Why is Desktop Linux a Market Failure?
Desktop Linux
Desktop Linux (meaning GNU/Linux and the entire ecosystem) has been suitable for non-geeks since about 2004. It works well, looks good, has superior security and freedom from malware, has thousands of applications covering almost every need, and costs nothing. Despite these advantages, Linux has an estimated market share of only about 4% (late 2024) of end-user desktops and laptops. WHY?
Note that Linux is the biggest player in the server space. Google, Amazon and Facebook have millions of Linux servers. Most of the world's web servers, stock exchanges and scientific supercomputers use Linux.
Here are the main reasons for low adoption by end users, in my opinion:
Fear or Hatred of Change
People hate change. Linux is easier to use than Windows, but requires learning new skills. For most folks, this is a prohibitive barrier.
Balkanization
many competing "flavors" of Linux
different window managers with different application interfaces
different application packaging formats and tools
different application package library dependencies
library incompatibilities make applications hard to port
Application developers must be willing to support many slightly incompatible versions of Linux. "Build once, run anywhere" is not possible. Attempts at standardization have gone nowhere. Most developers of popular applications refuse to deal with this complexity for a small market. In contrast, Microsoft provides a stable standard that both developers and users can depend on. Backward compatibility is carefully planned, and programs from a decade ago still run on current Windows. There are ways to make packages that run on multiple Linux flavors, but this is complex enough to be itself a barrier.
Credibility
No major company with clear staying power is producing and supporting a desktop Linux system. Google makes Chromebooks using a customized Linux kernel, and some Linux applications can be used on some models, if you have the necessary knowledge to install them. Google avoids using the name "Linux" because this is considered bad for marketing.
Microsoft
PC vendors are fearful of making Microsoft angry. They used to have to sign exclusive contracts, but this was ruled illegal long ago. Now they get license discounts, which means that nothing has really changed and the monopoly power continues. This is the main reason you will never find a Linux PC in a retail store. There are a few online PC vendors who offer Linux as an option, but without vendor support.
Support
User support comes from online forums and volunteers. The effectiveness is mixed. There are plenty of books and online articles for the willing.
Conversion Costs
Organizations switching to Linux must convert custom applications and retrain technical staff and users, a potentially huge cost. A few companies and government organizations have actually done this. There is a glacial movement among governments and NGOs to use Linux to avoid Microsoft and save money.
Missing Applications
The main applications that most people need are available and of high quality: web browser, mail clients, document applications compatible with Microsoft Office, photo editing, and some games. World class modern games are mostly missing. Photoshop is missing. One reason for missing applications is the difficulty of development and maintenance given the "balkanization" issues mentioned above.
Free Software Culture
Free software advocates are in denial and are not facing the problems. One often reads "having many choices is good" or "a Darwinian process will select the best alternatives". This is also what they said in the 1990s. The freedom of Linux is also its downfall. Effective standards are lacking. There is no top-down management and no road map. Every player runs their own show. The description “wild west” is often used. Linux geeks don't worry about this - they are having fun.
No Way Forward?
Legacy Linux (GNU/Linux) will remain irrelevant and ignored by most developers of consumer apps. It is a shame that today's popular desktop platforms (Microsoft and Apple) have high cost, malware galore, and massive invasion of privacy. Linux could have made a difference, but lack of management and standards has ruined this opportunity. The solution would be to consolidate Linux development resources under a unified management and credible vendor. Sadly, there seems to be no chance for this to happen. “Freedom” is also very important for most Linux techies. In the server space, it seems Linux will remain dominant. Here, consumer desktop applications are not important.
Author
I am the author of a semi-popular Linux application for photo editing and collection management: Fotocx