Many of these decisions have been trivial in themselves. They range from decisions not to support a completely free-licensed version of Ubuntu or a KDE-based version to the repositioning of title bar icons and the introduction of the HUD menu replacement.
However, as in many disputes, the issues involved seem less important than the relationships involved. Unlike Canonical, Ubuntu on a daily basis runs much like any free software project, with discussion and consultation the expected norm. The introduction of a hierarchy with Canonical employees at the top and often wielding a veto power would be likely to cause friction even if done politely -- which, often, it has not been. Instead of welcoming debate, Canonical has been far more apt to urge people to stifle it in the name of making Ubuntu a success.
Matters came to a head in February 2013, with long-time Ubuntu contributors publicly questioning whether they had any role and many considering quitting (although in practice, only one seems to have).
These first signs of discontent were quieted largely through the diplomatic efforts of Jono Bacon, only to flare up a couple of months later over the removal of a community link from the Ubuntu home page.
Again, Bacon managed to smooth things over, and -- so far as an outsider can tell -- the community has been quiet in the months since. However, the longstanding community grievances are unlikely to have disappeared altogether, for the simple reason that Canonical continues to ignore much of the Ubuntu community. A new outburst seems only a matter of time.
Whether Canonical ever believed that the Ubuntu distribution could be profitable is unknown. Certainly, over a dozen earlier efforts to monetize distributions should have warned the company how unlikely the possibility was. But the years spent polishing Ubuntu suggest that Canonical hopes -- or hoped -- to do the impossible. Or perhaps Canonical simply sees a quality distribution as a pre-requisite to grander goals.
Either way, spending so much effort on Unity seems to have been a distraction. To this day, Canonical appears to lack a business plan that offers any reasonable chance of profitability.
To some undocumented extent, efforts like online storage, a music store, or corporate ads in the dash may be defraying the costs of developing Ubuntu. However, if together they make Ubuntu profitable, no one is mentioning the fact. Attempts to cut corners by holding developer's meetings online rather than in person suggest a company that is finding ways to cut corners, not one making a profit.
Just as important, these efforts can create other problems. In particular, the ads on the dash lead to concerns about privacy and to being called spyware by Richard Stallman. The ads were also a major prompt for community unrest.
Yet Canonical has taken over a year to address the privacy concerns -- and, even then, the lack of details means that it is asking users to trust it.
Other sidelines, like Ubuntu TV, have yet to materialize. Currently, Ubuntu's main strategy seems to be convergence on multiple form factors, but the advisability of trying to break into a saturated market seems dubious. The Ubuntu Touch interface is scheduled to be released in October with the 13.10 environment, but if any phone manufacturers are shipping products with it pre-installed, then Canonical is saving the announcements for the release date.
Even worse was the Ubuntu Edge fundraiser, an attempt to crowdfund a cutting edge boutique phone. Had it worked, then Canonical might have established a small niche in the marketplace.
However, in the end, only forty percent of its $32 million goal was reached. Canonical tried to put a good face on the results, mainly because of the publicity the crowdfunding campaigned produced. But since the result now mean that Canonical has a reputation for failure among potential business partners, the rationale is hard to accept. The failure of Ubuntu Edge has left Canonical's business plans more indefinite and more unlikely than ever.
All this is not to say that either Canonical and Ubuntu are about to disappear overnight. Any decline is just beginning, not at the point of no return. The introduction of new faces, or even determined internal reform could still turn Canonical and Ubuntu around. Perhaps listening to the Ubuntu community would be useful as well.
Still, the problem remains that, after nine years, Canonical and Ubuntu have yet to succeed. Major contributors to the Linux desktop in their early years, they have not even helped themselves with recent innovations, let alone free software in general. Increasingly, the general impression is one of confusion and desperation, which in itself can contribute to the decline.
Even without reform, Ubuntu and Canonical may continue to glide on their previous reputations, although the Ubuntu Edge campaign suggests that may be less possible as many imagine. But increasingly, Canonical and Ubuntu seem to have been slipping from the position of leadership they had in their earliest years.
Whether they can reverse their decline or merely accelerate it by panicky half-measures is uncertain, but watching the possibilities play out should make for an interesting next couple of years.