course work but are not a coder in any sense of the word.

    The majority probationary in the Linux Foundation is either done unpaid or in items like the Summer of Code where its paid on results. Higher preference to paid on results.

    There is a very effective coder/developer sorting method in play in the FOSS world. Less wasteful than Microsoft and other companies.

    Basically hiring 20 and firing 19 is wasteful. Its better to locate the 1 and just employ that one.

    We are dealing with two major differences to the methods of giving coders jobs. Yes the FOSS world is looking for those who like coding as well because they have less stress and suffer from burn out less.

    The companies using FOSS sourced coders are after quality not quantity of coders.

  14. That Exploit Guy says:

    The Linux Foundation is a non-profit consortium dedicated to fostering the growth of Linux, whereas Microsoft is a for-profit company that tries to make as much money as it can.
    An interesting false dichotomy. Unless you are suggesting that Torvalds can survive by just breathing air (rather than being showered with money through the Linux Foundation), then I am afraid money and growth are two things that go hand in hand.

  15. bw says:

    rather code than make money

    Well, if you are any good at it, you can do both. No problem finding work either. Senior guys at our place made around $160K and the gurus were in the $200K+ range. Starting out, newbies got $60 to $80K depending on where they went to school and what they had for degrees and grades. 90 to 120 day probationary, though.

    BSCS minimum, advanced degrees preferred.

    Why would any sane person not want to be paid?

  16. dougman says:

    M$ idiots, such as BW, think its all about the money and cannot fathom the openness of Linux, however people such as Linux Torvalds and the vast amount of Linux developers around the globe, would rather code than make money.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTFtN4_ysVc

    The Linux Foundation is a non-profit consortium dedicated to fostering the growth of Linux, whereas Microsoft is a for-profit company that tries to make as much money as it can.

  17. bw says:

    That’s an ad

    OK, it’s an ad. Is that the kind of ad you were contemplating in your “Doesn’t it pay to advertise anymore?” question?

  18. bw says:

    Linux is not “in many stores” either. Ask around. Your plaint here is that it is difficult to find anywhere and you call the merchants “bastards” because of it. You reference no stores at all even then, just remote corners of web sites. “In a store” implies commitment by a distributor to stock an item that has been paid for and delivered by the manufacturer to that distributor’s inventory site. Almost none of that is shown by your exhaustive survey. Ergo, it is not very profitable and not in much demand.

  19. bw wrote, “You call that an ad?”

    That’s an ad:

    • RedHat defends its trademark. That ad bears the trademark.
    • The ad links to a “Buy” feature on RedHat’s site.
    • The ad links to a download from RedHat’s site.
    • The ad uses copy supplied by RedHat. “Publisher’s Description”

    So’s the stuff on Red Hat’s site an ad.

    bw wrote, ” Shows the power of the brand. Windows is synonymous with software now, just like Kleenex.”

    No, that shows that RedHat is going toe to toe with M$. How often have you seen an ad from M$ on a GNU/Linux or FLOSS site? That’s M$ messing with competition. RedHat plays that game too.

  20. bw says:

    You call that an ad? That is just a download location. One thing that is kind of interesting is the path on that site, i.e..
    Home>Windows Software > Utilities & Operating Systems > Operating Systems & Updates > Red Hat Linux. They put the Red Hat Linux under Windows! Shows the power of the brand. Windows is synonymous with software now, just like Kleenex.

    You started the issue with the question “Doesn’t it pay to advertise anymore?” in regard to distributors promoting Linux. Presumably that meant some sort of media effort designed to inform prospective customers about your supplying the product. The order page on some on-line catalog is not advertising in the same sense.

  21. bw wrote, ” If Linux could be sold profitably, it would be in the stores.”

    It is in many stores, installed, as I have shown. It must be profitable.

  22. bw wrote, ” I have never seen any Red Hat ads for client OS. Have you?”

    Yes. Here’s one: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop

    That’s an ad on CNET, offering to sell the product and providing text from RHT.

  23. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson
    –How about the licence agreement binding retailers to only token offerings of GNU/Linux

    bw
    –No such thing. Why would retailers need a Microsoft license to do anything anyway? Where did you get such a notion? From the dougster? He is poorly educated and mostly deluded, you know.–
    Mostly because you are a idiot on what is licensed you have said this bw.

    There is a license agreement its not a software license agreement. Its a trademark usage license and advertising material agreement. Yes you get so much free Microsoft advertising stuff as long as you agree to terms. Like no net-book having greater than a 10 inch screen. Thinking the most popular Linux netbook had 11.1 inch screen at the time.

    Bw you are forgoten basics.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Licensing

    Without agreeing to the Microsoft trademark usage requirements you cannot get the free advertising material. Due to the fact they are done as independent items in their own right.

    So there are two contracts and one is a license. The nasty bit is a party can agree to the license and Microsoft decide to give them nothing. So getting Microsoft term restrictions forced on the market place.

  24. lpbbear says:

    bLOwHARD dribbles down his chin…..again: “Do you have any proof that such a contract might exist with, say, Wal-Mart or Best Buy or any other large retailer?”

    Do you have any proof such a contract does not exist? (didn’t think so)

  25. dougman says:

    In the grand scheme of things, M$ idiots always point at retail space and say…”Look no Linux!” and try to pass off to unsuspecting consumers, that it is not in their best interests to go down that road and investigate for themselves.

    However and in reality, the person that is perpetually stating that there is no Linux typically has some vested interest in Microsoft and Windows.

    Today we do indeed find derivatives of Linux at Walmart, Sears, Bestbuy and a host of other stores in the form of Android phones and Chromebooks, to say otherwise is delusional at best.

    http://techpinions.com/android-as-the-platform-for-commodity-electronics/24885

    http://www.zdnet.com/low-end-laptopsthe-rise-of-the-chromebooks-7000022991/

    The M$ idiots will also say that there is no retail box being sold for Linux, well, I do recall Bestbuy selling Ubuntu for $20 back in 2008, whereby one received dedicated support once you installed it, and anyone is free to do that again, (http://blogs.computerworld.com/ubuntu_linux_goes_retail) but Linux does not need to be sold as does Windows. Why?? Linux is freely downloadable off the web for free from countless hosted servers around the planet.

    Why waste retail space, packaging and paper when one can get a digital file that one can burn to CD or place on a stick and just boot off that.

  26. bw says:

    See Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop QED

    How many do you think they sell? I have never seen any Red Hat ads for client OS. Have you?

  27. bw says:

    M$ makes deals with retailers. They call it advertising or promotion.

    In any case that is not a license but rather some form of contract. I still think that even that is a myth, though. Do you have any proof that such a contract might exist with, say, Wal-Mart or Best Buy or any other large retailer? I think that is just an excuse to blame the lack of interest on the part of retailers regarding Linux. If Linux could be sold profitably, it would be in the stores.

  28. bw lied, writing, “Red Hat sells Linux, certainly, but not client stuff.”

    See Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop QED

  29. bw wrote, “No such thing. Why would retailers need a Microsoft license to do anything anyway?”

    M$ makes deals with retailers. They call it advertising or promotion. In it M$ can insist on anything. To a foolish, short-sighted retailer it looks like a good deal being paid to do “nothing” but M$ is getting them to be their slaves doing the dirty work so M$ can appear clean.

  30. bw says:

    How about the licence agreement binding retailers to only token offerings of GNU/Linux

    No such thing. Why would retailers need a Microsoft license to do anything anyway? Where did you get such a notion? From the dougster? He is poorly educated and mostly deluded, you know.

    With an NDA, M$ could keep the lid on regulators for years
    That is even more bizarre than the license for retailers idea. What regulators do you speak of? An NDA is an agreement to keep information confidential that is only revealed on that basis. If a regulator was seeking some sort of information to prosecute Microsoft, they would simply subpoena that information. No NDA involved. An NDA might be used by Apple to show selected retailers the inside scoop on iPhone 8 or something like that, but it cannot be used to prevent a retailer from advertising, much less making some regulator do the same.

    Let’s keep it real here.

  31. bw says:

    Red Hat sells Linux, certainly, but not client stuff. IBM will supply whatever you want, but they charge for the service. I don’t see where Google gets any money from selling Linux. Maybe they save money on servers using it, maybe not, but they don’t need to advertise to do that.

    Retailers may not have seen the light because there is such a dim light to be seen. You offer no suggestion as to how that retailer might make any money by advertising Linux. You merely assert that no one wants to buy Windows, but you have no proof of that at all. Quite the contrary, you assert that OEMs and retailers are forced to buy Windows due to the demand from the consumers for it or alternately the reluctance of the public to buy anything else.

  32. dougman wrote, “The OEMs (Dell & HP) do not actively market it due to licensing restrictions and NDA’s by M$, but they are available if you look hard enough.”

    They do advertise to “large businesses” however. It must be a retail/consumer thing. M$ tries to keep consumers ignorant of choice.

  33. bw, having no imagination, wrote, “I bet that you cannot describe how an NDA or a licensing restriction could thwart any OEM intent to market a Linux computer”

    How about the licence agreement binding retailers to only token offerings of GNU/Linux, omitting them from searches and the like, just what we’ve seen. With an NDA, M$ could keep the lid on regulators for years. We’ve seen this before. No matter what OEMs produce, if retailers won’t offer it, few can be sold. We’ve seen “We recommend that other OS”. Just as easily retailers can agree to hide GNU/Linux. I don’t go into Canadian Tire and see them recommend “this wrench” over “that wrench”, because they are not in the business of pleasing manufacturers but consumers. Retailers who recommend that other OS are warping the market for operating systems and PCs.

  34. bw, spitting into the wind, wrote, ” If someone were making money selling Linux per se, then that person might want to advertise, expecting to increase sales and get more profits than it cost to advertise. But that is not the case.”

    Lots of people make lots of money selling GNU/Linux and services related to it. e.g. Google, RedHat, IBM, and many OEMs. Retailers have largely not seen the light yet. They keep trying to sell what man people don’t want to buy (that other OS). They have finally offered weakly stuff people demand but have not gone after an emerging market, GNU/Linux desktops.

    Retailers won’t ignore 60% per annum growth for long. This is just dipping the toe in the water so far. They are not serious yet. They are serious about ChromeBooks and they are doing well.

  35. bw says:

    Doesn’t it pay to advertise any longer?

    Sure it does, but you have to have something to sell. That’s where Linux sort of falls apart. If someone were making money selling Linux per se, then that person might want to advertise, expecting to increase sales and get more profits than it cost to advertise. But that is not the case.

    An OEM who might save some money using Linux instead of Windows could maybe advertise, but the most likely thing that would happen is that someone would buy a Linux computer instead of a Windows computer. The OEM wouldn’t gain anything if he had to give a discounted price to get the sale and he would have all the hassle of carrying extra inventory to satisfy both Linux and Windows customers. He would never get his advertising money back most likely, so it would not pay to advertise.

    Nobody actually sells Linux software in a retail box, so there is no one to actually profit from advertising. The story is somewhat different in server land and Red Hat and SUSE scratch out a living selling the OS itself although they have to play tricks with people to make it happen and they are always having problems with customers sneaking around their terms and conditions.

  36. bw says:

    I bet that you cannot describe how an NDA or a licensing restriction could thwart any OEM intent to market a Linux computer due to your lack of a formal education, dougster. But maybe the other guy will give it a whirl.

  37. dougman says:

    Dell, Newegg and HP offer Linux solutions.

    http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/us/en/os/ubuntu.html

    The OEMs (Dell & HP) do not actively market it due to licensing restrictions and NDA’s by M$, but they are available if you look hard enough.

Leave a Reply

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