i have to wonder how many ubuntu users are using ubuntu simply for the cost of owning it ($0). If that group is high, which i think it is, it may imply that a lot of those same users, might not want to put money into a project. Speculation.
* Free and bundled together at a sharply discounted cost (or the cost of R&D in Apple's case) to the manufacturer aren't exactly the same, but that's not apparent to the purchaser.
Perhaps that's different in the US?
And while you theoretically pay for the Windows licence that come with a new machine a) most people aren't aware of that, and b) aren't aware that you can get that money back if don't use it.
Granted there's still a de-facto monopoly on paid for desktop operating systems for general x86 pcs -- but does that really mean that we should try to keep it that way?
On some, they've even donated the same amount or more in total dollars compared to OS X users - ie, Linux users have been more profitable even though they have a much smaller market share.
In short, Linux users are very profitable (per-user).
[0] I can't confirm that it's 100%, but it's been every Humble Bundle I've participated in (a lot), which I think is a large enough sample size for the purposes of this statement.
Maybe the lack of games make Linux users appreciate it more?
Not to suggest that there actually IS any difference between the two groups when they pay - I just feel like more a good-deed-doing partner when I voluntarily pay more for something like humble bundle, that's all. It's silly and false, but it's definitely a feeling.
I'm not au courant with Linux in any of its various forms, so my assumptions above could be wildly wrong, of course.
I think that you are correct -- at least in part.
I have zero desire to play games but I have purchased many of the Humble Bundles, for example, simply to "support the cause" and encourage other vendors to also consider Linux as a viable platform. I usually give away whatever it is that I've bought.
A single, idealistic phone like this will allow those users to focus and buy it - in much the same way as the games.
Your comment isn't really as relevant as you think it is. It would suggest Linux would be a highly lucrative platform to target for games, however the more normal it becomes to port games to Linux the less likely people would be to pay that price. This would happen much faster than you would think too.
Source: From country where pirated windows used to be norm. Still is in ethical standpoint. Only OS bundled with computers has changed that.
Count me in the 'buys games' lot.
I just played Euro Truck Simulator 2 in Ubuntu 13.04 this morning. With the latest update it runs very nice. Full screen, no tearing. It has less FPS than in Windows, but that's expected for this particular game. Using an empty Openbox desktop to run it made no difference, the performance issues are not because Unity, but because of the game engine. I'm only working in moving my savegame from Windows to Ubuntu.
On the other hand, Portal and Half Life 2 run PERFECT in Ubuntu. Just as fast and pretty if not faster than in Windows 7. I'm waiting for Portal 2, as that's one game I have not managed to finish in any platform yet. They also support virtual desktops, so I can ctrl-alt-arrow them away in an instant if my GF needs something from me.
I havn't really had any problems playing any game that works on *NIX so far - not that there's all that many.. but still.
I value that Canonical can bring people to *nix, but I like my customization and a lot of the magic that KDE can pull off. Also, I love writing QML + C++, though with Ubuntu transitioning to be qt focused I could get that anywhere.
I hope this means, more than anything, the year of qt is 2014, because I'd really like to get employed working in qml / qt projects.