[Open-graphics] Getting more exposure for OGP

[Terry Hancock]

Timothy Miller wrote:
>  Lance and Theo have been having some discussions, and one of the
>  suggestions that has come out of it is that we might benefit from
>  coming more vocal and activist about our beliefs.

This is somewhat natural. If the key benefit of OGP is the openness of 
the product, then anything that puts brand value on that benefit (e.g. 
open hardware advocacy) is good for you.

>  What do you think we should do? What can we do to get ourselves on
>  the radar of more people on the FOSS community and in IT in general?

Frankly, I'm not so sure you want to be higher profile than you are.  
You're being covered in Free Software Magazine and LinuxUser & Developer 
(I know, because I'm the one doing the covering!), but how far beyond 
that do you really need to go?

What you really need is a product.

Too much exposure, too early will make the product seem old hat by the 
time you release it (there will be grumbling about "vapor ware" and how 
"free hardware" just "doesn't work", because "look how slow they are 
working", etc).  On the other hand, creating a product, and then 
storming the market could make you look like an "overnight success 
story".  You need excitement to get exposure, and drama to create the 
excitement.

Now, I don't really think you're going to be in a position to do that 
for some time (probably not until the consumer OGA1 is manufactured or 
ready to be).  So, in the meantime, you need a sustaining impression of 
"competent progress".

That means lots of little milestones reported in the technical press.  
Smoothness is important.  Pump out a little story with a press release 
every month or two.  Don't worry about it being widespread -- at this 
point your interest is keeping developers interested and piquing the 
curiousity of potential early-adopters.

The key here is to maintain the image of competence and confidence. Any 
hint that you fear you will not reach the point of producing either the 
development board (OGD1) or the consumer board (OGA1) will give purchase 
to the naysayers (and there are already a few out there -- they could be 
ATI or nVidia shills, or they could just be cynical grumblers).

Personality matters, too.  You, Timothy Miller, are going to be known as 
the "founder" of the OGP, so you're automatically accorded a certain 
authority or celebrity status.  Give interviews.  Talk about your 
goals.  Speculate a little. It's important to establish that the core 
people working on OGP are competent hardware designers with definite 
ideas about where they are going.

And patience matters too.  Open Cores hasn't done anything really 
remarkable to market themselves, but they are known as a key source on 
hardware just because they've been around for a long time.  Awareness of 
OGP will grow naturally in time.

>  One of Theo's suggestion is to use the "people are only interested in
>  negative press" factor. We could submit trade articles that point
>  out the flaws in another graphics vendor and how we're a suitable
>  alternative. This would get us positive exposure (negative press for
>  A is positive for ~A).

Not if you come across as a mud-slinger. It's a delicate balancing act, 
and dedicated marketing professionals have hung themselves this way.  My 
advice is don't try it.

Have you ever noticed how Linus Torvalds hardly ever slams other O/Ss or 
goes on about ideology?  He's using the "nice guy" defense.  Everybody 
knows he has good reasons to slam other O/Ss, but he doesn't, and that 
gains him more approval.

Stallman is more of the ideological iconoclast type, but you can see 
that his success has been spotty.  There are big successes within a 
small core of "believers", but on the broad scale, he's regarded as 
"eccentric" at best.

And that's going to depend on your personality, Timothy, and you don't 
strike me as the pugnacious type.  Nor as an ideologue.

You should also realize that you don't really want ATI or nVidia to 
realize you are a threat. They are much better funded than you, and can 
find a way to undercut or pre-empt your success if you tip your hand too 
early (They probably will act after the fact, but by then, it may be too 
late -- we can hope that your core market will have already identified 
you as the flag-bearer).

IOW, what I'm suggesting is that you need niche marketing that targets 
developers and serious free software users who will likely be interested 
in free hardware as well.  What you need during this phase is sufficient 
interest to convince your financial backers of the viability of funding 
production runs and your contributors of the solidity of the project. 
You're not trying to be a "smash hit", you're trying to be "reliable" 
and "capable" and other good solid words that give people confidence 
that you will get to where you are trying to be.

Meanwhile, you should prepare materials for a "big launch" when you do 
release a product.  You should do some "launch" publicity even for the 
OGD1, even though the actual market is small. This serves three purposes:

1) Making real hardware proves you can

2) It will attract FPGA developers

3) It provides a teaser for a later OGA1 launch

That's my take on it, anyway.  Think about what you specifically need 
during this incubation phase, and see how your marketing can be targeted 
to achieve just that. Then prepare for a real consumer marketing push 
when you have something to market to consumers.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com