OSNews

Pardon, that might be true if the scenario in the marketplace wasn't different. If there was an aversion to it, then how does one explain double digit growth of Apple Mac desktop and laptop shipments?

"

I'd explain it by pointing out the minimal growth of Apple Mac desktop and laptop shipments, all other things considered. Everything is perspective.

If you took the blogosphere and technorati opinions as being absolute, then everybody would be tripping over themselves to by a Mac because of HIG, security and/or coolness.

But Linus' opinion is sound. People are resistant to change. It's a basic paradox for consumer electronics manufacturers, for instance. People desire features, but they don't want complexity, increased cost or a learning curve. If you want people to adopt your product on the basis of features, then you need to make sure they offer enough of an incentive to override any potential complexity, cost or learning curve, otherwise the product is doomed to never achieve mainstream success, if any success at all. That's not necessarily a bad thing, sometimes there's a marketing advantage to that approach, by targeting early-adopters and niche marketing segments with the inherent profitability, without having to base your business plan on assuming mass-market consumer adoption.

So to your example, let's look at Apple. The iPod, for instance, was brilliant. It didn't create a market, since MP3 players existed long before it. But it redefined consumer expectations with the simple and intuitive interface, as well as the ease-of-use from iTunes integration. At the point in time it was released, particularly combined with the consumer-friendly slick styling, it was a winning combination. That's the kind of thing marketers and product planning people dream of.

But then look at the Mac desktops and laptops. Very cool, very slick, and yes, some advantages in usability (though I'd argue against the shameless gushing people do, since it still has faults). Should be a killer product, like the iPod, since there are many of the same desgin objective in place. But they're not as successful, relatively speaking.

Why? Because everybody has a computer, and for >95% of the population, it runs Windows. And Windows is what they know. And Windows functionality is what they expect. And, despite what powerusers and tech-oriented people like to claim, it works well enough for what people need. Windows doesn't BSOD all the time for all people. Windows works well enough on moderate hardware for many people. Users, unfortunately, aren't as concerned with security as we like to think they are. In short, Windows works and does a good enough job. Because of that, the gap between what users have and what Apple thinks users want is large.

Apple is *different*. Apple means learning new things. Apple means buying different software. The list goes on... People on this board may not see that as an issue in comparison to the perceived advantages Apple provides, but that same ROI calculation doesn't provide the same result for Joe Average. Because Apple is different, it has to provide enough of an advantage to justify changing, and for the majority of users, it simply doesn't. But again, that's alright, I don't think Jobs has any intentions of displacing MS. The number two player never generates the same revenue that the number one does, but they can be more profitable because they don't have to achieve the same objectives.

The iPod didn't create a new market, but it succeeded because consumers felt it offered such a better experience than incumbent players at the time, therefore it justified the obstacle of adoption (mostly price), and it did such a good job that it brought new adopters into the market. The iPhone, despite the lavish praise, is struggling against expectations, because despite the gee-whiz interface and functionality, doesn't offer as *big* an advantage over the incumbents, many of whom are much cheaper, particularly when you consider the restricted carrier encumberance. Ditto the Macs. They are good, they are slick, but they aren't necessarily targetting the mass market, but rather a specific segment of the market that values the functionality, capability and/or style of the Macs against the obstacle of adoption, once again price, and maybe availability of software or scalability.

Ditto for Vista. Any perceived advantages seem to have been lost on adopters in comparison to the convenience and cost of the systems they know and are familiar enough with. Vista simply doesn't have a killer feature that is strong enough to lead the mass-market to jump the chasm towards adoption. Though MS has the market strength to eventually make this happen regardless, that doesn't really count, since their market dominance subverts free-market drivers in the long run.

Desktop linux will face the same obstacles. There seems to be this perception in the community that everyone hates Windows and is desperate for an alternative. That's simply not true. The vast majority of the population is "satisfied" with Windows, and any alternative will have to offer a substantial incentive to encourage switching, whether OSX or linux or Haiku or whatever.

As long as desktop linux tries to replace Windows by simply emulating it, then it will never achieve substantial attraction. But if desktop linux can differentiate itself, and find aspects that exceed the capabilities of Window, and market those properly, then desktop linux can stand as a viable "alternative", not replacement, for Windows.

But at the end of the day, it boils down to basic marketing. The consumer is resistant to change, they want to deal with products they know and are comfortable with. That's the entire basis of brand marketing. If you're going to achieve a shift in mass market acceptance, you have to either do something new and creative, or you have to do something far better and far more advantageous than the competition.

From the view of the mass market, neither Linux or OSX is at that point. But again, that's not a bad thing. Apple has proven that you can still achieve a considerable amount of industry and market clout even with a single digit marketshare. Jobs is brilliant in this regard; he's a visionary, I'll certainly give him that much credit, but he also has a brilliant business sense for making products work without requiring market saturation. That's admirable, at least from a business perspective. And that is, surprisingly, along the same lines as Linus' message. OSS and proprietary products still rely on the same common marketing principles for attracting adoption.

The customer is always right, no matter how much you know they are wrong.

I say this, naturally, as a linux user. I prefer linux, I enjoy using linux, I feel akward using Windows. Still, I'm practical enough to know that I can't advocate linux to everyone I know, because for everyone I know, they all have different requirements and expectations, and linux is far from being a one-size-fits-all solution. Most importantly, linux requires a commitment from the user in terms of learning and understanding it, if they are really going to get the best advantage, and many people simply aren't willing to make that commitment.

So we're still far from reaching the Year-of-the-linux-desktop(tm), but that's an artificial target anyways. We need the year-of-the-innovative-does-something-new-desktop if anything is going to change in a substantial way, regardless of who it comes from.