Poll: MapServer and Autodesk

[Tyler Mitchell]

On December 22, 2005 19:48, Ed McNierney wrote:
> Describing one option as "making open source web mapping the platform of
> choice" and the other as "competing directly with the new brand name
> that will be created and heavily promoted by Autodesk" is rather far
> from being a neutral presentation!  

What's to be neutral about?  We've just laid out the potential result of one 
decision over the other.  The purpose of doing so is to draw your mind into 
the future ramifications and not just let you make a quick 'neutral' 
decision.  I know it might across as a somewhat stark comparison, but the 
word "compete" doesn't have to be a dirty word we just recognise that its 
opposite is often more beneficial.  Choice (a) isn't going to be all roses 
and sweet sunshine, just as much as choice (b) isn't going to be all fire and 
brimstone.  They are two extremes with lots of unknown opportunities for 
failure and success buried deep within.  [I'm getting poetic, I must be 
taking this too seriously :) ]

> If option (b) encompasses something 
> like the scenario I mentioned (a "product line" name that is a new name,
> not derived from either existing brand, and product names based on the
> "familiar" names currently in use) then yes, you're right.  

Option (b) was precisely that - Autodesk not supporting a "MapServer 
Foundation", but something more generic, and no MapServer name as part of 
Autodesk's project.

> But that 
> wouldn't be "competing directly with the new brand name" any more than
> "MapServer Cheetah" and "MapServer Enterprise" are, so I'm confused.

Our preamble to the poll was a bit long-winded.  The short version would read:

Autodesk will be putting substantial resources behind their product.  If their 
product is called MapServer <something>, then their promotion will also speak 
of MapServer and draw attention to it.  If their product is not called 
MapServer, it will be called something different and their won't be a common 
brand to market, promote, etc.  And that's okay, but we just want the 
community to see that the name is an important variable in how things will 
unfold.

> But it is
> misleading to claim that with the right branding and labeling one can
> cause the products to not compete, or to think that if they're managed
> by separate foundations they're competing and if they're managed by the
> same foundation they're not competing.

It's not about whether they are under the same foundation or not - it's 
whether or not they share the same name for the products.

Gary likes MapServer and isn't going to launch a war against it.  However, the 
reality is that the Autodesk marketing machine will be focused on promoting 
the "best open source enterprise-level web mapping system available".  If 
their product isn't the best, they will be seeking to make it the best and 
the story goes on.   Is this competition?

What is promoted?  The product's brand will be.  It is not the foundation 
brand that is promoted, it is always a product brand.  If there are two 
products using that brand, then they both benefit from the promotion.  To 
"not compete" merely means to share branding.  Of course competition can't be 
completely avoided, we all know there are two distinct products that have 
some overlapping capabilities.  The idea is to try to find the easiest way to 
help them coexist.  If that's not possible at the naming level, then so be 
it...there will still be some synergies at the foundation level and some 
cross pollination which will be good.

Thanks for the debate.

Tyler