FWIW I suspect Yioryos is removing marketing list from cc unintentionally. Good point about IAEP.
On 11 November 2013 16:27, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > i...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing