The Myth Of Cheap Linux Users

There's a persistent myth that Linux users won't pay for software, where Windows and OSX users will. It's used as part of the salvo of excuses or reasons why developers don't bother making Linux versions of their software. It's not as cut and dried as either camp make out.

The Humble Indie Bundle is often used as a counter point to that argument, that Linux users pay more than their Windows or OSX using counterparts. It's now in it's third iteration, the trend has not changed. Minecraft too shows Linux users happy to pay for quality software. These are independent games made by small teams or individuals. These are developers in the FOSS mold, not huge corporations churning out bland big budget sequels. There's a world of difference between a small budget independent game bought by a few million people for an average of £10, and a major studio title like Call Of Duty, advertised on TV, mainstream gaming sites etc and sold worldwide for an average of £50.

When you drop the selling price to beer money levels, or as these developers have done; a pay what you want model, it affects the sales figures. People who would have to think twice about a £50 game often won't think twice about a £10 game. This same principle applies in every creative field. Self published and independent authors are making a great living on Amazon by selling their ebooks at 99p or £1.99.

Therein lies the difference, at the small end of the market the people doing it, are doing it as a passion. They are hoping to be able to earn a living out of it and many do. They do not do it with the sole aim of turning over millions of dollars of profit to a corporation who will funnel it through a few tax havens back to politicians campaigns to be allowed to abuse their customers even worse than they already do. Set realistic prices and people will flock to it. Set prices people consider greedy and they either ignore it or get it illegally, bypassing you.

That's not to say Linux users wouldn't pay for major titles like Call Of Duty if they were Linux native, it's just not a convincing argument that they would, judging by the reactions towards small developers. I'd imagine plenty would, but I'd also guess they're not much different than their Windows or OSX counterparts in deciding that while these games are cool, they're not worth the new selling price. They're no more or less likely to use illegally downloaded and patched versions partly to strip out the insane anti-consumer DRM, but in part because they just don't feel there's value for money in them.

Moving away from games, what about regular desktop or laptop software that has some productive function. Are Linux users willing to pay £300+ for an office suite or a photo manipulation suite? For the most part they're not. The question is why not. In the Windows and OSX world you're conditioned to buy software, even stuff that's very basic like an archive extractor like Winzip. These are commercial platforms for other commercial modeled software. Everything about these platforms from the day you buy your PC is about trialware versions or hooks into buying software. This conditions you to think that something with a high price tag is the only way you're going to get a complex suite like an office suite, so you treat anything else with suspicion.

In Linux, many distros, specially the mainstream ones come with Libre Office and the GIMP pre-installed. There is no trialware, no cut down products where you have to pay for the useful features, these are full and complete applications. They are already pre-installed, and they are free of charge. For those distros where they are not pre-installed those applications are a click away in the repos, also free of charge.

So why would Linux users pay for things like Photoshop or Microsoft Office, when they have Libre Office and the GIMP for free? This is the wrong question to ask. The question is what do these expensive applications have that the free alternatives don't? The question is are those features the average light user really needs and think is worth forking out £100's for them?

Major software houses with huge brands like Microsoft Office and Photoshop have gotten away with selling a decent product at very expensive prices that the average user doesn't need, they only think they need them. They have relied in part on users ignorance of any alternatives. Linux not only opens those alternatives up, but in most cases pre-installs them for the user to try.

Are they on par with Microsoft Office and Photoshop? For some power users they are not, they will always need the expensive brand names but for your average user they are. This is the part that scares the major software studios. They have to actually compete and prove that their software is worth all that extra money, and for most users it simply isn't.

Imagine a pre-installed Ubuntu Linux suited to the existing model. The pre-installed software would be stripped right down, the repos would be pointing to the vendors own repos where Libre Office and the GIMP were missing among others. You'd have to pay for root access to be able to change your sources list to point to the proper Ubuntu repos. You'd have trialware versions of Microsoft Office and Photoshop in Wine, as well as an assortment of scareware from MacAfee and Symantic.

To give a proper Ubuntu (or any other distro) experience, where could you sell trialware addons? How many people would try Libre Office or the GIMP, find it's maybe not what they're used to but it's free and it does everything they'll ever need? How many will do all that, then still decide to click through the trialware and decide to fork over £100's for features they don't need and UI comfort because it's what they're used to?

Linux users will pay for software, the difference is that they're exposed to the free alternatives and how close they come to the expensive brand named versions. They have a much better sense of value for money in terms of "that's a real basic function, why should it cost £30?" They have also seen behind the wizards curtain to know that most of the stuff that average or light users need can be done for free, that that high price end stuff is designed for the professional use end of the market, which is not them.

If software performs an advanced function that they need and is fairly priced, they will buy it. What they won't do is spend lots of cash on functions they don't need or don't use. Microsoft Office may well be better than Libre Office, but is it £300+ per seat better? For professional environments that use advanced Microsoft Office only features the answer will be yes. For everyone else, the answer is most likely no.

There's a basic difference here between Linux, and Windows or OSX. Linux is built by users for users, where the others are built by companies for other companies. Sometimes this can be a drawback for Linux, in that you get some undocumented application, or something that's not packaged for every distro etc. The flip side is that they often take the essence of a product and strip away all the commercial addons to make it easier to use with less resources, and more reliable.

The most vivid example I can think of is Yahoo Messenger. The official Windows client is HUGE, with hard coded adverts, partner stuff that you can't get rid of, they just soak screen real estate, when all you want to do is have a PM client. By comparison, look at Pidgin, it's a single multi-protocol application with all that annoying stuff stripped away. Why use several clients, all with their own corporate unfeatures when you can consolidate them all into one application and stay in touch with people on all the other protocols?

The takeaway point here is that Linux users can, will and do pay for quality software, they are just not chumps who fork out lots of cash for very little. The mindset of most major development houses relies on chumps who do just that. Everything else is just a pre-made decision, then laying out the evidence that supports it.