2010/4/12 Ian wrote: > On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 00:49 +0200, Ismaël Grammenidis wrote: > > > I agree with you, but let's be honest, If you would compare Lotus, > > NeoOffice (or Oracle OO) with OpenOffice.org branding you will see > > immediatly which brand looks more professional, and it's certainly not > the > > last one. So those companies want to promote a product with a strong > visual > > identity and create thus an entire new brand. > > It is also a characteristic of the largest Open Source projects to have > a range of branding. Look at GNU/Linux and the number of rebranded > distros. OpenOffice.org is redistributed on a similar basis (well with > commercial forks so possibly more like BSD). The argument could be that > this is a good thing as it prevents a monoculture and promotes > competition. > Let's not forget, Linux is a kernel, not a product on it's own. Different distro's use that kernel to create something new and different in it's own way. I don't see the same thing with OpenOffice.org.
> > > To come back on-topic: I think that StarOffice was a much stronger brand > > than OpenOffice.org > > I'd question that. In my experience a lot more people have now heard of > OOo than StarOffice. SO is probably a stronger brand in certain > commercial environments but I should think OOo is much better known to > the general world population. Has SO had 100 million downloads? It > surprises me that SO is even commercially viable especially if the > development costs of OOo are taken into account. Probably if all > Sun/Oracle desktops run it as opposed to buying MSO licenses the savings > might help tip the balance. But in the end commercial companies have to > have products that at least break even (or perhaps do overall fatal > damage to a major competitor ;-) ) > A lot of people have heard of "Open Office", but do they actually know what it is? Indeed "Open Office" is a strong brand, but that is not our brand. If I would say "OpenOffice.org", most people would ask if "dot org" is a monster from a cartoon or something. You know, average Joe doesn't know (and probably doesn't care) about all these "difficult IT stuff". This is why I still think that the StarOffice brand is still stronger (maybe not better known) than OpenOffice.org in the long turn. > > > (and OracleOO), just because of all the trademark > > problems that occurs at the moment. Like using .org instead of just "Open > > Office" and in Brazil they use "BrOffice" instead of OpenOffice.org. > > In my personal opinion, not every open source project needs to > incorporate > > the word "open" in their brand name. If Oracle wants to ditch StarOffice > as > > a commercial brand name, why not use it instead for the open community? > > Oracle, Novell, Canonical can then just use "StarOffice Pro" (by > > company-name) to promote their builds. That way, there is just one brand > to > > maintain and it can create a broader recognition. But again, that's just > my > > personal view. > > They do it for a reason. Open Source has become fashionable. The word > Open strengthens the branding and conveys a desirable property. This > provides the evidence that OOo is a stronger brand than StarOffice > otherwise why not use StarOffice? Branding is not just about glossy > presentation. > It's like you said, it's fashionable, it's a trend, like everything needs to be "green", eventually it will be so common that it's not fashionable anymore, and then you are left over with a bunch of company all called "open (company)". It is not unique and I think it won't help create a stronger brand identity on the long way. > > > The fragmentation is already done a long time ago, it's now up to Oracle > and > > the Marketing team to actually consult the entire community including UX > and > > locals to actually try to make this brand strong and make it work (as > one). > > While Oracle is contributing the vast majority of the development > resources, they are going to have the last say and they will put their > interests first. Of course it could be in their interest to consult and > take notice of the community but the political power is heavily stacked > towards them until someone has the resources to create a fully > independent fork that could realistically compete with Oracle's > development team. I don't see much sign of that. > I can understand that, and I'm sure the community is thankful for their large contribution. Some people in this community suggest things and even criticize some things, but it should be taken into serious consideration. Some people in this community, who do not work for the big Oracle, contribute as volunteer but may have years of experience in a specific domain that it would be wise for Oracle to adapt themselves. A community is not a monarchy. Forks can survive, and even become more popular than the original product. Look at Joomla vs Mambo where most of the Mambo developers switched to Joomla. Of course, this is what we should prevent. > > > I'm not saying that it is possible to please everyone. But creating > bleached > > icons that causes a serious visibility problem, even those for whom > having a > > perfect eye-sight will not solve this. Instead linux distributions like > > ubuntu will just adapt the entire thing to make sure it integrates with > > their policy and branding of what is a user-friendly user-experience > > oriented, both in terms of product and branding. So the entire effort of > > this branding will be useless if issues like these are not resolved. > > > > With kind regards, > > Ismaël Grammenidis > > > -- > Ian > Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications > A new approach to assessment for learning > www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940 > > You have received this email from the following company: The Learning > Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 > 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
