Ubuntu Server Edition At Wikipedia: Where's the Revenue?
First, the good news for Canonical and its loyal followers: Yes, Wikimedia Foundation (the company behind Wikipedia) is embracing Ubuntu on its servers in a big way. This is the latest in a growing list of large and small organizations that are betting their back offices on Ubuntu. Now, the challenge: It sounds like there really isn’t much — if any — money flowing from Wikipedia to Canonical.
If you read this blog regularly, you know I believe Ubuntu has a bright future on servers. As someone who covered the birth and rise of Windows NT Advanced Server 3.1 for InformationWeek back in the 1990s, I believe Ubuntu Server Edition is catching on faster — yes, faster — than NT did during its early years.
Money Matters
But there are some key differences here. First, the market for server operating systems is probably a few thousand times larger today than it was in 1994. Second, I’m worried that very few customers are actually paying Canonical to support Ubuntu Server Edition.
According to The Register, Wikipedia has roughly 350 servers today — most of which run Ubuntu. Canonical Marketing Manager Gerry Carr, a stand-up guy who doesn’t hide from facts, conceded in The Register article that:
“Wikimedia has not engaged Canonical for support contracts but there is some discussion about Wikimedia using Canonical’s Landscape system management tool, announced in March, as well as doing some sort of custom support contract.”
So let’s keep things in perspective. Our own Works With U 1000 list tracks hundreds of companies and organizations that have eagerly embraced Ubuntu Server Edition. But monetizing Ubuntu? That seems to be an entirely separate challenge. We’re still very early in the Ubuntu server game.
WorksWithU is updated multiple times per week. Don’t miss a single post. Sign up for our RSS and Twitter feeds (available now) and newsletter (launching January 2009).
Another fact that I pointed out on the Digg article is that unless they brand every page as “Powered by Ubuntu”, this will not help much if at all.
Someone pointed out that it’ll be easier to convince clients now to switch to it, ie, “Wikipedia with 8% of the worlds daily traffic is using it’ though – but really, some people haven’t even heard about Linux.
I believe its certainly positive news and a real start for Ubuntu server. The lack of a support contract certainly puts a needle in the balloon so to speak. However, Wikimedia in time may grow large enough that a contractual relationship with Canonical could be obtained later. It really depends on how aggressive Canonicals sales associates are and if they can prove the need for support contracts at this stage of Wikimedias size. I doubt it at their current size. However, a possibility could be in the making further down the IT road. Good job Ubuntu Server Team and Thanks to Wikimedia for providing “Wikipedia” for the masses.
Um, Wikipedia is a charity with less than a dozen employees. It’s not unreasonable for a charity to use a free operating system without signing up for the support contract.
Wikipedia doesn’t have adverts, remember?
Yea, its not like Wikipedia is making loads of cash either. They provide a great service for free and have mostly volunteers. They also do provide back to the eco-system providing bug fixes and testing, etc.
Hopefully this will attract more for profit businesses, with small or no IT staff to pay for that extra support. Remember with the support you also receive Landscape which Ubuntu should push more, since it sounds like a great tool to maintain a large amount of Ubuntu systems.
That said though, its not always about the money, Gnu/linux and sites like Wikipedia prove that.
Correction:
“Ubuntu should push more” -gt; “Canonical should push more” (in the second paragraph.)
Andrew, Carlos: I am not criticizing Wikipedia. Rather, I’m making a broader statement about the open source business model — especially as it relates to Canonical and Ubuntu.
Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing.
But at some point, Canonical (and many open source application providers) will need to generate profits to fund ongoing operations.
I do not have access to Canonical’s balance sheet. Nor am I suggesting Canonical lacks funding. Rather, I’m stating that “free” is not a long-term, sustainable business model.
Sorry, I didn’t think you were criticizing Wikipedia, I was just building on what Andrew was saying. Sites great, keep spreading Ubuntu!
Carlos: No need to apologize. We welcome constructive criticism and timely views. Also, we don’t want to hype Ubuntu but we do want to educate the market about its strengths and weaknesses. We’re in a tricky spot. We don’t want want to be a cheerleader for Ubuntu, but we do like to see the market grow.
Canonical should make a deal with Wikipedia…”Powered by Ubuntu” on every page in exchange for a free support contract. That’s advertising dollars well spent.
James: Now THAT is a good idea.
Seems like whenever a distros business model doesn’t pan out, there are folks who want to point fingers at the users and community and say “why didn’t you support this like you were supposed to?”
To me that’s the wrong attitude. A business model doesn’t rely on the goodwill and charity of the customer, even an open source business model. If people aren’t buying support contracts, then either the price is too high or the value is too low.
And as Linux advocates, we can’t push the gratis or cost-savings aspect of Linux and then gripe that people aren’t paying thousands of dollars for support contracts. Is Linux cost saving or isn’t it? At $2500 per year per server, it sure wouldn’t be.
Another Alan: Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that customers should find a way to pay Canonical.
Rather, I am suggesting that Canonical and other open source software companies need to work very, very hard on their business models to produce valuable solutions that customers are willing to pay for.
‘The bad news: Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, doesn’t seem to be profiting from the Wikipedia deployment.’
Since when was it bad that Linux was free? Is the writer on the side of Linux… or Canonical?
Weizbox: I respect and welcome your comment. But I strongly believe Canonical needs a sustainable, profitable business model or this wonderful Ubuntu momentum will be for naught.
See comment #12 for my views. Thanks for reading.
This is the conundrum Canonocal finds itself in with its business/profit model.
They have already stated that they will not charge for their desktop or server versions–both are free to download and use. Instead, Canonical hopes that businesses will buy support contracts and suppirt the effort that way.
On one hand, this sounds plausible, but when people speak about Linux being free, paid support seems like a cotradiction…to some. And many businesses already have IT staff that knows what their doing. So, no contracts or supportus purchased.
Canonical may not be running out of money any time soon thanks to Shuttleworth’s generosity; but Shuttleworth has made it clear that Ubuntu is an investment not a philanthropic project. He expects a return on his investment. And to turn out a product that is free to all without the need to buy support contracts will, I believe, eventually lead to Ubuntu’s decline unless…unless Shuttleworth changes his business model where the server is concerned.
Even if Wikipedia brands every page with “Powered by Ubuntu”, it will not guarantee a revenue stream for Canonical. Quite the opposite. Others may see the cost savings, switch and still not buy one supoprt contract.
From now on, the question isn’t one of whether Ubuntu’s uptake is increasing. The question should now be “is Canonical gaining any additional revenue from the new adopters?”
Every time a business switches to Ubuntu without buying any support from Canonical, it is a net loss, not necessarily a gain.
After all, what does it profit Canonical if every desktop used Ubuntu but nobody paid for it? In this regard, smaller niche distributions with a product for sale (Slackware, Vector, etc) have a better business model than Canonical. Why? At least they are making money from their users.
I think Shuttleworth’s aim is to make it self-sustainable at least. Because philanthropy is a one-time thing, sustainability is for much longer.
However Shuttleworth has hinted in several places that Ubuntu isn’t self-sustainable yet (pretty much, losing money).
“Is Ubuntu close to turning a profit?
The way I think of it, parts of it are. We clearly have no intention of making a profit on the operating system itself – we give that away. And so we build around that core platform a series of service businesses. And we have a number of those; some of them are closer to turning a profit than others.
And yes, I believe very strongly that we have to strive to deliver both the very best of Free software, and to do so on a commercially sustainable basis, and I think we can achieve that. ”
via http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3757246_2
no, wikimedia shouldn’t have to pay. in the free software world, wikimedia is family. and they contribute back indirectly by spreading the word, suggesting improvements and finding bugs.
Howlingmadhowie:
I’m not suggesting that Wikimedia should have to pay.
But I am suggesting that Canonical will need to continue to think of new revenue generating business models in order to ensure the company someday turns a profit and Ubuntu continues to thrive.
I think you will find that Mark Shuttleworth won’t worry in the least that Wikipedia isn’t buying service contracts.
First of all, the fact that such a huge company has chosen the Ubuntu server above all the others will be a great boost for the Ubuntu Server.
Secondly, such information will possibly persuade other organisations to move over to Ubuntu and many of those will probably want service contracts.
I think MS (unfortunate initials) will be thrilled at the vote of confidence by Wikipedia and that it will give all Canonical employers a buzz of excitement and the impetus to srive forwards.
Immediate money is important for a business, but a respect amongst its peers is usually a guarantee for future money.
Ampers.
I think Canonical saw the value in having a BIG customer actually using Ubuntu Server and making use of their support as being more valuable than the money they would have gotten through the support contract. Right now, Canonical isn’t lacking funding (think Mark Shuttleworth), it’s product is lacking credibility. Now, Canonical can answer those that doubt the viability of actually using Ubuntu Server in a production environment by saying “Have you heard of Wikipedia?”.
Omegamormegil: Reaching into Shuttleworth’s wallet is not a long-term business strategy for Canonical. It’s great for Canonical to have Wikipedia as a customer reference. But it will be nice to hear about some paying customers down the road, too.
Hmmm..the title contradicts the article:
Canonical Marketing Manager Gerry Carr, a stand-up guy who doesn’t hide from facts, conceded in The Register article that:
“Wikimedia has not engaged Canonical for support contracts but there is some discussion about Wikimedia using Canonical’s Landscape system management tool, announced in March, as well as doing some sort of custom support contract.”
Buried, inaccurate.
Why waste Money, Linux is like the Classical VW Beetle, it works and works and works…
Like Father Unix