On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 14:56 +1200, Graham wrote: > What we have here is an example of the old FOSS dichotomy. > > Do we convince our clients run with OOo > > a) Because it is a great piece of software or > b) Because it's not Microsoft > > Louis falls into the first camp for obvious reasons.(Probably where I > fall, because I've been using "OOo" since SO 5.1) > Cor and Ian fall into the second camp because they are dealing with > clients where MS is the encumbent
I would say I fall into both of those camps. Because its a great piece of software, it won't actually make any difference whether or not there is a MSO filter for ODF files, particularly when file transfer is probably the biggest obstacle to migration. If it becomes easier to transfer files it will support greater take up of OOo. That will loosen the MS monopoly which is a positive feedback loop for OOo. Of course in the longer term if it gets so that there is 50:50 take up of MSO/OOo a different dynamic kicks in but by that time MS would have produced their own filter anyway. ODF will of course increase competition for OOo from other sources - but not from MS. It will be from Koffice and any other apps that support ODF and are in smaller usage than OOo. ODF is good for OOo take up now but it might well mean that OOo never has the type of monopoly take up than MSO has enjoyed. That might be good or bad depending on your perspective. > Ian's comment about Linux being his primary focus and his marketing of > OOo is because it runs on Linux reflects the dichotomy. I think you missed the point. I was just repeating what was said about the relationship between ODF and OOo and saying this is similar to the relationship between OOo and Linux. OOo ported to Windows was thought to be a key strategy for FOSS, so why is ODF for MSO not seen in the same light? In the bigger picture I'm no more a Linux advocate than an OOo advocate, what I want is increased competition and technological choice but on this list I'm mainly interested in strategies to increase the take up of OOo. > I, for instance, run Linux but only because it runs OOo. If OOo only > ran on Windows or Solaris then that's what I'd be using. Individuals have a whole range of motivations for running different combinations of software. In terms of strategy what matters is the sort of statistical argument Daniel gave. What is the evidence and quality of analysis behind the decision making? That is what determines successful strategy. > So we have two valid points in terms of marketing response to MS and > ODF adoption that are divided on philosphical grounds. That makes > neither of them any less valid. I did say that anyone is entitled to a view, I'm very much in favour of free speech. All I did was back the view of one Marketing Co-lead and then make an observation based on some evidence about getting noticed in the press. I haven't been persuaded by the strength of any of the arguments against so far that the view is wrong but then I haven't any power in this particular forum to do anything about it apart from arguing a case but its useful for testing ideas. And really I don't see this issue as being off-topic. It might be something some people don't want to hear but if marketing strategy is off-topic on the marketing list there really is no hope. Let the quality of the argument determine the outcome. > However it cannot be OOo Marketing's position to try influence the > direction that our opposition should take, that is not it's role nor > should it be and we're certainly not going convince MS to add an ODF > filter because it's good for OOo. The point is that a third party has apparently developed such a filter not MS. I only heard about it indirectly so I don't know that much about it. If it is the case, the marketing project needs to know how to deal with it. To me it seems sensible to put a political spin on it and say why its good for OOo, not bury heads in sand and hope it goes away. If it really was that bad for OOo, MS would have done it themselves. > The Marketing Project's role is to > relate to our clients. We are selling OOo.... We need to think what is > good for the client: > > a) Is it good for the client if MS supports ODF? Yes of course > b) Is it good for the client if MS doesn't support ODF? Yes of course > > Both are valid, both can be good for the client and the reasons have > already been covered. Actually we seem to have come to the same conclusion in the end :-) What you seem to be saying is that the spin put on this is the important issue and that takes us right back to the thing that started this debate. If we want publicity we need to be more adventurous in the way things are presented to the media and take opportunities that arise. But that is just my suggestion, what goes out on press releases is controlled by Louis. > So the question is one of priorities. > I think it would go without saying that MS releasing with an ODF filter > would be an event of sufficient import that an update of the SMP would > be in order. Being prepared for that would not be a bad thing. > > In either case the ODF compliance issue is a second or third tier > marketing tool, but then only if MSO goes with an ODF filter. > Certainly not as a first tier, but then I have a pathological objection > to mentioning a competitor in any upper level campaign, so that may be > just me. That is where I think we disagree. In terms of press coverage, the evidence from the recent Digg issues seems to suggest that presenting something a bit controversial with MS in the title is much more likely to hit the headlines. MS is already a well-known brand so that will do them very little good, getting OOo in front of people to generate brand awareness is key - which is why being able to send ODF attachments around the Internet instead of .doc is also good for OOo even if it means having a MSO ODF filter. Actually if the filter isn't perfect who will get blamed by the average user - more than likely Microsoft ;-) > So for mine, it's something to be used at "point of sale" rather than > hanging it on a broad spectrum campaign. When you have the customer at > a point when you have a moment to explain the significance and why it > should be important to them. At my last meeting with BECTA I was asked how the government can get every PC sold to a UK school to have OOo pre-installed. Its not politically as straightforward as it might sound. If there really is a good MSO ODF plug-in I can strengthen the argument for government backing. I would rather deal with the entire UK government on this than try and persuade each and every OEM supplier and each and every school why they should use OOo because it supports ISO 26300! I will do my best to get OOo on to every school desktop in the UK, but I will be doing it in conjunction with a coherent FOSS strategy for education devised by the good people at SchoolforgeUK, Open Source Consortium and Open Forum Europe. Seems to me that strategic alliances are important to marketing. -- Ian Lynch www.theINGOTs.org www.opendocumentfellowship.org www.schoolforge.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
