Re: Marketing, GNOME 3.0 and subteams

[Alex Hudson <home alexhudson com>]

Brian Cameron wrote:
> Shaun:
> > > To be frank, these are no benefits. For a potential user, it begs the
> > > question: "Why should I care whether GNOME3 is "free", "accessible" or
> > > "usable"?
>
> That is simply not true.  Because GNOME is free, the software is far
> less expensive than other proprietary solutions.  Therefore, people
> who might not be able to afford a proprietary solution could consider
> using GNOME instead.

While I agree with the sentiment, the situation is that for most people 
Windows is gratis.

Most people factor the cost of software into the initial acquisition 
cost. The cost of office for non-corporates isn't huge. I honestly think 
the cost argument is basically a complete loser; I've never met anyone 
who's had a cost problem with Windows/et. al. and wasn't a geek of some 
description.

I absolutely 100% agree with your points about access for people with 
impairments, though - I think GNOME is extremely strong in that area; 
sadly, I don't think it's a marketing benefit in the wider sense: I 
think it's a relatively marginal issue.

However, that said, I don't think GNOME is marketable as mainstream 
software - mainly because, it's not Windows. I don't think marketing 
GNOME as a Windows competitor per se is a winning strategy either :)

Cheers,

Alex.