What’s the Value of Technical Support, Anyhow?

Besides patching bugs and security vulnerabilities, the other aspect of “support” is technical support; help for when things go wrong. As I mentioned earlier, Ubuntu is free, and one of the conditions of this is that there is no official technical support for Ubuntu for the user. To be fair, there are some purchasable support options for larger organizations that can afford a support contract, but for the average desktop user this isn’t accessible. So as far as we’re concerned, Ubuntu doesn’t have any official technical support.

I spent quite some time gnawing over the idea of just how valuable technical support is. I have never made a technical support call for desktop software, often because I’m capable of finding and fixing the issue myself through the magic of Google, and because calling for technical support seems to be a futile exercise in being fed canned support scripts. So many possible things can go wrong with software that the person on the other end of the line may not be able to help you, which makes me question the value of technical support for software.

Trying to come up with a resolution for this matter, I posted a poll last year in our forums to get some user feedback. The skills of the people who inhabit our forums versus those who read our site means that this poll is not a scientifically valid poll, nor is it even a fair poll; it’s greatly biased towards the techie crowd like myself. Nevertheless, I wanted to know who uses technical support when they have it.

I had theorized that the results of the poll would end up reflecting my own views, and this is exactly what happened. When our forum participants were asked if they had ever called Microsoft for technical support with Windows (excluding activation issues), out of 52 votes only 9 of those votes were a “yes” for 17.3%. Clearly out of our techie crowd, the majority of users do not use their technical support options.

Based on this, I do not believe that technical support for a software product is valuable for the people most likely to be installing Ubuntu on their own. Or in other words: So what if Ubuntu doesn’t come with technical support? It’s not like most of us would use it anyhow.

I would take the time to separate the idea that software technical support is the same as total technical support however. It becomes another matter entirely when you can get support for a complete computer from an OEM. They can support both the hardware and the software, and that means they can (probably) help you solve issues when what looks like an issue with one element is really an issue with the other.

The benchmark here is Apple since they make both their hardware and their software, which puts them a step above Dell and other PC OEMs that are a bit more separated from the software. What I’m getting at is that is that even if Ubuntu came with technical support, it would be of limited value since they cannot help you with your hardware. If you need real support, you’re better off buying a computer from an OEM who can support all that you need (although we should note that even for computers sold with Ubuntu, the OEM does not usually handle the software support…).

Finally, just to throw out an example of how useless technical support can be even when you have it, let’s take a look at Windows (we’d take a look at the Mac, but OS support is bundled with the hardware). Even for a retail copy of Windows, which Microsoft offers direct support for, you only get free technical support for 90 days after activation. After that you’re out $59 per incident. It’s effectively installation and post-installation support, not support for continuing use.

In the end, not only would technical support likely be unbeneficial for most people once they’re past the installation process, but there’s no real precedent for offering technical support on just the OS. As such while there’s no technical support for Ubuntu, it ultimately doesn’t matter because no one else provides cheap extended technical support for just their OS either.

Ubuntu – Long Term Support A Word on Drivers and Compatibility
Comments Locked

195 Comments

View All Comments

  • sheh - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link

    Also, it's "into", not "in to".

    Anyway, an interesting read. Thanks.
  • sheh - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link

    Also, it's "into", not "in to".

    Other than that, an interesting read. Thanks.
  • ssj4Gogeta - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link

    nevertheless is one "world"?
    :P
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link

    Noted and fixed. Thank you.
  • ClownPuncher - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link

    Web browsing page - Ariel should read Arial when talking about fonts?
  • pcfxer - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link

    Ease of use of Ubuntu is superseded by PC-BSD and its PBI packages. PC-BSD also takes MUCH less time to install than Ubuntu.
  • Souka - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link

    I use PC-DOS 1.0a

    Runs very fast on my Core i7 setup, and I haven't even overclocked it yet.
  • ap90033 - Friday, August 28, 2009 - link

    You probably can run more games in that than linux LOL...
  • Penti - Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - link

    You can run dosbox or dosemu in Linux just like in Windows...
  • superfrie2 - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link

    I'm not quite sure I agree with your criticism of .iso mounting in linux. The mount -o loop command is very easy to use after you've done a couple of times. In fact, I think it is far better than using D tools in windows because you don't have to worry about unclicking all the gay-ware it tries to get you to install.

    Also, I'm not sure I agree with your pseudo dislike for some forms CLI. CLI is far more powerful than what its GUI based copies tries to accomplish. As a matter of fact, the more I learn about linux's CLI, the less I use the GUI. I find myself only using the GUI for web browsing on a regular basis.

    However, when looking at the linux GUI, compiz fusion is simply amazing. When I have a shitload of stuff open, compiz allows me to organize all of my windows and access them very efficiently. In fact, when I use windows for games, I feel handicapped.

    The most interesting part your testing was that windows applications running under wine outperformed linux native applications. I look forward to hearing more about that aspect like you mentioned.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now