On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 10:34 +0800, Jacqueline McNally wrote: > This simple example works well for items that may be bought at a number > of stores, but if you are comparing MSFT vs open source, and more > specifically OpenOffice.org then you need to use speciality stores in > the example. > I'm not sure of elsewhere, but here in Australia shopping centre (malls) > managers usually don't have two computer stores next door or near each > other.
> At the moment, OpenOffice.org is obtained mostly by point-n-click. By people using the Internet which is why making it viable to send ODF E-mail attachments is a crucial marketing goal. Since the Internet is the equivalent of a digital Shopping Mall, analogies only work to an extent but the key concept is keeping a product high profile and getting confidence in it. For a new competitor this can be done by paying large amounts in TV advertising etc or it can use an existing popular brand as the vector. > As far as ODF is concerned, OpenOffice.org > is ahead of MSFT in this regard and would be considered as Store A. Only to a techie. As far as Joe Sixpack is concerned ODF is just another TLA. What matters to them is being able to exchange files reliably with the minimum of hassle. If I go to a school that already has MSO and say install OOo on the network, the first questions are - Will it look the same as what we have learnt? (Yes pretty much so). Will it be compatible? Now if I can say yes, files will be accepted by either app from either app its a lot better than saying you have to remember to save as .doc from OOo for it to work with MSO. Confidence among non-technical people is key and technical people often simply don't see its not just a matter of brute logic. > We may not have the market share which is what you are using in your > example, but we have the technology share in ODF and this has recently > been supported by being well on the way to becoming an ISO standard. Which will have a lot less impact if technical advantage is not turned maximally into marketing advantage. Again thinking too much about technology and not enough about marketing. > Why would OpenOffice.org wish to encourage a competitor to adopt ODF? Or > promote a plug-in so that they can remain using their existing software ? Look at the migration pressure. How many people migrate from MSO to OOo? How many from OOo to MSO? I should think its hundreds, maybe 1000s to one on the MSO to OOo route. New users uncommitted will generally go for the least expensive all other things being equal. Why migrate to OOo? Because its less expensive and less hassle (a few because they hate MS but that is relatively small numbers) and the savings make it worth putting up with some inconvenience with file conversion. If file conversion was 100% reliable and bi-directional the flood gates would open (I believe MS would have to drop their price considerably and they would do so, but reluctantly) > It is much easier for people to keep the status-quo, and I think this is > what a lot of people (especially larger organisations) will do with the > availability of a plug-in that allows them more wait and see time for > the next MSFT offering. Missing the point. People will keep the status quo until there is a significant reason to change and there is confidence in the alternative. Its much easier to maintain the status quo when there is no confidence to change. Based on Christensen's research on disruptive technologies, people will migrate to lower their costs (including hassle factor) OOo's ace in the hole is that MS can't compete on price or hassle. They can compete on confidence. So generating the confidence to change is a much bigger factor than worrying about people sticking with what they have in the short term. Why should they junk stuff they have already paid for anyway? The crucial point is the next upgrade and if they have been using MSO and OOo interchangeably why would they ever buy another MSO upgrade? > While most of us understand and realise a standard is better for > developers AND consumers, any competitive advantage (in this case OOo > already uses a file format that is to become an ISO standard) is to be > used. > If you are running first in the race, looking back often allows > your competitors to pip you at the finishing post. I believe this is thinking more about it as a tech than it is as a marketeer. Its not about the technological race, its about building customer confidence. > > This is what OOo could be like if MS adopts ODF. OOo gets to move > > into the same area as MSO. Cross traffic becomes easier and more > > people get a chance to look at our product. > > Most people have never had to think of file formats so I think it is > unlikely that they will load and install something on their computer if > they already can share files and integrate with other software products. > OpenOffice.org suffers from this too, and as John often points out, the > file format is a feature, not a benefit. I have a meeting with BECTA at the end of this month. If I say to them I want ODF as the default distribution format for government in education on the grounds its an ISO standard, anticipate the reaction. But most schools have MSO. It'll cause chaos and we'll get a load of flack, we are not doing that ISO standard or no ISO standard, the risk of political backlash is too great. But if there is this small patch that goes with any of the files that enables them to open the file in MSO, I take away that argument and make it far, far more likely that ODF takes over from .doc on all government web sites and communications. Good or bad for OOo? Its a no-brainer. Read Christensen, read about lowering barriers to entry and how disruptive technologies affect the market. If it was as directly obvious as a+b=c, Western Union would not have been taken over by Bell. > > Before you disregard this as another OpenDocument Fellowship ideal > > remember that a lot of us started here first and still believe in > > what OpenOffice can do. As much as you try to paint us as outsiders > > we are still here trying to do our best for OOo. > > It is not so much inside and outside, but the fact that we are here to > promote and encourage the use of OpenOffice.org, which I would think is > just one of tools in the OpenDocument Fellowship toolbox. Another is > http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060505081533186 The OpenDocument Fellowship is a complete red herring. When I first posted, it was to back John's argument for mentioning MS in the press release based on some actual tangible evidence. ie an observation that getting a lot of Diggs seems more likely when the article posted is emotive and involves MS. Seems likely then this is a marketing strategy worth considering in a more systematic way if there is a desire to get into the mainstream press. The only relevance of ODF to that is that I'm a member, but then I'm a member of SFUK, OSC and AFFS too and none of those organisations is relevant here. The issue is about marketing OOo, so let's keep it on topic. Regards, -- Ian Lynch www.theINGOTs.org www.opendocumentfellowship.org www.schoolforge.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
