Why Is Red Hat Abandoning Linux for PCs?

Sort of odd that Red Hat (RHT), one of the powers in Linux for business computers, is dumping its efforts to create a Linux-based operating system for consumer PCs.

In statements, Red Hat blames Microsoft (MSFT), saying it's so dominant that no one else can break in -- yet that dominance is now being tested in new ways. Apple's (AAPL) Macs are doing better than ever; little laptops running on Intel's (INTC) Atom chip, like the EeePC, are about to storm the market, many armed with a Linux OS; and outfits like One Laptop Per Child are ramping up manufacturing of Linux-based laptops for developing nations. In fact, there seems to be a lot of activity around Linux for consumer PCs.

Something else seems to be at work here that Red Hat's not saying. Any ideas?

Comments

[Def]

Red Hat is not being entirely truthful here the truth is they are losing to Ubuntu badly as far as desktop Linux is concerned and are deciding to go scorched earth by not conceding defeat in that arena. Ubuntu seems to be getting more and more popular and the impending release of 8.04 soon might have motivated Red Hat.

[gwinner]

Why get your derriere kicked competing for a lost cause when you can focus resources on the server market where the field has proven to be white and already to harvest. I view this as a move to focus development and marketing resources on the greatest potential for revenue and market share growth by the new CEO. I also agree with "Def" on Ubuntu. If Ubuntu succeeds, Red Hat is in position to monitize Ubuntu client subscriptions for existing Red Hat customers (e.g. do what Oracle tried to do to Red Hat, only succeed).

[mis4um8]

Redhat just might not be ready to deal with hundreds of phone calls a day from people needing help setting up their printer and such. Better work to that slowly through corporate users that have an IT department to help them. Their current desktop offering has everything a business user might need, including (with a little help from CodeWeavers cxoffice) the ability to run the corporate dominant MS-Office 2003. Corporations are much more likely to be willing to pay for an operating system that comes with stability and support, while home users are more attracted to "free". Once one is used to using Redhat linux desktop at work, one just might want to run the same thing at home (that's how it happened with me, at least). Be patient, Redhat management just might have a plan...

[Mike Cooper]

Think about your arguments above. Macs? An established base of users and one of the best computer interfaces ever designed. And they are STILL not even 10% of the consumer market. EEPC and OLPC? Both computers selling for less than $400 I believe. That is perilously close to breakeven (OLPC is non-profit) and they STILL face an uphill battle.

RHAT knows the GUI flavor of the month is Ubuntu. Between Microsoft being dominant, Apple being the best and Ubuntu being fashionable, where is the money here?

[mcepl]

What about reading that statement (www.press.redhat.com/2.../) again?

What's so difficult to understand on "as a public, for-profit company, Red Hat must create products and technologies with an eye on the bottom line, and with desktops this is much harder to do than with servers."? There just are no money in selling Linux on desktop for customers? I hear about Ubuntu zillion times -- how much money Ubuntu make on desktops? How many employees they can pay from this profit? Oh, they have no sales and no profit. Hmm, strange.

Red Hat is not paid by one billionaire, but it is a for-profit company with shareholders. And BTW the fact they Red Hat doesn't have customer oriented desktop, doesn't mean it has no desktop at all -- business gladly pay for support of it (not in the amount as they pay for servers, sure).