2010/1/18 SteveC <[email protected]>
> But given the choice between > > a) giving away the rasters and OS losing 9 million quid a year, or > > b) selling them as they do now > > surely (a) is better because it frees up the maps, provides a better > platform for innovation and weakens the OS? Of course, there's also option c) which is that the OS gives away the rasters, but continues to sell the maps, and competes with other companies on factors such as price, quality of the printing, marketing, brand loyalty, and perhaps other value-add things we haven't thought of yet. Sales might drop, sure, and so it might still lose some of that 9 million anyway, but at least we'd retain the universal coverage (in paper form), and the OS might still get some revenue to help subsidise their mapping activity. This is the "compete on form, not on content" option, and I admit that it'd be a complete experiment and might not work at all (worst case scenario is that sales of the OS-branded paper maps, faced with competition, drop so low that they stop covering costs). It's be interesting though... :-) Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
