Comments on: Keeping Score: Canonical’s Ubuntu Partner Program http://www.thevarguy.com/2009/07/27/keeping-score-canonicals-ubuntu-partner-program/ Channel News, Reseller News and Channel Partner Programs Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:00:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Glyn Moody (glynmoody) 's status on Tuesday, 28-Jul-09 08:51:10 UTC - Identi.ca http://www.thevarguy.com/2009/07/27/keeping-score-canonicals-ubuntu-partner-program/comment-page-1/#comment-104242 Glyn Moody (glynmoody) 's status on Tuesday, 28-Jul-09 08:51:10 UTC - Identi.ca Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:51:18 +0000 http://www.thevarguy.com/?p=4108#comment-104242 [...] http://www.thevarguy.com/2009/07/27/keeping-score-canonicals-ubuntu-partner-program/ [...] [...] http://www.thevarguy.com/2009/07/27/keeping-score-canonicals-ubuntu-partner-program/ [...]

]]> By: Jef Spaleta http://www.thevarguy.com/2009/07/27/keeping-score-canonicals-ubuntu-partner-program/comment-page-1/#comment-104230 Jef Spaleta Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:55:52 +0000 http://www.thevarguy.com/?p=4108#comment-104230 I like Canonical's Gerry Carr's quote about partners the best: "You know as well as I that it is really easy to sign a partnership," http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135365/Ubuntu_s_maker_Chrome_OS_no_slam_dunk_just_because_Google_announces_it If Canonical employees are so glib about the partnership annoucements made by others, that comment probably says just as much about how of Canonical views the importance of their own partnership annoucements. And look real close at those case studies... how many of them are people talking about the benefit and value of spending money with Canonical versus deployment of Ubuntu systems gratis without spending a dime with Canonical? Is anyone actually buying Canonical's Landscape services yet and willing to go on record that Canonical services are good value for money? The case studies Canonical is compiling don't suggest that they are. Red Hat seems to be doing a much better job of making the case that spending money on Red Hat services is a good value: http://customers.redhat.com/. Canonical continues to get it wrong here. They keep pushing Ubuntu as a loss-leader deployment but they haven't shown that they have found a way to transition any of those deployments from free-to-pay. Let me point out that Canonical has never gone on record with the number of paying subscribers to Landscape. If they want to bolster the impact of their case study effort..then they need to go on record with the number of active revenue generating landscape subscriptions. -jef I like Canonical’s Gerry Carr’s quote about partners the best:
“You know as well as I that it is really easy to sign a partnership,”

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135365/Ubuntu_s_maker_Chrome_OS_no_slam_dunk_just_because_Google_announces_it

If Canonical employees are so glib about the partnership annoucements made by others, that comment probably says just as much about how of Canonical views the importance of their own partnership annoucements.

And look real close at those case studies… how many of them are people talking about the benefit and value of spending money with Canonical versus deployment of Ubuntu systems gratis without spending a dime with Canonical? Is anyone actually buying Canonical’s Landscape services yet and willing to go on record that Canonical services are good value for money? The case studies Canonical is compiling don’t suggest that they are. Red Hat seems to be doing a much better job of making the case that spending money on Red Hat services is a good value: http://customers.redhat.com/. Canonical continues to get it wrong here. They keep pushing Ubuntu as a loss-leader deployment but they haven’t shown that they have found a way to transition any of those deployments from free-to-pay. Let me point out that Canonical has never gone on record with the number of paying subscribers to Landscape. If they want to bolster the impact of their case study effort..then they need to go on record with the number of active revenue generating landscape subscriptions.

-jef

]]>