Re: start of elevator pitch for plasma on devices

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Aaron J. Seigo <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2010, Carl Symons wrote:
>> You write, "...with operating systems like MeeGo". Is Plasma for CE a
>> MeeGo application?
>
> not exclusively, no. what MeeGo does give us, however is:
>
> * a reason for Nokia, Intel, AMD and other MeeGo partners to get behind Plasma
> as well
>
> * a friendly (due to being a strong Qt promponent) operating system that is
> portable and open to couple with Plasma without having to invent and created
> such a thing ourselves (which we don't have the resources for)
>
> MeeGo is, right now, simply the best option available from the Plasma
> perspective and so it is in our best interests to elevate its profile in this
> conversation. it's also the target that receives the bulk of our development
> attention.
>
>> Does it apply to other OSs?
>
> yes, but not as compellingly. one could take Android and ship Plasma with it
> or instead of the Google provided UI. but unless Google replaces their UI with
> something Qt based (or even better: a Plasma driven shell) then it's more work
> with less control for the company producing the product.
>
> for iOs and RIM's QNX based stuff is quite frankly uninteresting as they are
> both one-company solutions. there is no one else out there who can use those
> platforms for their devices, so they are not of interest here.
>
> where it could be interesting is if Plasma enabled one to install, say, iPhone
> apps on their device. but that isn't going to happen, for a number of reasons.
>

So this really boils down to that it's best for Plasma for Plasma and
MeeGo to be closely tied. Is that your view?

The elevator pitch to a device manufacturer might be, "Choose MeeGo
for all these reasons, PLUS you get Plasma, which does all of
this...". In essence...instead of choosing Android and its ecosystem,
especially Android's open source that's not really an open project.

The pitch to a supplier that has already decided on MeeGo would be,
"Choose Plasma."

>> How does it compare
>> with Appcelerator/Titanium used to develop native-ish apps for iPhone,
>> Android and RIM?
>
> completely different. opposite sides of the equation, even. Appcelerator is
> there to write apps for different existing platforms. Plasma, at least in this
> context, is there to provide a platform on a device that apps can be written
> to.
>
> so Appcelerator could add Plasma support one day if there was a market for
> Plasmoids.
>
> and conversely, Plasma already supports hosting some other types of apps (e.g.
> Google Gadgets).
>
> that's an interesting question, though, and one that perhaps deserves a
> separate entry on that community.k.o page.

I've been working with someone who is developing Android apps with
Titanium. It ain't that great, but it's the best choice for what he
wants. By contrast, I've followed your comments and others about
developing Plasmoids. It seems like a far easier and more effective
path. Courting the developer community seems like a tunnel with some
cheese in it.

>
>> What are the other choices related to the following:
>> "Help decision makers (e.g. managers) understand the concrete benefits
>> of using Plasma for smartphones, tablets, netbooks, set-top boxes and
>> other CE devices so that they choose to make it part of their platform
>> strategy."
>>
>> And how does the Plasma-related solution compare to these other choices?
>
> it's more portable, more open, multi-device (the "one plasmoid, multiple
> device target customizations" is completely unique right now to Plasma), has
> better and more language options and generally faster to develop for than the
> alternatives.
>

That is a pretty good start to an effective elevator pitch right
there. In addition, Plasmoid developers come up to speed quickly
because they typically don't have to learn a new programming toolset.

What are you comparing against? What are the alternatives? Clutter, GTK, Hildon?


> this is why there are already more Plasmoids that work nicely on an N900 style
> device than there are Maemo apps that i can download for my N900.
>
> these are the ideas that "elevator pitch" needs to get across.
>
>> How savvy are the decision makers/managers?
>
> usually quite savvy. they are all technology experts, though usually with
> management instead of development backgrounds.

So they should easily get the ecosystem message. However, competing
with Android could be a slog. Is this an issue really?

This may again be my lack of knowledge, but could this be turned into
a situation kinda like Visicalc selling Apples? Use MeeGo to get
Plasma. Here's why you might want to consider this...

>
>> For some devices, developer participation is a major consideration
>> (smartphones, tablets).
>
> yes...
>
>> Companies offering other types of devices
>> (e.g., set top boxes) won't have as much need of third party
>> developers.
>
> that's becoming less and less true, actually. more and more devices, even ones
> we wouldn't usually consider as candidates for such an approach, are being
> designed with this in mind.
>
>> So will the decision makers be more like Apple/closed
>> garden iStuff doing their own development, or Motorola/Droid, HTC,
>> Samsung, et al who open their basic platform widely to outside
>> developers.
>
> some will be looking to the Apple model, some will be looking to the latter.
> both are possible strategies, and while Plasma is useful in the "close garden"
> model it is even more compelling (in the same way, say, Android would be) to
> the more open approach. so i'd like to concentrate on those looking for the
> more open approach since we should have more to offer them.
>
> --
> Aaron J. Seigo
 
_______________________________________________
This message is from the kde-promo mailing list.

Visit https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-promo to unsubscribe, set digest on or temporarily stop your subscription.