LibreOffice Fresh/Stable differentiation should be dropped.
Replaced by LibreOffice Rolling. [Or LibreOffice (Cutting) Edge]
Or maybe even simply LibreOffice Fresh.
With a description of they audience/ and character of the software.
Being latest and greatest. With some rough edges.
Don't think explicitly adding 'edition' to name being really helpful.
Every 'Edition' tends to product differentiation (lacking features and
such)
So being an edition without calling it an edition.
Point being that with they label no change being intended.
While every name change including 'edition' will suggest a change within
they product.
They only thing we want to realize is product positioning.
Commercial / Non-commercial environment.
So LibreOffice Fresh directed to non-commercial environment
How they 'enterprise' variant should be called no clue. Enterprise
doesn't fit they bill, IMHO.
There is some room in they about window to explain LibreOffice Fresh to
be 'directed to non-commercial' usage.
With link for more info on LibreOffice.org.
Regards,
Telesto
Note: Fresh having they downside that even older versions, still would
contain 'Fresh'. Possibility suggesting to be latest.
(Cutting) Edge. Would be true. In the sense of suggesting containing of
some 'flaws'. Or being new at they time of release
But misses the point if of being latest (if a newer version got
released). Not sure if it's dramatic, though.
Not sure how much of they in-app labeling (branding) needed. Compared to
website directing people to the right place.
--
And btw, I find LibreOffice Vanilla still confusing in they app-store.
And LibreOffice TDF edition with Collabora as distributor also kind of
weird.
Dislike to many flavors. And still not clear what they Enterprise
'Edition' being about. Will there be pointers to: Collabora Office /
LibreOffice by powered by CIB?
Or how must I interpret this?
Op 11-11-2020 om 11:09 schreef Marina Latini:
On 09.11.2020 16:04, Italo Vignoli wrote:
Hello Italo and Community,
thanks for your inputs here.
Initially I was not in favour of a label at all and you all know,
resistance to change is an uneasy beast to deal with. ;)
Thinking better to this proposed change I need to admit that indeed, a
label, a tag was something needed directly several years ago. I'm not
talking only about the need to educate the big enterprise to
contribute back to the project, I think that a label could be in
general the way to also clarify who is releasing what. This need is
much more evident when interacting with people outside our community.
In the past we already used some tags unofficially for specifying what
the final user was installing.
Try for example to think at the time we used "LibreOffice Vanilla" for
addressing the version from TDF and distinguish it from the releases
done by the different Linux distributions with their repackaging and
small changes to the default enabled features.
Yes, we already had "Vanilla", "from the Linux distributions", "from
TDF", "stable", "unstable", "still", "fresh", "LTS", "enterprise",
"business version", "supported version" and probably this unofficial
list is even longer than this. :)
In general I think that an official label could also finally address
this need to identify when the product comes from TDF and when from
other places and should avoid to outlaw the companies/public
administrations that are not buying a supported version and are
instead directly investing in development with own developers or
having a contract with one of the ecosystem members for founding the
development.
I know this is a slightly different point of view and I still think
that "origin and target" should be addressed together by this new
label/tag added to the main LibreOffice brand.
Target and origin matched together in a tag/label should also clarify
the final user expectations. When I was a board member I was reading
the emails we got to the TDF info address and you can't really imagine
how many people are writing to that address considering it like the
support address to be contacted in case of issues with a purchased
software. Some of these support requests were really rude. :(
1. Product Label for the community supported version provided by TDF
COMMUNITY: I like it and this was my instinctive initial idea. After
some researches I understood what Italo told about the "open core"
meaning of this tag. As much as I like this proposal, I think our
business model is not the open core one and always with the
target-origin approach in mind my fear is that this could be
misleading. Our community is made of volunteers, ecosystem and
investors/donors and this tag is not a way to differentiate what the
version provided by TDF with volunteers support is in the reality.
PERSONAL: always with this target-origin approach, I'm missing the
origin here. Which tag should be used for example by the Limux project
or by SUSE or by all the others that are investing in our project with
a contract with one of the ecosystem companies for fixing specific
issues without using their LTS branded version? Why we should ask to
these contributors to use a personal tag giving the wrong impression
to their users that the software is for "for personal use only" and
they are the "bad folks" not contributing to our open source project
in the proper way?
ROLLING/TUMBLEWEED: I can be biased here as openSUSE community member
but "rolling" is not only something unstable. ;)
Look for example at openSUSE Tumbleweed. The distro is a rolling one,
in constant evolution, it's true, you can get all the updated software
available from upstream projects and the distro has in any case a
really extensive quality work done by SUSE, its partners and by the
openSUSE community. At the end, this tumbleweed concept is not like
using a master version of LibreOffice but is closer to chose fresh
instead of still. ;)
The concept of rolling is something that I really like. it's a shared
effort from all the contributors (volunteers, ecosystem and investors)
to deliver something that works as expected without providing a long
term support version. With this rolling concept I can't see a negative
outcome also for public administrations like Munich or companies like
SUSE supporting our project in a different way. I like "tumbleweed"
more than rolling to be honest but if this concept will be selected we
can try to find a more effective and visual word too.
CLASSIC: can be an idea too but for my taste, classic looks also like
something old, aged and I can see it more close to the distinction we
have for LibreOffice still and LibreOffice fresh instead of a way to
differentiate who is doing what and how.
BASIC: with "basic" I can see the same issues already mentioned with
"PERSONAL" plus the negative connotation that the basic version has
less features or it has something less if compared with the supported
version. The difference I see here is much more than the lack of
professional support.
CREATIVE: I feel this proposal closer to what I wrote for
ROLLING/TUMBLEWEED and indeed, I like it. :)
2. Where to position the label: title bar, about box, start center
On this I would prefer to leave the decision to Marketing and Design
team.
What I can say is that the start center is not really a visible place.
You can see the logo and the new tag/label there only if you really
have a fresh user profile, otherwise that area will directly show the
recent document list/thumbnails.
I would prefer to see the tag in the about box also with a link (like
for the credit) to a page explaining what the tag means and why it is
there.
On the title bar I could see both the chosen tag or a "LibreOffice
technology".
Sorry for the long e-mail ;)
Yours,
Marina
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Context
- Fwd: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] MARKETING PLAN: Some Proposals (continued)
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.