A cursory google search couldn't find what you mention. Can you cite the source please?

I know another example that goes in opposite direction, of Humble Bundles, where Linux had consistently higher average payment than Windows, but that may have changed in recent years.

It was a long time ago. But some searching today, official response from Adobe (2010):

> Again, we've done the research. The profits aren't there -- very few Linux users are willing to pay for commercial software. And the cost of entry is still high because of the fragmented Linux landscape. The Linux world has to change before commercial software will have reason to invest in Linux ports. And we haven't seen much real change in the Linux market in several years.

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/487814

> At the height of the Dot-Com era, dozens of startups tried selling proprietary applications for Linux -- and not one survived more than a couple of years. Even Adobe, after releasing a popular beta of FrameMaker, withdrew it from circulation after a poll suggested that users were unwilling to pay for applications.

http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruc...

Guys.. just trust us. We're Adobe, and the good guys. Remember how awesome Flash was?!? /s

Flash was awesome. It created the interactive multimedia web long before HTML5 existed. Many animators, game developers, and other artists started their career as teenagers working in Flash and posting to Newgrounds.

It wasn't perfect software by any means, but perfect is the enemy of good anyways.

"The height of the dot-com era" was 18 years ago, Linux has come on a long way since then - not to mention the (perceived?) quality of Windows and macOS going downhill.

Even fewer people in my extended group of friends and family are aware of Linux now than 18 years ago, and that is saying something. The only people who know anything about it are geeks, and we are a minuscule amount of the population.

I think fewer people are aware of underlying software generally. Presumably there are at most four categories for lots of end-users: "PCs", "Apples/Macs", "iPhones", "Androids". (Of course, more people are using Linux in some form or other now than they were 18 years ago, whether they know it or not.)

For one thing there are a lot more distros, two different display servers, and several more packaging formats. Not exactly countering their point about fragmentation are we? At least we got that sound situation mostly sorted out.

Because I'm not willing to pay for Microsoft Word or Adobe Photoshop (because I don't use them) doesn't mean I don't pay for software. Lots of the software I use I don't have to pay for, but that's not the reason I use it. I use it because it's better than anything else out there. So I contribute money to projects instead. And I pay for services (like Newsblur rss reader) that run on open source stacks. And I buy plenty of games (but only if they run on Linux).

The thing I don't understand is what does operating system have to do with paying for software? If I had need for professional level software that costs money, I would pay for it whether I'm using linux or windows.

But, lot of software I need to use doesn't need to be that high level and for what I need plenty of high quality open source options exist. I have no problem paying for software, whatever os I use, if it's the software I need. But if an open source alternative with comparable or sometimes better features exists why wouldn't I use it?

And games honestly, There are plenty I would spend money on if they supported linux and i've purchased ones that have interested me.

I paid for MS Office in 2003 and in 2007. Apart from games, that's the only software I ever paid for (other than the Windows license presumably incorporated into the price of the handful of already-built computers I bought).

I used open source software on Windows, and I carried that habit over when I switched to Linux. I have only ever paid for games on Linux, because everything I have needed has a satisfactory FOSS alternative.

Hell, I bought a macbook a couple years ago, and I have never bought a piece of software for that either.

It's not because of the OS.

My gut sense is that open-source/paid-support model is an ideal, which also provides an incentive for the publisher to produce as good of software as possible. I don't know if Red Hat or Canonical are profitable doing that, but it would be nice if that were the way that everything could work (maybe, I haven't really thought that much about it and am open to rebuttal).

I am averse to paying up front for something that I don't really know whether it'll be what I want and won't just be a pile of shit.

I don't buy many phone apps either, for that reason.