Well, I was going to ask ...

[Roger Oberholtzer]

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 23:58, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
> Michael Hipp wrote:
> > Tim Wunder wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thursday 06 May 2004 10:25 pm, someone claiming to be Michael Hipp 
> >> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> But RH has now narrowed their potential customer base down to only the
> >>> very biggest and richest and I fear that will be a mistake in the long
> >>> run. They have, in effect, told a huge number of people "your money is
> >>> no good here."
> >>>
> >>
> >> Isn't that market demand met by Fedora Core?
> > 
> > 
> > Certainly some would say yes. But I don't really think so. A year ago I 
> > was using their low end product and gladly paying them a bit of money to 
> > do so. Now I use their lower-end non-product but do so for free. I get 
> > less and they get nothing.
> > 
> > And worse, whereas last year my brand loyalty to RH was growing every 
> > day. Now it is diminishing every day as reasons to stick with them seem 
> > fewer and less compelling.
> > 
> > Just my view of the world ...
> 
> About a decade ago I was involved in a major purchase of HP equipment. 
> Because of the size of the purchase, we were asked if there was anything we 
> wanted as a bonus.  I asked for calculators (I love the RPN).  We were told, 
> no.  It seems that HP did not quite break even on the calculator division and 
> only continued producing them because it put the HP name in front of so many 
> engineers and financial types.
> 
> That sounded to me like smart business then and still does.  You just can't 
> buy that kind of devotion with marketing.  I think RH, and before them 
> Caldera, are really missing something by not supporting a desktop.  It may be 
> just beyond their cash flow but it seems to me that it bought devotion that 
> marketing could never match

Back in the days of UnixWare (when Novell had it) the argument from
people was the same. When they dropped the desktop in favor of servers
only, everyone shouted that without the desktop, people would probably
not use the server. They would have to install some desktop, and would
of course get familiar with it. And if that desktop had a server
sibling, they would eventually migrate to that as they we familiar with
it from their desktop work. It was argued that the desktop should be
considered a 'loss leader' to aid sales of servers.

I think that the problem is that this desktop has strong competition.
Or, at least the competition is seen that way. A desktop must be more
than compatible with the server, It must stand alone as a place to work
as well. So the desktop requires effort to develop and maintain.

I guess RH (and others before them) have decided that the cost of
maintaining and developing a competitive desktop is more than they think
they would gain in server sales.

This same action (dropping the desktop) seems to be played out over and
over and over by all except MS. Has anyone seen a company make a success
with that strategy? I wonder what RH think they have that sets then
apart from all their failed predecessors? Hubris, perhaps?


--
Roger Oberholtzer
roger at opq.se