RE: university outreach project

> Re: the "marketing" vs "selling" issue.  It seems to me that the
> marketing team doesn't have any tangible control over the 
> "product" (due
> to its FOSS nature).  So this rules out what John calls marketing*.
Sigh.  True.  I was hoping that the individuals involved in the
marketing list (myself excluded of course) would be sufficiently
integrated into the GNOME developer community (i.e. actually coding
GNOME libraries and applications) that they could control the product.  

Again, my question is: Who does?  The GNOME foundation?  If not, who?

> Since we can't change what we have, I think the next question is "who
> would want to 'buy' what we have, once they learn what we have?"
I think we can change what we have.  This is called "adding features".
And again, I firmly believe that looking for buyers for what you already
have is sub-optimal.
> I think there is a large number of people that could and 'should' be
> using Linux/Gnome today that aren't.  (This means people 
> who's needs are
> satisfied by FOSS and who decide they like it, after having tried it.)

> Why aren't these people using Linux/Gnome yet?
> A) they don't know it exists
> B) they don't know how well it fits their needs
> C) they want to, but don't know how to switch
> D) they want to, but don't think they can switch without help
> E) general laziness, fear, uncertainty, doubt, whatever.
> It could be divided many ways, but I think this list is in 
> the ballpark.
> Let's forget group E, they would require more hand-holding than we can
> deal with (not a very desirable group, anyway).
Interesting.  I think that if we can subdivide (E) into (Ei)=laziness
and (Eii)=FUD, then (Eii) should be a major target.

Here is a useful tool for thinking about why people don't use your
brand.  Think about your closest competitor.  Why don't "your" users
user your competitor's brand?  In this case, think about why GNOME users
don't use KDE.  

Does A--E still make sense?  I would guess that the only reason is:

SATISFICING.  This means that
(1) you are choosing a sub-optimal option
(2) the cost of optimising is greater than the (marginal) benefit 

I will use myself as an example.  I use GNOME rather than KDE, but the
only reason is that I started using GNOME when QT was non-free.  Because
GNOME satisfies by computing needs on GNU/Linux I have no real impetus
for change, or even INVESTIGATING my options.  Again:

It's all about the APPS.

And you can run GNOME apps on a KDE desktop, and vice versa.  So why
change?  Only if either GNOME or KDE becomes _hugely_ better than one
another will users change.  At the moment I believe that the choice is
largely a matter of visual aesthetics and chance (i.e. whatever you
started using first).

I would be very, very interested to know if I am talking shit here.  In
fact, if anyone who is reading this feels motivated to reply; If you
reply to nothing else, please answer this question:

Why do we care about _how many_ people use GNOME?

(In the for-profit marketing world this is easy.  In the FOSS world it
needs to be made more explicit.)

> While the LiveCD is still in the works, I'd like to start 
> brainstorming
> what a university outreach project might look like.
All this makes sense to me. 

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]