On Wednesday 03 October 2001 22.54, Timothy R.Butler wrote:
My other argument, about ISO's, is not that if SuSE truly couldn't make money when offering ISO's that they still should. It is that every single other major Linux distro company (including RedHat, which has proved it can and will be profitable) can seem to afford to have ISO's so why can't SuSE?
But where is the money made? Is it that Redhat makes enough money from its support deals and consultancy, that they can afford free downloads as a means of increasing customer base and get publicity? Is it that SuSE hasn't reached that level of income in their 'other side' and still relies on sales to get a return on investment? I don't know, I haven't seen either company's books, but it seems logical, doesn't it?
The thing is, let's say that one in every thirty people download the ISO rather than buying SuSE.
One in thirty??? Most observers would say the ratio would be inverse. For every thirty people who downloaded, one would shell up the dough.
That's a big loss, that's true, but those download users are probably some of the most knowledgable - or at least very knowledgable - Linux users out there (a new Linux user probably would want support). That means that maybe SuSE didn't sell them a box, but they will come on this list, help a newbie, and lower the SuSE's support costs. And going around to box prices, if support is the most costly part of their offering, perhaps these download users would actually *make* money for SuSE.
:-)
-Tim