Comments on: Memo to Canonical: Don't Repeat IBM's Mistakes

By: Jef Spaleta

Jef Spaleta — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:31:48 +0000

@mpt:

Except of course.. Apple is essentially a hardware company, not a software company. They design and sale physical devices and part of that design is the operating system. They don’t have to wheel and deal OEMs to pre-install their software against competing OS options. They build the device exactly how they want including the OS. Apple’s even talked recently about designing its own chipsets to have even more control over the final device design for its devices.

Trying to cast Apple as a software vendor, is like trying to cast Ford as selling light bulbs. Sure the vehicles have light bulbs in them just like Apple devices have operating systems. But Apple is building and selling much more than just the OS.

This is markedly different than Canonical’s approach.
Canonical isn’t a hardware company and that makes a very big difference in the final analysis as to how Canonical can position retail products. Canonical has very little control because its the OEMs that decide the overall the device concept. Ubuntu is just a decision that OEMs make as part of a larger device design.

Because Canonical doesn’t build its own hardware the role Canonical plays in overall device design is limited. Not only limited, but also more complicated than Apple. Where Apple has to target a very narrow set of device specifications for the iphone or the ipods… Canonical has to make a best effort to try to support different OEM device specifications all at once to stay competetive as an OEM pre-install choice. Fall too far behind in hardware support and OEMs won’t be interested in paying for engineering and support services when they can go with Android and have working hardware sooner. At what point is vast hardware support commitment a game of diminishing returns for a minority OS vendor? Apple avoids the trap entirely by controlling both the hardware and the software as part of a coherent device design.

-jef

By: mpt

mpt — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:38:12 +0000

It is true that “there’s essentially one Mac OS X”, but only because you specified “Mac”. Apple produces at least five operating systems: Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server, iPhone OS (used in the iPhone and iPod Touch), iPod OS (used in the iPod Classic and Nano), and Apple TV OS. With the exception of iPod OS, all of these use an OS X base. So their approach is basically the same as that of Canonical: much the same base system, but markedly different interfaces for different form factors.

By: Tanghus

Tanghus — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:21:54 +0000

I don’t see any connection between Ubuntu/Canonical and OS/2/IBM, but I sure do miss OS/2 and I’m sad IBM treaded it so badly.

By: Marx

Marx — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:21:42 +0000

I’m not sure there is much of a correlation between Ubuntu and OS/2. Ubuntu has really captured the mindshare for the Linux desktop that OS/2 never did. Let’s also remember their push into the server market is very recent, and their position on the desktop will do nothing but help them there. The problem is that the home desktop isn’t a profitable area. Home users don’t buy support.

What they need to do IMO is working on a tight integration between the server and desktop with some sort of AD alternative that’s easy to deploy and administer. They don’t need to beat Red Hat at it’s game, but carve out a niche for itself and the corporate desktop (yes it’s there but they don’t focus on it) is a market that’s largely ignored by the major Linux companies.

If they keep their products separate and have their desktop and the same server offerings as everyone else, people will try it because of the name, and depending on how the support is they may gain market share. I just don’t see them beating Red Hat in the traditional linux server market. They’re positioned well to enter new areas of the market and I’m hoping they have the vision to do so.

By: Jae

Jae — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:51:41 +0000

This article is a bit of a stretch IMO. Canonical does need to be careful not to spread themselves too thin, but taking the goodness from moblin or adding Android “compatibility” is nothing like the OS/2 craziness of the 90s. Moblin has achieved some really nice performance increases that dovetail nicely into Ubuntu’s roadmap (ie boot time). Also the Moblin UI, as cool as it is, still doesn’t offer “that” much functionality. However, it is based on clutter, which could be nicely integrated into MID or UNR editions. This is the beauty of FLOSS, the ability to mix and match what makes sense while participating with upstream.

Android is a little more orthogonal, but I can see some justification for it. It positions Ubuntu in a place none of the other distros are in. It sets it apart. Perhaps there is a market for android apps in Ubuntu, who knows!

OS/2 had an identity crisis without the full support IBM. The unholy marriage of Microsoft and IBM created OS/2 and after the divorce, IBM just piddled around with it. I remember one of the biggest selling points IBM pushed with OS/2 was that it could run Windows apps.

By: Bane

Bane — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:59:31 +0000

Jef, I see where you’re getting at but I don’t think that Canonical are powerful enough to influence which platform will become dominant. OEM’s like Android because it can be closed (Apache license) and they are the ones running the game right now that’s what’s going to be on MIDs and netbooks. What Canonical can do is to provide both worlds as value for users who like freedom and businesses that want Android apps in Ubuntu environment(desktops, servers). Basically, I think they are catching the last straw because obviously OEM’s want to control what you run on your computer and are ditching the ‘classic’ Linux for Android. With the exception of Dell all netbooks ran obscure distros for the sole reason that Asus or Acer wanted to have their own way. Of course it failed miserably because they are clueless of what GNU/Linux and FOSS in general actually is and that is community.

By: JP

JP — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:51:27 +0000

I find it quite interesting how a “show how it can be done” demo turns into a “speculatory”, “ubuntu is supporting android” conversation.

The reason oil prices moved so high artificially was by speculation and greed. Stop the sensationalism and ask the questions. You may not receive the answers you want to hear, but that’s the choice a private company can make.

@Joe: From a “speculatory” perspective, you might want to look/review the REST of UDS information for some really interesting insight into the progress Ubuntu is making. You may also want to look at the information around Computex to see how well UNR is being received.

By: jack

jack — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:38:10 +0000

Makes not that much sense this article.

canonical wins with server ubuntu’s, not with desktop, OS2 Warp had a lot of license issues, Ubuntu doesn’t have license issues.

So a cost for the company is the server cost on licenses, because iwe biu the license of the server OS as well services attached to it… Canonical garantee a license free server and you can only pay services.

so i dont see any problems supporting others.

this article assumes that OS2/Warp was GPL(it asn’t), that it was free(it wasn’t), and that it was evoluting as a GPL OS(it wasn’t)

we are facing a really different OS world now

By: F. Fellini

F. Fellini — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:51:01 +0000

I don’t think there is anything to worry about. I meet lots of ol’ timers out there that thinks OS2 was the next best thing since sliced bread. OS2 was killed by Microsoft, quite intentionally because that is what Microsoft is likely to do. Check the BeOS entry in Wikipedia to see what happened to BeInc.
With respect to Porters five forces Andy Grove proposed the sixth force, complements, which is where the modern computer industry lies today. It means software makers and hardware manufacturers complement each other to the point that when there is better software the hardware manufacturers get a windfall, and vice versa.
Microsoft protects its territory voraciously due to its appetite for market. It will never share the pie with any entity. We’ll this is short sighted because as we all know there are various applications in computing, not all requiring interactive computers. Linux routers are an example.
This last category is what demonstrates the value of Linux, and other freely available OSes. The theory of market complements goes beyond the above narrow definition. In application you can increase the market size in one market by increasing the consumption of a complementary product in the other market. Free OS and related software means greater sales of computers and paid-for software that runs on the free OS. You see this everywhere from linksys GL created by Cisco for Linux enthusiasts to netbook class to the rationalization in the cell phone hardware industry that making it easier to have one or a few OS platforms.
Intel understands the markets complements models, which is why it has over the years tried to get some things moving in software much to the chagrin of Microsoft (cf: the Microsoft Way), which resulted in a hostile reaction by Microsoft. Intel tried to move the low level sound software and hardware processing but Microsoft bulked.
We could have been a long way away from where we are in computers today were it not for Microsoft stunting the growth and direction of the industry through its practices.
Yeah, I know there are people that go, “but we wouldn’t be where we were today if Microsoft was not THE driver,” the I say exactly. It’s the reason that old timers say that OS2 was the most innovative of all the OSes to date. Its unsurprising the level of mediocrity that comes out of Microsoft as it grows. I believe beyond the rationalization of workforce, there must be a rationalization of sense of innovation. Microsoft for its entire life has bought technologies to kill them, tying two dead horses together and hoping they run faster.
Anyway, after all that all I wanted to say is that Ubuntu is no OS/2. Canonical owes nothing to the man. Linux in general will continue on to blaze new trails creating new markets for the likes of Microsoft. And Microsoft will be the angry bull in the cage of its own creation.

By: Jef Spaleta

Jef Spaleta — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:02:32 +0000

Joe:
I dont see Moblin as a distraction. Moblin is basically a reference implementation for a new interface concept. I think of Moblin as an extension of Gnome designed specifically attach the problems of the netbook form factor interface. Where Gnome focus on the traditional desktop. They are not inherently incompatible and they share a significant amount of framework. Especially when you consider that clutter is going to be just as important for Gnome 3.0 as it is for Moblinv2. I expect to see Moblin and Gnome Mobile initiative converging rapidly in terms of roadmaps and shared effort on shared technology if not the full UI.

Canonical will be able to consume and adapt Moblin without a huge problem..just as they do GNOME. Neither Moblin nor GNOME are in “competition” with Canonical at the moment. Gnome project releases its own live cd reference images too..but its not a distribution competitor generally.

If a Moblin remix replaces the UNR thats currently available, that’s not a bad thing for Canonical necessary. But they’ll have to be willing to let go of their homebrew developments, which can be hard to do. Moblin beta images use PackageKit by default for its package manager. Canonical continues to invest in its own homebrew packaging UI solution for Ubuntu, instead of tasking paid time to polish off PackageKit as a common solution across distributions. Even the more community controlled Kubuntu has decided to bite the bullet and use PackageKit by default even though the .deb backend issues which Canonical cites as critical for Ubuntu adoption of PackageKit are unresolved.

That is the sort of problem Canonical is going to face when integrating Moblin. How far are they willing to diverge from the reference versus taking the time to invest manpower into the upstream development of the technologies that form the reference? Canonical was in on the ground floor on Moblin and it sort of got away from them. They may have lost their chance to heavily influence the technology direction Moblinv2 took taking…but they can still come back now and start to impact Moblin if they engage. The CouchDB work that underpins UbuntuOne for example is something they could bring to the table for both Moblin and Gnome as a deeply integrated networking data syncing facility. And they are really taking a lead in terms of desktop usability testing inside Gnome, they could come back into the Moblin development arena as a leader there too. Moblin is more opportunity than competition.

But Canonical has to engage in the Moblin roadmapping and development to be able to make a credible argument to OEMs that they are going to be a good engineering and services partner for Moblin based devices compared to Novell for example. It’s not even clear that Novell has an advantage at the moment. Canonical has existing relationships with enough device OEMs to have a good idea as to what OEMs really want. They are probably ahead on that learning curve than Novell is…even though Novell can position itself as a technical expert on Moblin in a way that Canonical can’t yet.

Very different issue than the Android issue…where Google is absolutely a direct competitor in the space in a way that Moblin/Linux Foundation is not. Canonical has absolutely zero chance of influencing Android and that puts then at a very real disadvantage in the servicing and engineering business. Android’s engineering and servicing market is Google’s to lose..especially when it comes to the ARM OEMs where Canonical doesn’t have an established presence as a reliable engineering partner.

The real flash-over-points is watching to see if Android on intel starts being adopted more quickly than Moblin can be adapted to ARM/MIPS. It’s probably not in Canonical’s best interest to see Android adopted quickly as a native intel notebook OS.

The irony is that Xandros may bring Moblin to ARM faster than Canonical can and be the beachhead that Canonical can follow into the ARM space just as they were for linux on the first generation of intel netbooks. We hear very little about Xandros, but from all accounts they had a better technology showing at Computex than Canonical did.

-jef

By: Joe Panettieri

Joe Panettieri — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:09:45 +0000

Jef: I know sometimes we don’t see eye to eye. But in this case, I think we’re on the same page: I think Canonical’s MID and Ubuntu Netbook Remix editions face uphill battles. Though our readers do remain interested in those types of Ubuntu devices, I think the device makers themselves are increasingly distracted by Android, Moblin and Windows XP/Windows 7.

Aikiwolfie: I still believe strongly in Canonical’s server push. And I think we’ll see some new hardware partnerships before the close of 2009. Just an educated guess…

By: aikiwolfie

aikiwolfie — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:25:26 +0000

Personally I think the biggest mistake Canonical has made is to try and take on Red Hat and Novell. So far as I know the vast majority of Ubuntu installations are desktop installs. Theirs a really opportunity for Canonical their that they just don’t really seem interested in taking seriously.