id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

[sgtGarcia]

As a software dev: I exist to make my company [and by extension, myself] money. I can't compete against free, but "good enough" software packages, so I don't develop for linux. Shocking, I know.

Well, if You think that everybody is going jump for your software just because You made it, than You are wrong.
If You are going to made software that nobody needs ( there is free "good enough" application [that does the same/do more] or there is no need for that kind of software ), that means You have no idea how to make a business/money.
If You are going to make really good software that have free ( but worse ) counterpart, at a reasonable price ( reasonable means adequate to segment of software ) it will find buyers.
If You are going to make software in segment that there is not much competition ( free & paid ), You probably will find buyers.
Shocking, I know.

Later You say

so I don't develop for linux.

That made Me laugh. It's like free software is only available for Linux.
I'm telling You there is more free application in Windows market than Linux.
Yes I know - bigger userbase, so more likely Your app will find buyers, but this isn't so obvious, still quality & segment of app counts, probably even more.

That's precisely how I feel.Though Windows isn't too much different at this point.

Linux users are not that different than Windows users, cause people are people.
There is one thing that makes Linux users different, We are aware of that we need to support devs ( see HumbleIndieBundle ).
But games are little bit different.

As a software developer who develops stuff that primarily runs on Linux, I can't compete against free either. Thats why, if my company ask me to do something and I know of an existing free implementation of said thing which fits the bill, I use the said implementation when possible. You're not doing anyone any favours by reinventing the wheel. The problem isn't the app store, windows doesn't have an app store and people still manage to sell software there. The problem is actually writing something of merit. Software that cosmumers use is unlikely to have any merit*, thus you're going to have a hard time making money on any platform unless your app stands out or, at the very least, has a niche.

What He said.

And now, something completely? different

[1c3d0g]

ROFL...that's the best use of a comic I've seen in a while! So true!

And I agree with you 100%, sgtGarcia.

[ElderSnake]

Haha yes, that comic is so true

[AJSB]

sgtGarcia, 100% agree and i simply LOL'ed with the cartoon

[kraftman]

Well, maybe you can argue that the Linux community does not owe him anything.
But the open source community does!

No more than he owns Linux and its community - Linux servers.

[gamerk2]

Well, if You think that everybody is going jump for your software just because You made it, than You are wrong.
If You are going to made software that nobody needs ( there is free "good enough" application [that does the same/do more] or there is no need for that kind of software ), that means You have no idea how to make a business/money.
If You are going to make really good software that have free ( but worse ) counterpart, at a reasonable price ( reasonable means adequate to segment of software ) it will find buyers.
If You are going to make software in segment that there is not much competition ( free & paid ), You probably will find buyers.
Shocking, I know.

But the big difference is one of market share. Even if someone put out a POS, with enough advertising and word of mouth, they can expect to at least recoup development costs on the Windows platform, simply because enough people will buy it. How else do you think Norton/McAfee are still in business? Sure, there are far better free options out there for your AV needs, but enough windows users will buy where they can still be expected to turn a profit.

In Linux, with its VERY minimal market share, that assumption no longer holds. So you need a much better overall program, which increases development costs, which in turn necessitates a higher price of sale. Eventually, the price reaches a point where another product, even if significantly worse feature wise, becomes attractive simply because of its price beneift [IE: Good enough]. Hence the disincentive to develop, because I can't even gurantee I'll recoup cost of development, let alone turn a profit.

[AJSB]

But the big difference is one of market share. Even if someone put out a POS, with enough advertising and word of mouth, they can expect to at least recoup development costs on the Windows platform, simply because enough people will buy it. How else do you think Norton/McAfee are still in business? Sure, there are far better free options out there for your AV needs, but enough windows users will buy where they can still be expected to turn a profit.

In Linux, with its VERY minimal market share, that assumption no longer holds. So you need a much better overall program, which increases development costs, which in turn necessitates a higher price of sale. Eventually, the price reaches a point where another product, even if significantly worse feature wise, becomes attractive simply because of its price beneift [IE: Good enough]. Hence the disincentive to develop, because I can't even gurantee I'll recoup cost of development, let alone turn a profit.

You do realise that there is a silver lining on that...the fact that can actually be a good thing because devs will care with QUALITY instead of making half-baked products like BF3...

Also, you assume that devs make a game for Linux alone....if a game is made for Windows and Linux, the Windows version will pay the Linux version....even if it's only a average success...we can also see some examples in KickStarter...Wasteland 2...they wanted 1500000 to a make also a MAC and Linux version , well they got almost 3000000 !!! So, make Linux and MAC versions turn out not to be an issue any more...there is also another example at KS where the devs didn't get as much as they wanted for a Linux version but they got real close so they said "WTH, we gonna do it anyway !!!".

[ownagefool]

But the big difference is one of market share. Even if someone put out a POS, with enough advertising and word of mouth, they can expect to at least recoup development costs on the Windows platform, simply because enough people will buy it. How else do you think Norton/McAfee are still in business? Sure, there are far better free options out there for your AV needs, but enough windows users will buy where they can still be expected to turn a profit.

In Linux, with its VERY minimal market share, that assumption no longer holds. So you need a much better overall program, which increases development costs, which in turn necessitates a higher price of sale. Eventually, the price reaches a point where another product, even if significantly worse feature wise, becomes attractive simply because of its price beneift [IE: Good enough]. Hence the disincentive to develop, because I can't even gurantee I'll recoup cost of development, let alone turn a profit.

Well, market share and advertising dollars is a valid argument. Your previous statement of "I don't develope for linux because I can't compete with free" has nothing to do with market share.

However, to be honest with you, although marketing is required, I'd probably hate myself if I developed stuff people didn't want, or need, but got shovled down their throats because my behemoth of a company wills it so. You can make money without ripping your customers off.

P.S. I'm not saying you rip your customers off, I'm saying if you have something of merit, it would probably still have merit on top of linux. That merit may not outweigh the cost of porting, which is a valid concern, but your other opinions don't seem to actually be based on business realities.

[russofris]

P.S. I'm not saying you rip your customers off, I'm saying if you have something of merit, it would probably still have merit on top of linux. That merit may not outweigh the cost of porting, which is a valid concern, but your other opinions don't seem to actually be based on business realities.

One of the biggest hurdles that developers face is figuring out how to make a buck developing for linux. Under the Windows/OSX ecosystems, it's pretty straightforward. Under the Linux and FOSS ecosystem, it requires that you get creative.

With the Ubuntu software center, we'll probably start seeing an influx of non-free user space applications coming from developers clinging to the last remnants of the old model. We may see a couple pay-for-support companies spring up as well. I think that the real money will be made by professional services companies that leverage FOSS software.

F

[gamerk2]

Also, you assume that devs make a game for Linux alone....if a game is made for Windows and Linux, the Windows version will pay the Linux version

Which they'll likely take a loss on. Why even bother with a Linux version if I won't make money on it?

And again, you have the spectre of WINE. Best possible outcome for a dev: The Linux people who want the software can buy the Windows version, run it through Wine, and best of all, they're not required to spend money to support it, because its an "unsupported config". Spares the hassle of having to ensure the linux version works across all the major distros/kernel versions/desktop environments (and so on and so on).

Well, market share and advertising dollars is a valid argument. Your previous statement of "I don't develope for linux because I can't compete with free" has nothing to do with market share.

It does. On a Windows PC, how many free antivirus SW suites are better then Norton? Probably at least a dozen. But if even 1/100 people purchase paid antivirus, and 1/100 of those purchase Norton, Norton will end up with quite the profit at the end of the day.

On linux...not so much. Especially since the users who use linux in the first place would be even more apt to use free software if available.

So combine fewer overall users and the fact that most users will be more likely to go with free software compared to PC users, and you end up with a VERY limited area where you can really cost justify software development and still have the expectation to make a profit. And most of those areas are already filled.

---------

In my opinion, the major linux devs need to have a sit down and figure out what Linux wants to be. Then figure out all the interfaces to the OS [I should have one way to do audio/video/whatever, regardless of what environments/kernels/whatever the user decides to use], get basic drivers working for the majority of all devices that are supported in Windows [and I don't mean with a reduced feature set/performance], then give me a compiler with good performance AND is easy to develop with [GCC is horrid in this regard; developers like me who grew up with MSVC have VERY high standards], and then maybe linux for the desktop will start going somewhere. When I see Linux right now, I see an OS without any direction, just milling about and trying to stay up to date without really advancing anywhere in particular.