[IAEP] [Marketing] Fwd: [Sugar-devel] Sugar Labs Roadmap. [SD 61; 79]
sdaly.be at gmail.com
Mon Nov 11 10:27:11 EST 2013
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
Many recently expressed ideas have been discussed before.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at 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.
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> > yet another marketing thread on the sugar-devel list
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Yioryos Asprobounitis <mavrothal at yahoo.com>
> > Date: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar Labs Roadmap. [SD 61;79]
> > To: "sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org" <sugar-devel at 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
> > OLPC-A)
> > 2) Are we targeting OEMs? (ie find OLPC-A replacements. Are there any?).
> > yes, which needs of *theirs* do we satisfy better than the competition?
> > 3) Are we targeting existing hardware and if yes, only those already
> > GNU/Linux? (The vast majority of hardware in and out of schools although
> > 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
> > all of the above (can we)?
> > Do we place Sugar next/parallel to other edu-apps or the "Sugar Desktop"
> > "mandatory"? If the latter, do we integrate (fully sugarize) other apps
> > 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
> > 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
> > "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
> > what RHEL is doing and actually much cheaper. Or what OLPC was doing
> > developers to develop software for the hardware that was *selling* to
> > 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
> > quality what we primarily want from educational software?
> > Although there is plenty of room for improvement, Sugar has this quality
> > 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
> > any PR event or political/academic endorsement in enhancing its appeal
> > removing the "3rd world/class" label from the project.
> > So please consider distributing Sugar .106 through GooglePlay/Appstore!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> > _______________________________________________
> > Marketing mailing list
> > Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IAEP