Hi Philip, On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
To market to the early adopters who would promote Chandler to those people by word of mouth, we need to either: 1) emphasize the positive *differences* between Chandler and other PIMs, or 2) successfully position Chandler as the leader of its own, *new* category.
Yes, I agree with that. Articulating that =s finding the pony in the product for me.
One category that Chandler could define and *own* right now would be "lightweight team+personal calendar". We could in fact strip some features *out* of Chandler, and *still* lead this category. In fact, it could be a *plus* to strip any features that detract from leading that category or confuse the mission/position in our minds or the customers'. Simplifying the terminology and stripping out any too-"innovative" concepts that require users to think or read a manual, would be a big plus. Meanwhile, most of the other features you mentioned in your email (cross-platform, connectivity, email, etc.) can all be positioned in terms of how they support the "lightweight team+personal calendar" mission -- and nothing else.
I'm not sure we're on the same page with this characterization. But I think we need to go one level more concrete to have a fruitful discussion.
So following this line of thinking, what features might you strip out? Mimi _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
