If the discussion is about a target market, it's about strategy and it is most assuredly about marketing.
Fortunately, I am subscribed to all of the lists and keep an eye on this discussion currently happening on nearly all the lists, with one major exception: the It's An Education Project (IAEP) list - the non-technical general list meant for educators, and as such the best list for a strategy discussion. Many recently expressed ideas have been discussed before. Sean. On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org> wrote: > To be fair, is not _only_ about marketing. > I don't know how much people is in the marketing mailing list, I just > recently discovered it. > > Gonzalo > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > yet another marketing thread on the sugar-devel list > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Yioryos Asprobounitis <mavrot...@yahoo.com> > > Date: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:29 PM > > Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar Labs Roadmap. [SD 61;79] > > To: "sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org" <sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org> > > > > > >> > >> Does anyone else want to add their thoughts on: > >> > > > > These are all good for now but without the "safety" of the 2-3 million > > default users, SL can not just be the "upstream". There are some more > > fundamental questions now that we need to compete in the "open market". > > > > In a nutshell, whom do we target and which of _their_ needs do we cover > > better than the competition? > > > > 1) Are we targeting (the educational department of) Governments? (ie > become > > OLPC-A) > > 2) Are we targeting OEMs? (ie find OLPC-A replacements. Are there any?). > If > > yes, which needs of *theirs* do we satisfy better than the competition? > > 3) Are we targeting existing hardware and if yes, only those already > running > > GNU/Linux? (The vast majority of hardware in and out of schools although > it > > can, does not run GNU/linux let along Fedora, and is very likely to stay > > that way by just adding Android and iOS) > > > > The current html5/js course suggests "door no 3", but I have a hard time > > thinking of something that runs in Windows XP-8.1, OSX 10.6-10.9, major > > flavors GNU/Linux, iOS and Android 4.x all at the same time and all well! > > Not even browsers, let along a UX within a browser. > > > > > > This "open market" course also require some change in the development > > philosophy. > > Do we still tell people how things should be done (a la Apple - and GNOME > > lately) or do we listen to their needs, experience and priorities? If yes > > which ones? Kids, parents, teachers, local/support techs, funding > sources, > > all of the above (can we)? > > Do we place Sugar next/parallel to other edu-apps or the "Sugar Desktop" > is > > "mandatory"? If the latter, do we integrate (fully sugarize) other apps > or > > stick with our native repertoire? > > > > That's a lot of questions with no answers and I can appreciate that these > > can not be addressed or affect sugar .102 or .104 but they may need to be > > decided soon for sugar .106 to materialize. > > > > > > I also think that options 1 and 2 need a much stronger political cloud > and a > > political environment of yesterdays to materialize. > > So let me suggest option #4 that I'm sure will "raise some eyebrows" (and > > hopefully not too much more than that :-) Today handhelds have really > > provided cheap and energy efficient computing and communications, and > their > > penetrance is increasing rapidly around the globe. > > Thus, build native Sugar for Tablets/Smartphones and *SELL* it for $1.99 > > through Google Play (and/or AppStore) :-o > > Obviously, provide the code and a way for rooted (or jail-broken) > devices to > > install it for free, but people/organizations that opt for specific > quality > > "locked" hardware and the Sugar software stack QA'ed and supported, must > > contribute (a token really) to its development. If you think of it is > like > > what RHEL is doing and actually much cheaper. Or what OLPC was doing > paying > > developers to develop software for the hardware that was *selling* to > users. > > > > I can appreciate that this "open market approach" is a major shift in the > > culture (but not the reality) of the community from "educational software > > politics and policies" to "proven educational software quality". But > isn't > > quality what we primarily want from educational software? > > Although there is plenty of room for improvement, Sugar has this quality > and > > an installed base to support this claim, and should not be afraid of this > > course. > > A strong market presence and user endorsement is actually much better > than > > any PR event or political/academic endorsement in enhancing its appeal > and > > removing the "3rd world/class" label from the project. > > So please consider distributing Sugar .106 through GooglePlay/Appstore! > > _______________________________________________ > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Marketing mailing list > > Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing > > >
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
