Re: Interesting coverage of our project on the SQL-Ledger-users list

[Luke <..hidden..>]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Keith Edmunds wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:27:32 -0400 (EDT), ..hidden..
> said:
> 
> > If a significant number of the issues can be worked out while IE7 still 
> > represents a sufficiently large segment of the market
> 
> ...and surely that is the point? Does IE7 represent "a sufficiently large
> segment of the market"? I don't see any posts from would-be users saying
> that they've evaluated LSMB with Firefox and they like it, but to roll out
> they need IE7 support. At the moment, all posts that speculate on the size
> of the LSMB market that would /have/ to have it working with IE7 are just
> that: speculation.

Isn't that rather like saying, that since no Ford truck drivers are 
complaining to GM that GM isn't building trucks as big as Ford builds 
them, that the GM engineers shouldn't bother with building bigger 
trucks, because there is obviously no market for them?  All it really 
says, is that truck buyers took one look at GM's lines, saw they didn't 
have big enough trucks, and called Ford who did have them.  (As a side 
note: this may actually be the way GM's engineers are thinking--it would 
certainly explain their impending demise.)

The point is: If it doesn't work with IE, then IE users aren't going to 
bother with it, if they have reasons to stay with IE, such as huge 
corporate policy.
How many lists are you on for products you don't use?

On this list, we're dealing with a percentage of open source oriented end 
users, small flexible businesses, and open source solutions providers.  
None of these represent a great wide base of end userdom; and all of them 
represent a level of willingness and tenacity to use open source software 
which does not exist in the "get it done how ever we can, and in what ever 
way causes the least trouble" world which is the eventual market for this 
software imo.

Also: I'm a crappy marketer, but even I know that markets don't come to 
you--you must go to them.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Regards,

Luke