spl23 wrote: ↑
Sun May 27, 2018 11:21 am
For someone who is arguing about "communicating the message", I must say you seem to me to be doing a poor job of it yourself.
Sometimes a message simply can't be communicated because one party refuses to hear it. This seems to be just such a case.
I completely fail to see your point about Raspberry Pi Zero - you were claiming that it was damaging our brand by not having a separate brand for our software; what another hardware product has to do with this is beyond me.
I was directly addressing your statement that your feelings would be hurt if you couldn't be working for the main brand. I was contrasting how silly that was with an existing Raspberry Pi brand name; the "nothing" hardware that is a Zero. But I'd wager that everyone involved with the Zero (and many of us out here) don't see themselves as "unworthy" for working on such a brand. I don't think it's asking too much to expect that level of maturity from the software teams, too.
The implication from what you have previously said is that using the Raspberry PI brand for our software devalues the brand.
Not devalues, but dilutes. And causes confusion (which is why this thread took a tangent into branding). There's a reason
Apple doesn't, at any level of the organization, just call their system software "Apple". I don't know what levels of motivated reasoning you're resorting to in order to blind yourself to this kind of obvious fact.
If that is not what you are saying, perhaps you could try to actually explain what the negative impact on our business is from our use of a single brand for hardware and software at present, and what the potential positive impact might be from having more brands?
It's not just about the present, but about future projects both internal and external. People like, and often need
, things to be named well to understand how the complex pieces of computer systems fit together. That's why the Zero works well as a name. It's also why the current naming conventions of the "Desktop" software are so awkward to use. It's something that should be fixed sooner rather than later, because the problem will only get worse as the Raspberry Pi brand expands.
You are the only person I have seen who seems to think that we shouldn't offer multiple products, both hardware and software, under the Raspberry Pi brand
No, I seem to recall someone inside the organization mentioning they wanted to use some 5 letter word. Now what was
their name . . .
But, seriously, just because you don't see a lot of talk doesn't mean there isn't a problem. And a thread tangent is not the best place to be looking for the larger community's feedback. But, as I've said, the real issue should fundamentally be how the Raspberry Pi organization wants to grow and/or be seen in a context larger than producing small computer hardware.
which we also use for publishing magazines (have a look inside a copy of the Magpi)
Your statement is self-contradictory. You need only look at the cover
of the magazine to see it has a different brand: Magpi. And if you do look inside, how many of the articles are about the software that doesn't
run on Raspberry Pi hardware? Again, as the Raspberry Pi brand exists today, it is not a software brand. Either you change it more to become one, or you re-brand/sub-brand in a way that makes clear how important the different software components are (a la Raspbian).
Consider Richard Branson's Virgin brand
Let's not keep multiplying entities. Suffice it to say that, like Apple and most other companies, Virgin operates as an umbrella brand over a ton of other sub-brands that are easy to distinguish and place in their respective markets.
Remind me again, what was Sinclair's software brand?
According to Wikipedia, Sinclair BASIC
. It simply isn't a parity comparison because they didn't seem to actually have
software that was portable to other machines. That's a big part of where the water gets muddy when it comes to what people are supposed to understand the Raspberry Pi brand to be.
What was Commodore's?
They had multiple brands of hardware, which had multiple brands (and sub-brands) of software. This includes many sub-brands for their AmigaOS offering, like Exec, Kickstart, Intuition, Workbench, etc.
Still, like Sinclair, I'm not sure how much of it was cross platform. Your cherry picking of these companies isn't very productive. Perhaps we can focus more on what makes sense for Raspberry Pi in 2018 and beyond?
And as for Apple, while MacOS and OSX may now be brands, for the first 15 years or so of the Macintosh, the OS was simply called "System" - hardly a strong brand name, and not one of which the vast majority of their customers were even aware.
You realize you're supporting my point, don't you? Yes, a system
company like Apple had no need for a special public brand for their Macintosh OS when it was an isolated product. Once that stopped being the case, it made sense for them to start to manage the complexity by starting to label things better. Where do you think they'd be today if that hadn't
My argument is that Raspberry Pi has dipped their toes in that same water by putting out software that doesn't run on Raspberry Pi hardware. That's an important milestone. It should be handled with more intention that is currently the case.
It's not a question of not liking the idea - it is that you have simply expressed the idea that it is somehow damaging to our business to not sub-brand our different activities, but not actually supported that with a single piece of evidence as to what said damage is, how it is affecting us in the wider world, or what positive effect doing what you suggest might have.
I'm in no position to make the business case for you to make any changes. I can only point to the historical evidence that is right in front of you regarding other organizations that have faced similar issues. I highly recommending standing on the shoulders of giants if you want to see further.