RE: Marketing list action: Market Research for GNOME and GNU/Linux

["John Williams" <JWilliams business otago ac nz>]

> A differentiation might be useful:
> 
>  * Indirectly derived demand: Low number of companies developing for
>     GNOME Linux, thus less professional developers that spend 
> the whole
>     day on contributing.
>  * Directly derived demand: Number of developers contributing.
>     ("Scratch the own itch")
Check.
 
> Nice example of the network economics we operate in: 
> No apps -> No users -> No apps.
> No hardware -> No users -> No hardware.
> 
> Again, this points to what the central goal of our efforts should be:
> More users!
I like this line of reasoning.  And the more I think about it, the more
I think a super-duper gee-whizz, holy shit! Live CD is the way to go.
(I am downloading Ubuntu as I type.)  I mean that it has to do
_everything_ that WinXP and OSX can do.  This means no missing
multimedia, office suite or net-app functionality.  And stunning
graphics. Preferably running the Doom3 demo, and perhaps a WINE
installation and some DirectX games.
(Note: I couldn't give a shit about those things, but I think they will
sell.)
 

> GNOME marketing list members should not use the term "we", 
> IMHO, because
> depending on context it might mean:
> 
> * GNOME foundation
> * GNOME developers
> * GNOME community
> * GNOME marketing list
> * GNOME users
> 
> The GNOME foundation is the only institution GNOME got. In 
> the end, they
> must decide about money, for example.

I also like this reasoning.  It seems to me that we (subsribers to this
list) could say and do whatever we want, but if someone with MONEY comes
along and starts a promotional campaign about GNOME, how could we
possible combat it.  I am saying: the people who define the strategic
goals of GNOME have to be the people who put HAVE THE MOST MONEY TO
SPEND on it.  Who are these people?  Is it, in fact, the GNOME
foundation?  Who else could possibly be motivated to promote GNOME?