Canonical has set up a site to help developers package and sell the code they produce. The site is designed to help to popularize the operating system, encourage new popular apps, and create more commission revenue for the open source organization. The Ubuntu Developer Portal hosts a variety of tools and applications aimed at …
From a random sample of one company starting with the letter A:-)
bet that it will end up like the big Linux rush of the mid 90s for games
some games, sorry, apps.
no more vendors.
Or, as some marketing genius said "Once people are used to free, they don't want to pay".
>>Or, as some marketing genius said
>>"Once people are used to free, they
>>don't want to pay".
Meh, I think that's a bogus argument, sounds fancy but is pretty irrelevant; I seem to recall a time back when I ran windows, every single piece of software was downloaded and cracked, often times I'd run binary patches willy-nilly not even thinking about the potential hazards. As I moved to Linux, I found myself actually paying for software however.
It's true that we do not have as many games as windows users have access to, but if you're a linux user, and you like playing games you can find quite a number of them available, there's certainly a lot more of them around than most people realize. After all why would most people who do not run linux care about what runs on linux?
Example: The other day I was browsing www.gamereplays.org and saw mention of an interesting newly released RTS called Achron, I went to their site and do what I usually do; check the FAQ for Linux support. Usually there's no mention, but in this case I was pleasantly surprised to see Linux indeed being supported. Sometimes you just have to go take a look.
One statistic of use in this situation could be the Humble Bundle results, if you scroll down on http://www.humblebundle.com - for pretty much all of the Humble Bundles that have been released individual Linux users pay more on average.
Anyway, people will use whatever operating system they want to, some people will pay for their shit and others won't, regardless of their choice of OS.
Don't be so sure!
I think Canonical is on the right way to succeed. Ubuntu One is becoming a success, as well as Ubuntu Software Center. Paid software section is growing (not a lot but is growing) and i think you are wrong when you compare Linux gaming unsuccess with what Canonical is starting doing. Gaming Industry is very expansive and Linux isn't a good target (yet). But what Canonical is trying to do is to increase small and multiplatform developers and i think is a very good idea. Ubuntu can attract them and Ubuntu Software Center will be populated by paid application in two three years. Most of them will be useless like it happens in Android market foe example. Who will live will see. Sorry for may bad English.
You are right. When I ran Windows all my software was hacked/cracked now using Linux all my software is legit. I have also donated money to project Novacut and am considering subscribing to LightWorks.
Even with the similar payware equivalents, a great deal of the software is still freeware.
It doesn't matter if the platform is PhoneOS, Android, or Ubuntu you still have to stick out well enough that someone pays for your stuff rather than just downloading something else for free.
It's not the salesfront that's important. If Canonical wants to put a dent in things then they need to offer developer support, pay attention any complaints, and work at solving any of those issues or providing guidance where appropriate.
Focusing only on the most visible aspect of the whole enterprise probably won't help so much.
This rush to charge is all associated with the Canonical IPO which is surely coming. The Applesque mimicry of "Apps" for sale provides more smoke for the mirrors.
And, by the way, it isn't all about the devs - but the end user. You gotta separate the chump from his change by providing some modicum of actual value.
Unity didn't do it. Gnome 3 won't do it. Obviously, having $2.99 Apps will solve the problem of fleeing users.
For those who didn't even check what the web site looked like before commenting, I'll point out that most of the information is about creating and packaging apps, what tools to use, etc. which is exactly the right information to put in front of potential developers. Money is not mentioned at all, it is only alluded to in the "publish" section by the fact that you have sub-sections for commercial as well as open source software. So when it comes to publishing, it's your choice whether you ask for money to download your app or not.
To come back to the article, having a vetting process for apps published that way, either commercial or open source, is not necessarily bad as long as the criteria are open. The main strength but also the main weakness of Linux apps is that you just have so many of them. Choice is good but more often than not when you have 10 apps that do the same thing, 8 of them are crap or no longer supported, one is average and one is great and quite often you don't know which is which until you've tried them all out. So if some sort of vetting, especially around support, can increase the overall quality, it can't be bad.