Re: GNOME's Target Markets

[Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay <sankarshan mukhopadhyay gmail com>]

Quim Gil wrote:
> IMHO we are not looking for a definition, we are looking for concepts
> put in great sentences and visual objects that arise the interest of our
> "target markets" in GNOME, so they want to know more, test it, have it,
> enjoy it, be proud of have it and be part of it.

I have often being blamed for being cryptic - can well realise that I
should have answered a bit more in detail to Murray's comments.

The point was not about definition (or re-definition). The point was
about ensuring that we narrow our focus.

The definition from the GNOME page clearly states our conceptual
understanding of GNOME - whether that is the user understanding is not
what has been empirically tested. I (personally) would love to define
GNOME as a development platform to students and new joinees, as a
desktop to corporates and as a cool area for trying out new things to
folks who are always interested what goes into the 5th toe. But then
again, that means that I have demarcated 3 different consumers of GNOME.
 Ideally, one could target all 3 groups since GNOME is all 3 and more.
Given the current demand-supply equation with Marketing efforts and also
given that most of the major distributions are not GNOME-friendly
(clearly specifying GNOME desktop environment on their release notes or
marketing material) - Ubuntu does not have a GNOME splashscreen, Red Hat
has Bluecurve, Fedora does not really mention GNOME, OpenSuSE shies away
from GNOME it is necessary to target one area of the consumer pyramid.

If it is the desktop then the immediately fallout would be that the
demand-set created by the desktop consumers would have an upward spiral
effect on the application creation. Which should (?) encourage GNOME as
a development platform.

> I bet none of the things you love came to your hands because of a
> definition.

Most of the things one loves did not arrive by virtue of a definition
but by virtue of being cool (enter your own definition of cool here).
Coolness is a relative factor that associates with the thing and thus
morphs to create a personal definition.

> Marketing a processor for the masses (and the IT managers) is much more
> complicated than marketing a free desktop. Most users don't even see
> processors, GNOME users see the desktop all the time.

Not really. Throw in some statistics and processor sales zoom - at least
in India I can vouch for it. For a desktop however the factor of being
ultra-cool is equal to how many desktop friendly gizmo apps that are
bundled in. More importantly, how does that desktop fit into everyday
UseCases.

Regards
Sankarshan



-- 

You see things; and you say 'Why?';
But I dream things that never were;
and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw