So now the Dot article is out with my name on it (that’s just an accident really as I was the guy who first imported our draft text in to the Dot) It is supposed to provide a concise, readable, but far from comprehensive summary of the “Repositioning the KDE brand” document that Cornelius put together after a lot of discussion.
Why do this?
So, a lot of that text is not mine (although I endorse it fully – it’s only not mine because I didn’t manage to describe things that well). One of the things I did do was put together that diagram of the brand map for the Dot article. After doing that, I wondered how it looked under the old branding structure – well, you can see the results below (old brand names first, new ones below). Hopefully that indicates how the old branding structure has been ambiguous and made it really difficult for us to present the products in any kind of coherent way.
It was messy and a lot of those KDE/KDE 4 names were used interchangeably (and often we still had K Desktop Environment too). Writing anything quickly became a mess of KDEs and you could only tell from the context – and some prior knowledge about what we do – what each of them actually meant. The new brands make my job a lot easier and if we make the job of promoting KDE products easier then we should get better promotion of KDE products. Of course, it is also desirable to split the Plasma Desktop and Plasma Netbook from the apps a little so that people not running one of those should not be put off trying out Amarok, KOffice or K3B.