The open question is why anyone would buy software for Linux. The key differentiating factor for _most_ people who use it is that it's free (as in beer). There are two other operating systems that for most people work better than Linux. It's hard to see how you can ask people to pay for software now in the hope that it will eventually be good. I'm sure some people will buy software because it's the Right Thing To Do, but considering the population that selects Linux and their reasons, it's hard to picture a big enough market there to draw really good consumer software developers.
I completely disagree. I use Linux because of how well it works and would gladly pay money for it, and I think most long term Linux users stick with it because of how well it works. In fact, most Linux users I know purchased a computer with Windows already on it, and completely wiped it off to put Linux on there. So they've already 'payed' for Windows, but use a different OS anyways.
I'm also not saying people should pay for bad software in hopes that it will become good. I'm saying that we need to make it easier to pay for software so that software that good that already exists can be purchased.
Android is an example of how Linux and payments can work. An open source operating system with many free pieces of software, but an App store where products can still be purchased.
So, have you? If so, how much? I've spent $300 on software for my Windows computer in the last year, and another $100 on software for my Mac.
> So they've already 'payed' for Windows, but use a different OS anyways.
Granted, but I think far fewer people would if Linux wasn't completely free. If Linux distros were able to enforce a charge of $5 per download, I suspect consumer adoption would halve or worse.
> Android is an example
I'm not sure that's the best example considering the trouble many developers are having making money on Android. But even if we go with that, there are probably already far more people carrying Android handsets than are using Linux on the desktop.
More than that, there's a question about what type of people and for what motivation people buy Android phones. Notice how I said "buy Android phones," not "install Android". People buy Android phones explicitly because you can easily buy desirable apps on them, unlike so many other phone OSes. But the operating system is not free like beer in the sense that it is easily downloaded and installed on a device people already have on hand. You still in most cases have to go out and buy the device. So it does not suffer (as much) from the selection effect I described earlier. (The evidence I've seen so far does suggest that its demographics with respect to paying for software deviate significantly from those of the iPhone.)
The differentiating factor for me is that it's just what I've used for 12 years and what I'm most productive in.
Serious Linux users use it because it's the only thing that fits the way they work. Linux has all the interface and programs I'm used to, so of course I'd be more likely to buy software for it than any other OS. What holds me back is that there isn't any software I need that I don't have...
One problem that I do have is that if I pay Canonical, for example, to make the whole OS better, it would mostly still crap out because I made the mistake of buying at AMD/ATI graphics card. Not sure who to blame at that point. The Ubuntu people say its from ATI/AMD and ATI/AMD say that there's not enough money in the market to justify better work on the driver(that or technical problems with the differences between distros). So what then? It would still have the same result.
> The open question is why anyone would buy software for Linux.
Well, I'd be interested in one of the following apps: a desktop wiki, an email client, a contact management app, a feed reader, a music player, a scalable image editor, a layout app, a recording app, a guitar effect app, a GIT client, and probably some more.
Of course, for each of these, there's some free app somewhere. But each of these free ones have something I don't like.
I admit, my willingness-to-pay is quite low. That's partially due to some free apps being available. The better reason, however, is that installing proprietary apps sucks under Linux. I also fear, the regular distro updates will break apps I've payed for.
In other words: If there's a way to conveniently download an app from a store or homepage, and to get security and "distro upgrade" updates (maybe, by registering the app automatically with APT during installation), my willingness-to-pay would be quite a bit higher!
> The key differentiating factor for _most_ people who use it is that it's free (as in beer).
How do you know? Any empirical studies I'm not aware of? Or just the Biased Sample fallacy?
> It's hard to see how you can ask people to pay for software now in the hope that it will eventually be good.
Dunno. There's a lot of applications that were not 'good' when they were first released. People still bought it.
the key differentiating factor for most people is free _as in freedom_.whether they came to linux because their hard-drive crashed and they dont have permission to re_install the OS they payed for that came with their machine, or they are a geek who enjoys the power that comes from the freedom to tinker and benefit from others` tinkering.
no one is aware of the cost of their operating system anyway.
An interesting business question.