Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

FWIW, back in 2013 I was working at Deutsche Telekom in a project that was attempting to do "ChromeOS, but for Enterprise", built on top of Ubuntu and a heavily modified Firefox. We had a list of target devices to test against, but given the Ubuntu base it was pretty easy to get it running everywhere.

All the office were based on open source systems. DT wanted to make money mostly on their data plans + device management services. The project failed for one reason: Enterprise IT is the opposite of price sensitive. I had talks with a couple of CIOs who were interested in the idea, but realized that commiting to a solution that could slash their budgets by 80% would be career suicide.



Why not charge more, then some funds could be sent upstream?

Edit: answer below does not explain why price can’t be raised even higher.


Because the problem was any reduction in cost, and the status quo (Microsoft) was familiar and safe.


Familiar and “safe” might be it.


"Not being price sensitive" does not mean "looking always for the most expensive solution".


I still don’t understand. There are things that could be done to raise the budget, no?


Not if you are trying to win marketshare by commoditizing your complement[0], like DT was trying to do.

[0]: https://gwern.net/complement




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: