On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Benjamin Horst wrote:
... On the other hand, it is such a huge battle and really makes us
fight against the current. ...
That mostly a disadvantage, I agree. However, people have been
conditioned to glom onto "new" computer technology, so it could be to our
advantage.
A brand name that is used too generically by too many people risks
losing its legal trademark status. (Xerox, Kleenex and Band-Aid have
fought hard against this.) "Powerpoint" must be close to this danger.
intent...
From my observations, "powerpoint" shot way across that line long ago.
... What if we start deliberately mis-using Microsoft's trademark and
push hard to make powerpoint become a truly generic term?
I'd say it's long since become a generic term and we have good chance of
making it stick. If MS fights, then Impress gets free publicity.
What if we say that millions of people already do ...
Actually that might be very helpful in getting across to people what it is
that Impress actually does. Like I wrote, for many people "presentation
graphics" and "PowerPoint" are the same thing and it can take 10 minutes
of debate to get it to soak in that it is just one brand name for a class
of tools. Kind of like the conversations one could get into in The South
a while back -- "yes, but what *kind* of Coke do you want?"
It may be possible to use both strategies at the same time.
"OOo Impress is a powerpoint program to make all kinds of presentations.
Like all other presentaiton graphics programs it can ..."
Or something along that line.
-Lars
Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Keep the market open by keeping software patents out:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm
Using mental judo, perhaps we have another
alternative:
What might the result be? Break their hold on the trademark (cost them a lot of
money trying to defend it) and also communicate in a way that people will
understand more easily. I think this path holds promise.
Thanks,
Ben
On Friday, March 10, 2006, at 10:30AM, Lars D. Noodén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Many people confuse the general category "presentation graphics" with a
specific brand and product line of software.
It is a problem for us that too many people use one particular brand name
instead of the general term "presentation graphics". For many of these
people, the brand name *is* presentation graphics and for them there is
only one. Others know better, but contribute to the problem by not using
the correct term.
Newpapers make that mistake and I see even major magazines like Time and
Newsweek make that mistake.
It's a matter of marketing. If we can start insisting on editors saying
"presentation graphics" when they mean presentation graphics, and not say
"MS PowerPoint (r)" when they mean "presentation graphics", we open the
opportunity to bring in OOo and Impress. If we leave it be, we leave the
market with one single product whether we want to or not.
Mindshare is important
Comments, thoughts, suggestions?
-Lars
Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Keep the market open by keeping software patents out:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
