So it is obvious that my father will continue to use Windows Vista for several years. For people whose use of computer mostly involves document editing, email checking and occasional multimedia enjoyment, the insecurity of an "unproven" Operating System is enormous. The irony is that Linux is, in fact, already quite ready for this kind of usage. It might even not be so difficult to switch. Actually, Ubuntu Linux is even easier to install than Windows Vista is, and is even better in multiple usability areas.
But user perception of computer complexity is inherited from the first operating system they learn from. If Windows XP is already full of potential virus infection, then Linux should also have its share of problems. My father has been a businessman for whole his life, therefore I guess that his logic represent the logic of most business aware consumers. Hence, I don't really see year 2008 as a year of Linux Desktop. It's never about technology. It's about how human nature react to the unknown.
But this is not a blog post about Linux adoption. What aroused me to write this exploratory piece of thought is the fact that even my father, a typical end user of computer, would perceive Linux desktop as comparable or even superior to Windows. Now, this is not another X VS Y post. It's about the underling economy that produced products like Windows Vista and Linux Ubuntu.
I guess that even Microsoft itself can barely keep track of how much resources it has invested in its flagship operating system. Software is a very strange commodity: you can invest billions lines of code in return for nothing really valuable or usable. I remember an episode from 1st season of "The Apprentice", and it was about Mr. Trump wanting to establish a bottle water distribution business, the "Trump Ice". If you are rich enough and influential enough, you can probably establish any commodity business overnight and turn it into a moderate and sometimes even successful money machine.
But the rule for software business is completely different. People would expect the company that produced Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP to produce a much more advanced product. Because software is not water. Water always tastes the same, but people need to drink water everyday. Operating System, on the other hand, needs to change, like Obama says. Without real incentive, there won't be enough upgrade, and without upgrade, Operating System business is not profitable. In essence, software business is really about sustainable innovation. Of course, you can always run a software company like it's some kind of commodity distribution company, using traditional business leverage and influence to sell your stuff. But it's not gonna work in long term.
Posts
