[IAEP] [Marketing] Fwd: [Sugar-devel] Sugar Labs Roadmap. [SD 61; 79]
dwnarvaez at gmail.com
Mon Nov 11 10:44:45 EST 2013
FWIW I suspect Yioryos is removing marketing list from cc unintentionally.
Good point about IAEP.
On 11 November 2013 16:27, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at 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
> 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?). 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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > lately) or do we listen to their needs, experience and priorities? If
>> > 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" is
>> > "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
>> > can not be addressed or affect sugar .102 or .104 but they may need to
>> > 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"
>> > 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
>> > culture (but not the reality) of the community from "educational
>> > 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 and
>> > an installed base to support this claim, and should not be afraid of
>> > 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
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IAEP