I really wish Canonical would focus into making a really great desktop experience (that was getting better each year until 2011), instead of trying random shoots everywhere and seeing what sticks.
Canonical has to make money somehow. The Ubuntu "music store" sales probably don't net much (cf. Linux Mint earnings [1]); I don't think that Mr. Shuttleworth has an infinite cash reservoir to sink into Ubuntu, either.
Canonical can and should try to monetize Ubuntu the best it can. Tablets, TVs, and other 'thinner' clients seem to be the market trend, and I think that Canonical could stand to make some money here. Even a little is good.
It's possible to pursue a different form factor and still make a compelling desktop OS. If Canonical is able to grow, they can afford to spend more on building an across the board experience for all types of devices. Maybe they're slightly distracted from their original mission statement, and maybe this results in a slightly lessened desktop experience, but someone has to pay the bills. Maybe they'll even turn a profit. I'd certainly love to see them grow and flourish as a company. How awesome would it be to have Ubuntu-powered devices that run on optimized hardware and can sync, share, etc?
I'm not sure why you have quite so many downvotes.
Where I disagree here is that I don't see what Canonical's business model will be on consumer devices.
On the server/enterprise level it is easy, just charge for support services.
If they provide a free open source solution for tablets for example , unless they are going to manufacture their own tablets they will not be getting any licensing money off the tablet manufacturers per tablet sold unless they distribute some of their software under a non-open license.
They might be able to make some money through Ubuntu one and selling file syncing and sharing through that but if the system is open enough then there is nothing stopping a tablet manufacturer building a tablet that comes with their own syncing solution rather than Canonical's.
They are unlikely to be able to strike good deals with major content providers without having to install DRM in their software and have signed software/hardware which would basically turn them into yet another proprietary vendor.
I don't like Unity (so far), but I can certainly see it as the glue that binds a broader strategy to capture a bigger share of emerging OS markets like tablets and smart TVs.
I use unity every day and it allows me to carry out my daily work in a very acceptable manner. I don't miss Gnome desktop, which was basically a continuation of the UI format put in place by Win95.
Unity isn't perfect, but the fact that Canonical are thinking long term and have an ambitious strategy should be commended.
Then why not make a separate distribution ? Desktop linux users do not have the same needs as users of Android tablets. Linux is generally supposed to be coder friendly, keyboard-user friendly. Unity is not.
>> Linux is generally supposed to be coder friendly, keyboard-user friendly. Unity is not.
Ubuntu's goal is the very oposite of that from the begining.
Any coder and keyboard-user can easily pick between an array of distros that will target just them, while Ubuntu set out to be "Linux for human beings" and this is just the approach they chose.
Opportunity cost. Canonical is a small company with limited resources. If they can achieve the holy grail of a common interface that works on the new emerging platforms, they can carve out a profitable market share.
After all, the Year of Linux on the Desktop is a ship that has sailed.
One example is Alt+Tab. You used to be able to Alt+Tab between windows inside one virtual desktop. In Unity, that changed. Alt+Tab tabs between applications across all virtual desktops. Alt+` tabs between windows of the same application.
This is super annoying when you know what windows are open in which virtual desktop. I used to be able to switch to a virtual desktop and Alt+Tab quickly. Now, I need to cycle through all open applications and I'm screwed if there's more than one window open of that application. Lot's of wait time. Using the mouse isn't much better.
I've used Ubuntu since 7.10 and have loved it and recommended it up until Unity. Now I'm seriously thinking of switching. I've been hearing a lot about Linux Mint.
The inability to launch an application by typing its name. It was a real show stopper for me. In gnome, press Alt+F2 and you can run a command. In unity, even by calling the menu you can not execute a command, you have to guess the application's registered name, which can be quite different from the executable name.
Even easier than that, just tap Super and you'll get the default lens, where you can launch applications just by typing its name and hitting enter. There's a tiny delay so I still prefer dmenu, but IMO much easier than having to take your hands off the home row to hit Alt-F2.
The thing I don't like about Super in Unity is that the feature doesn't learn you're most used applications. I used to use gnome-do and it was awesome for that.
For instance, if you want to get to the calculator, I type calc. The first option is LibreOffice Calc. I have to either use the arrow keys or mouse to navigate to the calculator which is the second option. I know that If I type ca or cal, calculator is first, but I tend to type calc and it doesn't learn.
I also use VirtualBox. In gnome-do, I can start typing the name of my VM and I can launch it immediately. Using Super in Unity, I need to open VirtualBox first. Then start the VM through VirtualBox.
Yes, I did and the thing it does is allow you to type the title of an application, not the name of its executable file. I don't remember the application I wanted to launch (synaptic maybe) and typing its name didn't work. It was registered with a fancy name like "Package management application"
I think it's great that Canonical is expanding into new areas. The desktop is only one facet in the future of computing and if more users end up with an open source option instead of an Apple TV, I think it's a good thing.
I wish Ubuntu would stop trying to be a cut price Apple.
Having said that from these screen shots it doesn't look like a terrible interface.
Will this be a distribution you install on a PC then plug into your computer or will it come on a dedicated boxed device?
If it's the former than how is this much different from the hundreds of other Linux media distributions?
If they are going in this direction it really looks like they are moving away from being a Linux distribution company and towards being a more general consumer electronics company in the vein of Sony of Philips.
To me Canonical and Apple have always been very different. Canonical has no doubt drawn much inspiration from Apple in their user interface elements but I feel from there the comparison really tapers off. Canonical provides services. Apple sells products. Canonical sees value in attaching services like training and maintenance on top of free(as in beer and freedom), open source software. Apple sells hardware and closed source software.
This release is fully inline with that type of strategy. Canonical gives manufacturers the software that's completely modifiable, with sensible defaults, and free. Then provides training and support at a cost to anyone that needs it.
I don't know, I guess I feel that most of the comparisons between the companies are based on a very superficial user interface standpoint. They are quite different, with quite different goals, quite different values and quite different products. But they do both have windows with rounded corners.
> Canonical shares post-purchase services revenue from the sale of content, applications and subscriptions through Ubuntu TV products with OEM’s and distribution / channel partners.
Canonical are building an OS for TVs and are talking about building others for tablets and phones.
Who are they going to sell training and support to?
I don't really think many people are going to be wanting to go a training course to operate their TV or smartphone.
How do they intend to make their money using this?
The only way I can think is by making their own hardware or taking a cut from someone elses hardware.
Either that or doing movie purchase / rental which will probably mean DRM.
I can't imagine providing a few support services to a handful of TV manufacturers is much of a business model especially since they have the option of not using the support at all or only using it a small number of times until they have enough in house knowledge not to need it anymore or they have customized the setup to the extent that canonical can no longer support it.
It doesn't have the same potential as the server market where there are 1000s of various size companies using Linux servers with different configurations.
If I was developing some software to be integrated into hardware devices I'd want either a license fee payed per month/year to use the software or I'd want a cut from each box sold.
The only way they could achieve this is by making their TV software proprietary.
If it is indeed something that can be installed onto a PC, one key difference between this and the other media distributions may be whether it is cablecard certified. From what I understand, you need to be in order to receive encrypted HD broadcasts over cable tv. This is what I am looking for.
Did they say anything about DRM anywhere? The interface has 'Rent' and 'Buy' buttons in the previews, but it seems unlikely that the commercial content they're demonstrating will be available without DRM.
So most of the current connected TV platforms already run some flavor of Linux, what this is about is the TV presentation layer for things like movies and navigating with a remote.
In most of the cases to date the CE manufacturers have dictated the DRM (and video codecs) supported since it will usually be baked into the hardware video decoder in the SOC. Ubuntu will just support whatever the CE manufacturer decides to support.
There is zero chance of content without DRM and probably requires locked hardware too. Boxee and Android (cant rent movies on rooted devices) had those requirements for content deals, Ubuntu won't be any different.
I can't help wondering if that won't conflict with Ubuntu's open source philosophy in the long run. By abiding to content owners ever growing restriction's, won't Canonical eventually give up open source solutions?
The market opportunity with pay-TV companies for Ubuntu TV looks potentially very attractive to me:
* For pay-TV companies like Comcast and DirectTV, Ubuntu TV is the only next-generation set-top-box solution that is truly neutral from a competitive standpoint (it's not controlled by the likes of Google, Apple, Amazon, etc., and it's easily white-labeled and put completely under the control of the pay-TV company) -- and it's inexpensive and available today.
* Ubuntu TV is a vast improvement over existing pay-TV set-top-box software in use. Compare Ubuntu TV's UI at http://www.ubuntu.com/tv with, say, the UI currently offered by Comcast, the US's largest pay-TV company, at http://por-chr.cimcontent.net/ui/images/landing/tours/meetyo... . (Speaking from experience as a Comcast subscriber, the screenshots understate how much worse Comcast's existing software is -- it's awfully slow and often unresponsive.)
* Set-top-box manufacturers have no choice but to do whatever pay-TV companies want, because pay-TV companies control the last-mile connection to consumers. If a pay-TV company like Comcast wants wants Ubuntu TV with XFinity logos and blue colors, that's what the set-top-box manufacturers will install on Comcast boxes.
* Ubuntu TV is compatible with a wide range of commodity hardware, including many legacy set-top boxes.
I wonder why they would reveal this without any announcements of signed deals with TV manufacturers. Seems like killing it off before it even hits the ground -- this is destined for months (if not years) of delay before getting anywhere.
Makes me nostalgic: about 12 years ago I had a consulting contract with SAIC and Americast to write Java code for a prototype set top box: just me doing the Java version, largely copying the work and following in the footsteps of a large engineering team working in C/C++. Don't laugh, set top TV is actually an interesting platform :-)
We’re very pleased to collaborate with members of both communities.
Myth TV and XBMC are popular open-source TV projects, particularly in the Ubuntu community. We’re very pleased to collaborate with members of both communities, enhancing the quality of back-end code that is shared between projects.
Our focus is to bring a Unity front end to the TV, suitably adapted to the entertainment, lean-back experience of the living room, but there are plenty of areas where our needs intersect perfectly with those of other communities.
Any improvements or changes we make to either project are contributed back. And we welcome contributions from both communities."
not really a comparison, but more will be know when code will be pushed to launchpad
Will they provide the system as a download for people to incorporate into their own HTPC? I need something that will talk cablecard, and so far (afaik) Windows Media Center is the only game in town.
But that's not a comparison. A comparison would be a list of features showing the differences.
> And we welcome contributions from both communities.
This is a dick move. Ubuntu are saying "we developed this new thing from scratch, and now it's up to everyone else to collaborate with us (although we didn't collaborate with them)"
It has certainly lost me. For a moment, I thought it succeeded at having a "just work"(tm) distribution and a credible business model. Now... well it doesn't work anymore for me. Maybe the business model is sound, maybe I am not in the target audience anymore.
I'll go back to debian. I like their philosophy, and it also helps ubuntu to help debian. So long, and thanks for the fish. And very franly, thank you Canonical for the 7 to 10 releases that helped us so much in a non profit to make people discover linux.
I just switched to Debian a month or so ago after I saw how their software center was pushing a bunch of proprietary software and earlier versions tricked me into installing the flash plugin. The fact that they're pushing DRMed content is just further confirmation of this trend. It's not a community I want to be part of anymore.
> How does it "trick" you into installing a flash plugin? I'm pretty sure you can select not to install any proprietary software.
At install time it asked me if I wanted to include some other packages that are "restricted", such as the mp3 codecs. Using the mp3 codecs as an example tricked me into thinking they were restricted for patent issues, not because of a restrictive license.
> whether you want to stick with FOSS type licenses
You (and Ubuntu) are conflating software licensing with patent licensing; they are very different things. Patent licensing is only an issue in certain countries with insane laws; software licensing is a problem regardless of jurisdiction.
Lack of codec support without hoop jumping (Boxee has solved this)
- You don't think you can just run VLC and/or FFMpeg? Also this is for embedded systems on TV's most of them run hardware video decoders for the most popular codecs anyway.
Lack of content (Apple and Amazon are in the process of fixing this, but Ubuntu won't have the weight to get Big Content on board)
- Amazon could be a provider on this system. I doubt Ubuntu really wants to be doing content deals. Instead they want to be more of a Roku or boxee model and let content come to them.
Linux hardware is a pain to hook up to HDTVs
- Read the article again this is Ubuntu embedded into TVs no hookup necessary.
Unity interface is poorly suited for 10-ft interaction
- They seem to be addressing this.
Existing players (Apple TV, XBox 360, Boxee, etc. -- even Google TV!) are more mature and have had time to strike content deals
- This is really the only decent argument you've got.
I would think this is oriented at device manufacturers. You would be surprised how many of them already use Linux in DVRs and media centers (e.g. our home DVR uses Linux, although it's not visible in any way).
I recently considered ditching my cheapo freeview hard disk recorder (UK - Brand Digihome) and replacing it with a media box. I tried out a few distros and open source solutions, but they all had their faults in one way or another. I tried XBMC, Boxee, Myth etc on various distros on moderate hardware, and in the end - I decided it just wasn't worth the headache.
So I see a need for something that's easy as pie to use with abundant features. But why not improve and contribute to existing projects?
You mention that the Unity interface is poorly suited for 10ft interaction - you couldn't be more right. Am I the only one left in the world without a cinema display? Just watch the interface demo over at Ubuntu to see how much it sucks. It helps to be able to read type on the screen for tux sake. It's so amateurish.
That's not to say that your list isn't surmountable, and that there isn't a better interface out there yet to be untapped.
Well it was an anecdote but there are many people out there experiencing the same. (Google) Probably some problems with the drivers for AMD graphic cards. Even after disabling all the 3D effects, etc. the UI has a significant response delay. Same on my Asus EEE PC which features a whole different configuration.
