[pohl]

I don't think that makes a very compelling exhibit, given that "the internet" is not "all things you can get to via a web browser". The internet, rather, is IP, TCP, UDP, etc...and every protocol built on top of it. This includes HTTP & HTML (which iTunes leverages heavily) but also a many other things that are not browser-oriented.

Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exactly who is likely to spend money and making them want to be their customers. I'm a huge Debian fanatic, but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen.

[btmorex]

but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen.

This seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you just said: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28471/Humble_Indie_Bundle...

[pohl]

Yeah, that always gets trotted out in this context. If what you think this suggests is true there would be more than one such story. To me it just smells of a demographic grateful of finally getting some mercy sex.

Besides, it's a charity. I was talking about commerce.

[btmorex]

Well, one real story is a whole lot more compelling than hearsay.

[Bud]

He has a bit more than hearsay going for him; Apple's success in various markets lately has been huge. Linux's success in getting people to spend anything like that kind of money in any consumer context? Basically nil.

Come on, we all know this, we don't need a page of citations to prove to us that Apple is the biggest non-Exxon company in world history, and it's not by accident or some mysterious means.

[fakelvis]

Linux's 'failure' in getting people to spend "that kind of money" in a consumer context is most likely due to the fact that it's not a centrally-owned commercial entity with a product line and shareholders (i.e. what Apple Inc. is), not due to do any actual 'failure'.

I'm not saying that the users of Apple products and those of Linux distributions don't differ in their purchasing habits (and I'm not saying they do, either)--I'm just pointing out the flaw in this line of reasoning.

And I don't know why you keep repeating this "biggest non-Exxon company in world history" argument, too. It's sensationalist and by two of the most common metrics, false:

* By market capitalization they've been the biggest in only three quarters in history (most recent), all of which are smaller than other companies in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_...

* By revenue there are many, many non-Exxon (i.e. oil?) companies bigger than Apple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue

[Bud]

I'm repeating it because it's fun and useful shorthand for saying that Apple has become incomprehensibly huge lately, not out of some innate desire to mislead you personally. :) And come on; it's clearly not a linchpin of my "argument", which does not fall flat just because PetroChina and whoever else might also be really big. Nor am I delivering some cruel insult to Linux. I loves me some Linux. I was just pointing out the facts.

As an aside, it would appear that Linux now has an exciting new path to earning money: winning Jeopardy!

[wladimir]

1) I don't know about Mac, but most windows users I know pirated a lot of their software. Isn't that just as tight-fisted?

2) There is not much commercial software for sale for Linux at all, so I guess there is a chicken and egg problem.

3) Of course you will sell less Linux copies of a piece of software. There are less Linux users.

But to say Linux users are comparatively tight-fisted compared to users of other OSes, I'm not sure how you come up with that, Personnally, I'd buy a lot more games if they simply worked in Ubuntu... And if iTunes worked on Linux I'd buy more music there.

[donaq]

Really? I'm a linux user, but I bought an OpenMoko phone despite knowing it's pretty much going to be a paperweight. I bought an ugly keychain from RMS when he was in KL. I own a couple of Android phones. I could have saved some money on my Milestone if I'd gotten an iPhone on the cheap from my carrier and then sold it to offset my Milestone purchase, but I opted not to put more money in the Apple coffers (it was right after that fiasco about them dictating what languages you could use to develop for their app store and I was pissed). I am not tight-fisted, but I am pretty idealistic about who I am supporting with my purchases. I have two close friends who use primarily linux and they're both pretty generous. Both of them also own iPhones, incidentally. My anecdotal evidence against yours.

[krakensden]

We're not that tight fisted, and besides, what's the point of actively working to make it harder for us to give Apple money?

[hrktb]

>Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exactly who is likely to spend money and making them want to be their customers.

It's slightly different from the iTunes situation, but the same case can be made for Mobile me services. On any iOS device you won't be able to access mobile me (mail, calendar, address book, gallery) through the browser, you have to set it up locally and use the native applications.

Mobile me is for people who by definition spent money upfront on the service, and people using iOS devices are the customers. So far it's been a pita to deal with their lack of support for mobile safari access.