>
>
>He said "sure, but we won't pay you anything...we don't use a channel."
>
Red Hat has been notoriously horrible about working with VARs and ISVs.
Linux-oriented companies in general have been this way, and I believe
this has been one of the biggest holdbacks for Linux adoption by small
and medium-sized businesses -- and smaller school districts and
government agencies that don't have inhouse systems staff.
The way a lot of IT contracts go out is a business owner or a committee
draws up a list of needed functions, then sends it out to bid and
expects contractors to come back with a bid for the whole package,
including hardware and software plus a contract for maintenance and
upgrades over the next three to five years.
Microsoft and most of the commercial Unix people give nice discounts off
of list so the local (and a few regional or national) systems vendors
and service organizations that do this sort of thing have a profit
margin, just like a car repair garage gets parts for less than the NAPA
store will sell them to you, then sells them to you at "list price" as
part of your repair bill.
IMO, VA Linux's refusal to work with systems vendors and packagers was a
big reason the company lost so much money in the hardware business, and
why VA's hardware business almost went away entirely when the small
crowd of cot-com direct purchasers, mostly based in/near Silly Valley,
that had been VA's loyal "direct" purchasers, stopped buying. Sure, it
sounded good to say, "We only sell direct," and that may have kept
margins up, but in the end it was a not-smart decision, because a
systems vendor that could provide a mix of Linux-running servers from
Compaq and desktops running Windows from Dell or a clone shop as a
*complete turnkey system* including software and service was going to
get a lot of sales no company with a limited product line could touch.
Note that most of IBM's Linux initiative depends on "IBM Global
Partners," mostly small businesses (like Dave's), that customize and
modify (and mark up) IBM hardware and software products and handle
front-line installation, training and service locally. IBM was a
notoriously "direct sale or go away" company for many years. This change
to a channel-type business is as radical in its own way -- for IBM -- as
the company's Linux initiative, and the two go hand in hand; Linux can
be modified by IBM partners/vendors in ways no proprietary operating
system can, and the same goes for IBMs WebSphere and other
channel-oriented software. The local systems vendor -- the Dave, as it
were -- knows local business conditions and local needs better than IBM
ever will, and he can provide a level of personal service IBM cannot,
while IBM can provide a level of technical problem-solving muscle the
Daves can't touch. (I was at -- and wrote about -- the press conference
where IBM announced all this.)
Jack Bryar and Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols have both written about the lack
of Linux companies' respect for ISVs and systems packagers repeatedly on
NewsForge, and those articles may have gone right by the average Linux
user, but I assure you the business types read them carefully, printed
them out, and discussed them at length.
Red Hat is fairly good to hardware OEMs, but not great.
This whole United Linux schtick is an attempt to go after the "channel"
business, with some other minor doodads tossed on top of it. This is why
Intel and so many others support it, and why SuSE is being nice the Dave.
This is also where "per seat" licensing comes in. It's not about selling
X number of CDs and little instruction books in boxes, but about support
costs. If a Dave sells 10 workstations running Hip-Hop Linux to the
Tampa United Rap Delights, and charges $80 for the copy of Hip-Hop used
in each one, and he gets $30 out of each $80 seat license and Hip-Hop
gets $50, there is some reserve money there to cover support calls from
TURD to Dave, who can heandle the simple stuff ("I'll SSH in and change
your password, no problem") and more involved calls from Dave to Hip-Hop
("Whenever my client runs MoronMixer and BreastBlaster at the same time,
their system hangs. Help!").
Red HomieHat don't play this game. Red Homie wants to have big direct
support contracts with America On Rap and sell hardware makers OEM
copies of of Red Hat, one per machine distributed with it, and that's
all. That's the course Red Homie has chosen. Others, including IBM and
SuSE, have chosen to go the "channel" route.
There's room for both approaches in the world. Microsoft (a small but
feisty software company in Washington State) makes great use of the
ISV/VAR channel, but also sells direct support and works with OEMs like
mad. So don't accuse Red Hat of being like Micrsoft here, because it's
obvious they haven't learned enough watching Microsoft to figure out how
important "the channel" can be to their business if they treat it with
respect.
- Robin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:41:56 EDT