In 2001, Robertson started Lindows.com, a software start-up with the goal of turning the open-source Linux operating system into a genuine mass-market consumer item and a serious threat to the dominance of Microsoft's Windows operating system.
The Lindows version of Linux boasts a slick user interface modelled after Windows and streamlined installation routines that eliminate many of the headaches that could deter potential Windows converts. What's more, Lindows was one of the first software companies to put on the virtual blue vest for Wal-Mart shoppers, selling boxed software and partnering with hardware makers to sell low-end Linux-based PCs priced at $300 or less. And Lindows has tamed the sometimes chaotic jungle of Linux-based applications into the Click-N-Run Warehouse, a subscription-based service that offers one-click access to consumer-oriented applications.
More recently, Lindows ventured into potentially treacherous waters with the WebStation, a $169 version of the oft-tried network PC.
Along the way, Robertson has managed to antagonise Microsoft -- the two sides are going to square off this December in what could be a landmark trademark case -- as well as irk some open-source partisans. But Robertson takes it all in stride, saying that no amount of squabbling is enough to undercut the momentum behind Linux. He recently spoke with CNET News.com about legal, technical and philosophical issues surrounding Linux and his plans for Lindows.
Q: What's better about Lindows' approach to desktop Linux?
A: The key here is that Microsoft is the competition. If you're not ready to compete with Microsoft, you shouldn't be in the market, because that's where the victory will be won, taking business from Microsoft. It isn't a Red Hat versus Lindows.com competition or anything like that. Microsoft is the benchmark. Too often, people are comparing Linuxes to Linuxes. Who cares? You should be comparing your product to Microsoft Windows and see how it compares.
After so many attempts at Web appliances have failed, what's the reasoning behind deciding to offer a device like the WebStation?
This is more like a thick client. It has local processing power and all of the key applications locally. I think it's a dramatically different product architecturally and it will have success, while in the past thin clients have failed.
Does that mean you can do all your basic PC functions on one of these?
We do Web browsing, instant messaging software -- that kind of thing. For email, it's more likely that you'd simply use your Web browser. Most services now have a pretty robust Web mail interface. We also include OpenOffice. If I'm on the road, I check my email, and if somebody sends me a PowerPoint presentation, I can download it to the machine, open it, edit it, save it. I have to email it to somebody or email it to myself to save those edits, because the machine doesn't have local storage; as soon as I shut it off, those changes go away -- but you can still do an enormous amount of work with these tools.
Lindows has been consumer-focused until now. Does this become your corporate strategy?
Absolutely. We've had quite a few people come to us and say, "We've got enterprise application or we've got vertical applications, and we want a very simple, low-cost terminal we can deploy as part of this." This is really the ideal box for that.
And instead of competing in a pretty crowded low-end PC market, you're offering something nobody else has?
Absolutely. One of our key strategies at Lindows.com is that we're competing with Microsoft, so we need to go where they can't. Microsoft can't go into this environment because they don't have a version of their OS that runs off a CD. And their operating system costs $100, which negates the ability to have a $169 device.
If you log on to Wal-Mart.com, there are a number of flavours of Linux PCs. Is there any money to be made there, or is it more about building market share and winning over consumers?
No one is going to make much money on the software or the hardware when you're at a $250 price point. You have to have a richer back-end business model...and that's the direction this industry is going. The average PC costs $700, and it's dropping 20 percent a year in price. The whole world is going to be at sub-$500, sub-$400 PCs in the coming years.
Is it working for you?
We're not in the black, but the model is working. We're very much in the early stages where you invest to build the channels and things like that. But people everyday are buying additional software through us.
A lot of those ancillary applications are open-source things that are already out there and I can hunt around and download them for free. In those cases, aren't you just doing a better job of packaging and delivery? You seem to be creating a perception that Lindows is just profiting from the work of others.
Some of the products in our Click-N-Run Warehouse are open-source products that are available out on the Internet.
Others are not, such as the DVD player. We had to go and license the MPEG and pull those pieces together. But there's a long history of people paying for products that they could get and do themselves. We could all cut our own hair, but we don't, because some other guys can do it better and quicker -- and if they charge a fair price, I'm willing to pay for it. That's the approach we're taking to the PC. Yes, this software is available freely, but it's only free if your time means nothing to you.
When it comes to supporting the open-source community, we're good about putting our code back into the open-source initiative. We're also financial supporters of many of the popular initiatives -- Debian, KDE, Mozilla, Wine. We contribute real dollars to them. I would contend that the Linux community needs companies that are profitable, so they can keep funnelling money into these organisations and encourage them to keep improving their product.
And it helps build Linux market share and get people out of the Microsoft camp, right?
Absolutely. What you see is that every day, the applications that are out there for Linux are becoming much more rich and in some cases, superior, to the Microsoft Windows equivalents.
