[marketing-dev] Re: New strategies for OO (new subject)

Hello Louis, *

Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
> Hola Ramon!
>
>
> On 2011-05-19, at 11:44 , Ramon Sole wrote:
>
>> Hello Louis, *
>>
>> it would be terrific if the core OOo team decided to build a start-up =
around OpenOffice.
>
> You sound naive :-)
>
> It's not their decision, unless part of that decision entails a vow of =
poverty. Who will pay them? Who will pay for the site? Who will pay for e=
verything?
>
Well, I was not asking anyone to make a vow of poverty. It was just a=20
thought -or wish- about how current OOo team could think about building=20
a company around the OOo code. It means risk, of course, but good=20
opportunities too. Building a start-up doesn't mean to leave your=20
current job right away and hope it will rain when it is needed. Building=20
a start-up means make a business plan, getting funds, gathering some=20
investors and capitalizing the company for running it on loses, maybe,=20
at least 1 or 2 years. Maybe it is naive, but some successful companies=20
begun that way. I don't know if true, but it is said that Google begun=20
with a Bechtolsheim's check for $100,000 to Page and Brin. And I=20
disagree with you, Louis, building a start-up around its own=20
knowledgement it is an OOo team decision, of course.
 >> I'm pretty sure they would find quite easily some business angels=20
who could invest a bunch of money.
>
> Really? You are also optimistic. Didn't working for Sun teach you anyth=
ing? :-)
>
 > I mean, look where Jonathan's glamourous optimism got us: Oracle.

Yes, probably I'm optimistic in that. But I think, anyway, bad decisions=20
and strategic mistakes got Sun to Oracle hands. On the other hand=20
optimism made Sun one of the most innovative and successful -for many=20
years- companies in IT history. Looking for investment is the second=20
thing before building a start-up, just after defining the business plan.=20
Maybe you don't manage to raise the funds, so you don't create the=20
company, but obviously you should try before.

>> 10 M$ is not a lot of money for a start-up who already has millions of=
 customers and users. Probably it's the opportunity of their lives!. They=
 were a small company -StarDivision- a few years ago, nobody knew about t=
hem and their product has become, probably, the biggest open source proje=
ct ever competing directly with MS! As evarybody knows MS has had marketi=
ng campaigns directed against OO, which probaaly costed as much as the 10=
 M you talked about!
>
> Let's be serious. The maintenance cost does not even include the copyri=
ght cost, if any. And it's not a trivial cost. I've dwelt on this issue, =
as have others. it is all about business, not at all about what is good f=
or society, humanity, the people of the world. It is not even really abou=
t saving money in the immediate. It is about staking out valuable territo=
ry in a new market. Persuading people of this is not impossible. I've don=
e it. But it is one thing to persuade of your vision, another to persuade=
 away from the status quo, and yet another to persuade to commit sums of =
money; and yet another to persuade to arrange a context for all this that=
 can promote sustained development of the code, not just one-off and ad h=
oc work.
>
> And if you think that the act of persuasion can be written in the prete=
rite, once it's done, just look at Brazil under the new Minister of Cultu=
re.
>
Who is speaking about buying anything? Is OOo open source or isn't? The=20
OOo trademarks would be good to have, but the knowledgement about the=20
OOo code is much better. That's the only actual thing a start-up would=20
really needed.
>
>>
>> Furthermore, many other people could bring more money to that. How man=
y people would buy some shares of OpenOffice (Inc, Ltd, GmbH or whatever =
it would be), just for help a be part of the ownership of OOo? Big users =
should think about it.
>
> Again, this has been considered, as has the sort of NGO. I prefer Apach=
e, to situate OOo as a nonprofit operating within the Apache frame. But I=
 am also open to TDF, if the licensing scheme can be arranged to promote =
business expansion. What counts for me is the expansion and security of t=
he ODF market. It's absolutely vital and I daresay more important than OO=
o qua OOo. Without the ODF market=97the myriad of implementations=97we ar=
e niche.
>

Maybe in our case the Mozilla model would fit better? They would have=20
the code, they would have the knowledgement and the start-up would have=20
investors. A foundation -TDF??- could gather donations and have a big=20
share of the start-up. Why not?

>>
>> Anyway, consider to send your open letter to the big-users community. =
It's wonderful Peugeot, the French Police, the Finnish Governement, the c=
ity of Munich or Zaragoza use OpenOffice. It's time n
>
> I would, but do you honestly think I've not previously approached not j=
ust those above but others, too? And guess what. They say, We love open s=
ource! As long as it is cheap and does not demand a centavo from us, or e=
ven better, as long as a big company is willing to do all the work =85.

World is full of free riders, I know. But if those companies want new=20
releases and improvements they should think twice about that. Give them=20
something for their money. Selling them publicity for sponsoring OOo?=20
Maybe :-) Very good PR for buzzing around are essential on that.

>> ow to ask them a little of support to the community. Ask them just a f=
ew EUR or USD per user and probably you get the budget for some years!
>
> Nope. What happens is that they say: We have millions for software. Jus=
t ask MSFT. And if we switch over, then=85 usual story of needing an anal=
ogue to MSFT. I know this, I know it well. I've for this reason tried to =
work with Asolif and others around the world, to provide that single, coh=
erent and reliable business point of entry: the single vendor kind of ana=
logue. And sometimes it works, but more often the status quo prevails. Co=
mpelling arguments are not compelling if it's not against rationality but=
 irrational habitude you fight against. Status quo is costly but cheaper =
than actually doing something, esp. if it's your job on the line or just =
about as bad, your effort. And I've tried, Ramon, I've tried. Doesn't mea=
n I won't try again, just that I am hardly naive, hardly optimistic. But =
I am realistic, and do see the value in what we do and why it's important=
.
>

But some of them pay to Novell, Red Hat or Oracle for OOo support. Why=20
wouldn't they pay instead to OOo Inc if the OOo core developement is=20
done there?

> I do think it is compelling that we work with SMBs; but I also think it=
 is absolutely necessary that a) the community of OOo and LO reunite and =
reconcile, so that we can be strongly stepping into the future; and b) th=
at IBM, Red Hat, Canonical, and even Google (as well as of course Novell/=
Attachmate) collaborate under the same roof to share the immense costs of=
 making this thing they all benefit from and which even more will add to.
>
Totally agree.

> Cheers

Cheers. And thanks, Louis, for your efforts in keeping that project on.

Ramon
--=20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
For additional commands send email to [email protected]
with Subject: help