Spreading the Ubuntu Brand Too Far?
Ubuntu developers recently announced a new system that will make it easier to brand third-party applications with Ubuntu imagery in Ubuntu 9.10. While decorating the desktop with benign images of a Koala may not hurt anything, Ubuntu should be careful not to take the branding too far. Here’s why.
In his announcement of the package that makes branding possible, named branding-ubuntu, developer Scott Ritchie mentions only a handful of Gnome games as possible candidates for the change. The backs of cards in FreeCell Solitaire, for example, could display a Koala for the release of Ubuntu 9.10. This cute touch-up would be innocent enough.
Going too far
The wiki page for the branding package, however, proposes advertising Ubuntu in the splash screens and about screens of major third-party applications like OpenOffice and GIMP. A move like this would be a very unwise decision.
OpenOffice, GIMP and most other productivity applications are not developed by Ubuntu, and presenting them to users in a way that emphasizes Ubuntu is not in anyone’s interest. It’s unfair to the third-party developers who do the hard work maintaining the applications, and it’s dangerous for Ubuntu, which will be held accountable by unassuming users for any deficiencies in the upstream software that it brands as its own.
The equivalent of a decision like this in the proprietary world would be unthinkable–and probably illegal. If Microsoft embedded a splash screen into Firefox reminding users that their web browser runs on Windows, or if Apple branded the OS X version of Microsoft Office with its own artwork, there would be hell to pay, and for good reason.
Granted, the branding-ubuntu package would keep third-party artwork on the file system while defaulting to Ubuntu-specific images, which is somewhat reassuring. In addition, applications would have to be modified to support the infrastructure, which would seem to give upstream developers some choice in the matter, since they could refuse to cooperate–but that wouldn’t stop Ubuntu’s package maintainers from patching the code to be compatible with Ubuntu artwork.
The fact that an application runs on Ubuntu doesn’t make it part of Ubuntu, and users should be kept aware of the distinctions between the operating system and the programs it runs. Trivial changes to the artwork of games and generic applications is fine, but let’s hope this doesn’t go too far.
Follow WorksWithU via Identi.ca, Twitter and RSS (available now) and our newsletter (coming soon).
[…] the original here: Spreading the Ubuntu Brand Too Far? Comments [0]Digg […]
Christoph, the use cases are:
– card game covers
– the open-office splash screen
– open-office icon theme
*hint hint* there’s not much to be customized. Try to thing to anything else to customize.
…
[silence]
Isn’t this what OpenSuse has been doing since a long time? I don’t see so much of a problem. I do see a slightly better integrated user experience. Still trivial though.
Trivial and minor things are OK but then it gets to me WHY DOES KUBUNTU NOT USE THE KUBUNTU LOGO FOR THE KICKSTART (main menu)!??
Sorry.. pet peeve. Other distros change the KDE “K” icon for their distribution icon and Kubuntu doesn’t.
Yet they are looking to put the Ubuntu brand everywhere EXCEPT Here?! ugh.
No meter how far Ubuntu goes, it is the only distribution who wish to be upstream and do anything it can to accomplish it.
So please stop judging them and help them to spread Linux!
It’s ultimately hard to say whether or not branding goes too far if there is a reference to Ubuntu in the customized packages of OpenOffice and the GIMP… Perhaps it’s a good thing, or maybe too much.
I happen to lean towards it not being a bad thing, in moderation of course. Placing some Ubuntu stuff in non-Canonical developed applications may not make much sense, but these packages are already customized to work on Ubuntu. For example, OpenOffice already includes Ubuntu-styled icons. Reminding people that they are using Ubuntu rather than Windows will only help build and strengthen the Ubuntu brand.
Lots of other distributions like OpenSuse, Linux Mint, Mandriva etc. have been doing this for years. In fact Linux Mint used to have a tool to restore the Mint-ed splash screens and about dialogues after a software update. I don’t understand why you are being so cynical about this.
Users will feel that the software that they use is more integrated into the OS. Don’t you get this feeling when you use Mac OSX?
This is just one more step into making Ubuntu more appealing to users.
You seem to be sort of scared that Ubuntu is going to make Canonical the new M$. That will never happen. Their ideologies and goals are completely different. Choices will always be there. Debian, Fedora or Gentoo won’t be dying out soon.
I agree. I’d rather see prominent projects like OOo and the Gimp (just to take the examples you used) work on building their own brand and their own image. Get the OOo name out there, and then when someone is introduced to Ubuntu (or whatever) they’ll say “Oh, it comes with OOo? Sweet!”
take it easy, but take it-
p.daniels
Can’t they do something useful with their time? Like, say, make our systems work without crashes and bugs? Set sane defaults? Fix *any* of the highest-rated ideas on Ubuntu Brainstorm?
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/most_popular_ever/
Do they want Ubuntu desktop to be relevant or not?
The worst example of going too far is with the Linux Mint’s branding for google searches in Firefox. Its very annoying.
I don’t have a problem with Ubuntu trying to strengthen its brand. One can never underestimate the importance of being ‘cool’. People suffer all kinds of hardships for the sake of being cool.
Okay I’m totally lost on this. Just what is the point of all this branding? If the changes apply only to Ubuntu bundled versions then nobody will see it except Ubuntu users. There’s no point in preaching to the choir.
Where’s the line between distributor branding and individual project branding? That’s the real question here.
It’s really not fair to poke Ubuntu specifically over the issue of branding. No distributor has the man power to develop all the bits that go into their integrated operating system experience. That’s sort of the whole point of how the open development ecosystem layered over the linux kernel works.
So taking the fact for granted that there is absolutely no way you can give equitable credit to each and every person who gifts development time or organization which pays for development time into all the code that makes up a linux distribution…. what is a fair way to brand such a collection that gives recognition to the upstream software project as well as the integration work done by the distributor?
Maybe the best thing to do is ask each of the upstream projects to specify their preference as to what UI elements are co-brandable or re-brandable as part of a set of integration best practises. Best practises..as compared to requirements. Some projects, most notably Mozilla, already have trademark licensing requirements which cover this sort of issue. But most projects probably don’t need to be that heavy handed and can get a way with setting down some guidance for distributors as to what elements are encouraged to be co-branded or replacable.
If for example OpenOffice as a project is okay with their splash screen being modified to carry a distribution co-branding then it would be good to document that as guidance for all distributors. That way all distributors can work within that framework so the OpenOffice.org brand is consistently portrayed. Same goes with something like KDE or GNOME. Having the expectation that downstream integrators are going to need to co-brand, and providing guidance for that could go a long way in avoid any sort of perception problems.
-jef
When will people realize that having an Ubuntu quasi-monoculture in the Linux world is almost as bad as having an OS quasi-monoculture in the general computing world?
Ubuntu does a great job of introducing people to a Linux distribution, but it also has a knack for dividing communities over certain issues (see the Mono-included-by-default issue and now this).
Seriously, if you find you get along with Linux, leave Ubuntu behind, there is a whole world of (much nicer) Linux distributions out there.
Branding can be useful and harmless, I suppose. My only issue with it is please, GIVE CREDIT WHERE IT IS DUE. Canonical gives huge acknowledgement and thanks to Debian on it’s site, for example, since Ubuntu is built almost entirely from Debian. I think it helps BOTH projects.
Others, Linux Mint for example, gives no credit to Ubuntu for it’s success (and Mint IS Ubuntu for the most part, with added codecs and artwork and a few cool “Mint tools.” Very nice. But not a word of acknowledgement or thanks to the people on whose backs Mint is built.
I could take Ubuntu, change the artwork, add a few codecs and tweaks, and release it as “SuperLinux,” then do what Mint did to Firefox’s Google search to make a nice profit for a few hours of work. “Oh yeah, I built this all by myself, ain’t I wonderful?” Pft.
You’re taking issue with the wrong people on this branding stuff.
IMHO the branding of applications is something that can be beneficial to Linux if done correctly. One of the weaknesses of Linux is that some applications don’t always have a look that is consistent with the OS. This can be badly perceived by some users. In the Windows world IE, Office and most third party applications look perfectly integrated in the OS, why should things be different on Linux?
A good visual integration of the OS and core applications also go a long way toward giving a professional look to the OS, which may convince otherwise reluctant users to try Linux.
And here is is one final argument for consistent branding: it is more beautiful!
I tried linux mint and it’s a good distro but I found the branding distasteful so I didn’t use it. It doesn’t seem fair to me that they are taking credit for other people’s work. I’d hate to see ubuntu do the same thing.
Thinking out loud, branding could be used in an actually useful way, not just to plaster the logo wherever it can be plastered.
For example, branding on a software application could be used to indicate packages officially supported by Ubuntu (as opposed to Universe or Multiverse packages), or packages that have been modified by Debian or Ubuntu from the original upstream sources (OpenOffice, e.g.).
[…] busca convertir Ubuntu en una marca reconocible para lo cual se está planteando medidas que pueden ser poco inteligentes. La primera de estas medidas pasa por crear un paquete especial denominado branding-ubuntu que […]
Where are these other “much better distros”?? I always see people knock Ubuntu and swear there are much nicer distros out there. But when I go looking for them I find that they are all Linux. Some are geared towards particular types of users and others are just changes in “scenery”. I’m comfortable with Linux on the desktop and I really don’t see anything worth switching too besided Debian and maybe Fedora. The rest are not bad by any means. Most of them are great. They just aren’t worth making a switch.
If I put my name on someone else’s work in school, that would be called PLAGIARISM and I’d get a failing grade. I don’t understand why it’s accepted as perfectly okay in some parts of the Linux world. It’s very distasteful either way IMO.
[…] recent post on WorksWithU warns the new branding-ubuntu package team that, while making minor tweaks to the back of solitare […]