Linux in the Mainstream. What Will it Take?

If you Google “Why Linux is Better Than Windows” you’ll be able to go 20 pages deep and still find articles from tech blogs and news sites alike proclaiming reasons for Linux’s superiority. While most of these articles are just rehashing the same points, they are valid points nevertheless. And with all this ruckus over Linux, it begs the question: if Linux is so much better, why is it not competing for users at the same level that Windows is?

The Problem

Linux lays claim to only 2% of the desktop operating system market. Meanwhile, Windows holds 88% of the market. We know why this is the case. Microsoft had the first mover advantage, with MS-DOS solidifying Microsoft’s hold in the personal computing market a decade before Linux even came into existence.

Once Linux had managed to mature into having intuitive and usable distros, it was too late. People haven’t been and still aren’t switching over. And why should they? Windows comes preinstalled on most computers and works right out of the box.

Some claim that the solution is simple; a distro needs to be offered preinstalled on computers from big name computer manufacturers like Dell, HP, ASUS, etc. The logic is that by showcasing the many advantages of Linux over Windows, people will make the logical decision to switch over. In reality, when users are presented with this choice, they most always stick with Windows. Why???

The main contest is really between proprietary and closed-source software vs. free and open-source software. Propriety software is where only the private company that owns the software knows how it works and only they can legally distribute the software. Free Open-Source Software (FOSS) is where the software is released to the public, and everyone can see how it works and distribute it at no cost. Windows a pure example of the the proprietary model, and Linux is a pure example of the FOSS model. Apple's macOS (OSX) is a clever mix of the two models, and is designed by Apple to sell its high-end hardware systems. As one of the most profitable private companies on Earth, Apple is extremely successful at what they do, but they are not as dominant on the desktop. Apple's enormous wealth comes from the profits and popularity of their iOS in mobile technology. Mobile computing is diminishing the market share of the desktop as a computing platform. Mobile computing is also an area where Linux in the form of Android dominates Windows.

The principal reason for the sustained popularity of Windows on the desktop is that Microsoft at a very early stage in the mass adoption of desktop PCs was able to secure wide deployment of its operating systems by forming strong alliances with hardware makers like Intel and the builders of IBM clone PCs. This started with MS-DOS/Windows 3.1 and reached a fever pitch with Windows 95. Microsoft was also first to bring to market a well-integrated office productivity suite in the form of Microsoft Office.

Microsoft's strong alliances with hardware makers and PC builders along with the tight integration of its popular office business tools with its operating systems create an enormous money-making synergy for the profitable sale of proprietary software licenses. In its ruthless execution of this strategy Microsoft was very successful! At one point Microsoft Windows was running on over 90% of PC in the world and Microsoft Office is still the de facto standard for information exchange in documents.

The wide distribution of Microsoft operating system and its tightly coupled office productivity tools led to a network effect where developers would write programs that ran only on Microsoft operating systems because they were guaranteed a wide market and would make more money for the least amount of effort.

So today we have the situation where when you buy a PC it is already pre-installed with a paid copy of Windows. Many users will use what comes installed with the computer as long as it does what they expect it do. Because most developers write the most popular programs only for Windows it is very difficult for other operating systems to compete even if they are superior.

Also, Microsoft has the marketing muscle to persuade PC users that they are receiving more value from Windows than they actually are getting. The marketing budgets of Linux distributions are near to zero, even though these technologies are critical to modern computing. Very few people know that there exist better alternatives than what they are already using.

There is now a huge installed base of computers that run Windows. The technology in most of these computers are heavily encumbered by patents. Microsoft deploys these patents to block the adoption of superior competitor technology. This means that many times if you do switch to Linux (or Mac) you will encounter compatibility issues that Microsoft has intentionally created to block you from working with those who use Microsoft technology. Many users find it is easier to just continue paying to use Windows and Office than dealing with some of the challenges of switching to alternative solutions.

It is possible to make the switch, but it means leaving behind Windows operating systems and file formats completely. It also means finding alternatives for any software that only run on Windows (or Mac). This includes beloved desktop programs like PhotoShop, Illustrator, AutoCAD, Outlook, CorelDraw, Picasa, and many games. A huge number of valuable work-flows and technical processes are tightly coupled to programs that only run on Windows.

Microsoft's intentionally complex licensing practices block many PC makers from lowering the price of a new PC even when they pre-install Linux or sell the PC with no operating system. If a PC maker wants to sell Windows licensed PCs, then Microsoft often requires PC makers to buy a Windows license for every PC that they sell even if they don't install Windows on that particular PC. If a PC maker fails to comply they are charged higher licensing fees. In a market as hotly competitive as PC hardware, no PC maker can afford to pay higher licensing fees to Microsoft than its competitors and remain in business.

There are also some problems users have with Ubuntu and Linux operating systems that prevent wider adoption and use. As mentioned above, there is a lack of awareness of Linux operating systems due to a lack of strong marketing and evangelism. Many people do not know that there exist free alternatives to Windows or Mac. Any awareness of the Linux brand is usually accompanied by the message Linux is only for the technically savvy. Of course, this is a false message since in many ways Linux can be much easier to use than Windows. The reason Windows might seem easier to use is that there is a lot more people who are experienced with using Windows, fixing its quirks, or finding workarounds.

Sometimes Linux user interfaces (UI) lack attention to detail and design awareness. While huge strides have been made in this area, there are times where ugly details in the UI go untended for years before some intrepid volunteer out of boredom or disgust contributes some polish. (I am looking at you Ubuntu and the way your top panel works with overlapping windows and menus in your Unity Desktop Environment.) Sometimes ugly or quirky UI widgets only disappear after they become obsolete and are bypassed or replaced completely. Deficiencies in the desktop environments can make the underlying Linux operating system appear cheap and shoddy.

Once they have successfully settled on a particular flavour of Linux, they often find that there is some new program or function they want to do that they can't do on Linux. They go to the store and buy a new iPhone, or smart-TV, or they subscribe to some on-line service which uses file formats infested with Digital Rights Management (DRM), and they find that the software needed to make it run will only work with Windows (or Mac). Despite all the nice things that Linux might have done for them, they begin to feel like it is a crappy operating system. Of course it is not the fault of Linux that developers are lazy, or willing to encumber their users with DRM, yet it adds to the false impression that Linux is a second-rate and "cheap" solution.

Another problem is when proprietary hardware manufacturers decide not to release to the public the proprietary way their hardware works. They fail to release the driver code in order to protect their so-called "trade secrets". If that hardware becomes popular, a lot of users will find their hardware will not work with Linux. The hardware will not work with Linux until some intrepid Linux developer figures out a way to reverse-engineer a usable driver. This can take a long time and by then many users of that hardware will go back to Windows because for them "Windows just works". Of course, this is just another false impression.

Finally, most of the DIY solutions to these problems require the user to query Google and visit technical forums. They will find that many of the most skilled users of Linux are haughty and rude. They will find that they have to go to a "scary" command line and exactly execute one or more unfamiliar commands. These commands can be sometimes quite lengthy and complex. Most PC users lack the confidence to evaluate the solutions they find on-line, or correctly execute the solution. They often don't try, or when they do try they often destroy their Linux set-up and corrupt their files. Of course, the same thing happens with DIY Windows users, but because of the above reasons, users end up going back to Windows (or Mac) because it is perceived as safer than Linux and there are more commercial options for help and support available to users of the for-profit proprietary platforms.

In other words, it doesn’t matter how much people proclaim the superior features of Linux — the reality is that to the average consumer, Windows and Linux accomplish the same tasks and there is no reason to switch away from what they already know.

The Solution

In order for Linux to succeed at a consumer level, Linux would have to do more than just appeal to consumers with utilitarian value. This is already expected from consumers. It would require consumers holding a higher brand value for Linux over Windows.

Once people hear about Linux they usually find there are many formulations of Linux and they get overwhelmed by the choices. First they are confronted with choosing between distributions: There is Debian vs. Ubuntu vs. Linux Mint vs. Red Hat vs. Fedora vs. CentOS vs. Slackware vs. SuSE vs. Arch vs. Gentoo, etc. Then they have to choose between Desktop Environments (DE): There is Unity vs. KDE vs. GNOME vs. XFCE vs. Cinnamon vs. Mate vs. Enlightenment vs. LXDE vs. bash, etc. Most users don't want to have to decide what solution is best. They would rather have good choices made for them. The plethora of choices and the constant arguments over which is better feed into the false message that Linux is hard or only for geeks.

And by brand value, we aren’t talking about nice logos, product design/experience, or even what a company says about themselves. By brand value, we are talking about a company’s values and how they act upon those values and in effect, how consumers view said company.

To give an example, we can look at the wildly successful car manufacturer Tesla Motors. Tesla’s Model S is the world’s bestselling electric car, despite being 2-4 times more expensive than the next 10 bestselling electric cars.

This is possible because consumer’s aren’t buying into just the product itself, they are buying into Tesla’s values and how Tesla acts upon them — their values being that of creating a sustainable future for generations to come.

And while the next 10 bestselling cars I mentioned are sold by companies who promote the same values for their electric cars, they fail to truly act upon those values by continuing to sell gasoline powered vehicles as well. As a result, they fail to form the emotional connection with costumers. Tesla’s values of a brighter future are only further solidified by the company’s close association with other forward thinking companies like SpaceX and SolarCity.

For Linux to experience success in the consumer market, a new computer manufacturer would have risen up and either adopt or create their own Linux distribution. One comparable to Windows in utilitarian value. That’s the easy part because distros like that already exist.

After that, they must create and act upon a stronger brand than that of which Microsoft promotes. A brand that has users emotionally invested in the company and its values. This emotional connection is why it must be a new computer manufacturer and not an existing one.

Much like the less successful electric car manufacturers in the Tesla situation, you can’t truly be acting upon your brand values if you are simultaneously promoting another, separate brand value.

Linux has tried far too long to market itself as the logical upgrade from Windows. This method is no longer feasible. We now live in a world where the combination of higher expectations from consumers and their empowerment through social media/the internet has caused a radical shift in how many buy into and stick with brands. Usability has become a given. Emotion is now the key to customer loyalty.