|
Description
I just read the blog post about the new boxed retail version of Ubuntu available and this image was used to show the box art.
http://blog.canonical.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bestbuy.jpg
Sorry, but since when did a professional company with millions of users just dump a lame ass blurry picture like this into an official press release/blog post?
Shuttleworth talks about aspiring to be as good as OS X. Do you think Apple would have a blurry snap shot of Leopards box art in a press release? Man it bugs me so much that you guys don’t take this stuff seriously. IMAGE IS EVERYTHING when attracting new users.
I love what you guys do, but you need to pull the finger out and realise that you’ve got to look professional at all times. Canonical come across as a half arsed amateur operation far too often.
You need to make sure that every document, press release, blog post, and piece of information that comes out of Canonical looks professional at all times, otherwise you need someone to say "No way is that going out in its present state. Fix it!".
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
glotz wrote on the 10 Jul 08 at 17:53
|
Wow, what a disgusting image, technically. Besides the slogan on the box itself "Unable to run windoze? - Ubuntu is for you!" is totally misleading and incredibly lame. Also, any official edition that comes with words 'official edition' looks really unprofessional & unofficial to me!
Please tell me this is some april fools thingy! I passionately hate it.
|
|
francois wrote on the 10 Jul 08 at 20:32
| |
Absolutely. the picture is awful and the box does not look professionnal at all with poor slogans
|
|
Hawke wrote on the 10 Jul 08 at 21:28
|
Umm, the phrase doesn't say "Unable to run windoze" -- it definitely says "Unable to run Windows(R)?". I agree that "windoze" would be very unprofessional.
Further, the phrase "official edition" appears nowhere on the box.
I think the picture is fine (a little low resolution, but it's not blurry as the OP stated)
It's not the *best* box art ever, but it's not bad either.
|
|
belovedmonster wrote on the 10 Jul 08 at 21:43
|
I too have my reservations about the quality of the box design (more shots available here http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/07/08/pictures-and-details-of-ubuntu-in-best -buy/) but the point of this post wasnt really about the box artwork but the really lame ass way its been photographed in what is essentially the press release for the retail box. It's just not good enough by a long stretch.
I'm completely baffled by why the worlds biggest Linux distro can't do simple things right like get a nice picture of the box art for the website. I'm just pulling my hair out. Who the hell is running Canonical if this is deemed the appropriate way to present your flagship product to the world?
|
|
alsamman wrote on the 10 Jul 08 at 22:10
| |
"Unable to run windows - Ubuntu is for you" HORRIBLE. That is a terrible message to portray as it makes Ubuntu look like some OS that only old computers need to use and therefore the average person doesn't need it. And the quality of the picture if awful, this has to be fixed.
|
|
Ryuzakii wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 00:38
|
The picture -is- a bit blurry, but other than that I don't see a problem with it.
"Official Desktop Edition"
Why not simplify this to "Desktop Edition"? "Official" sounds corny.
"Unable to run Windows? Ubuntu is for you!"
If I was an average Joe who happened to see this phrase on the box, I would assume that Ubuntu was exclusively a low-spec OS and I would put it back on the shelf. Being able to run on older machines is a strength, yes, but it might be better to say something to the effect of "Ubuntu is powerful enough to handle today's desktop computers but so efficient that it can even run on yesterday's junkers!"
OK, so I'm not a marketing expert...but you get the picture.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 01:05
| |
Actually, for the original link, click here. It lists the publisher as Valusoft, so are we sure Ubuntu designed the box design, or was it Valusoft who did?
|
|
belovedmonster wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 09:53
|
Ryuzakii wrote
---The picture -is- a bit blurry, but other than that I don't see a problem with it.
Being blurry is criminal enough as it is. Like I say, do you think Apple or Microsoft would have a blurry product shot? No they wouldnt. But there is more wrong with that picture than being a bit blury.
Since when does a professional company just bung the case down on a desk and then take a picture of it. They don't, they have product snap shops that look like this...
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/gallery/boxshots/web/WindowsVistaBusi ness_web.jpg
Seriously, it drives me crazy that so many people in the Linux world don't understand how unprofessional you are making yourselves look.
|
|
Hawke wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 11:32
| |
That's not a snapshot. That's a CGI render of a Vista box. I'd greatly prefer to see the *real thing* than an artists impression.
|
|
Muunsyr wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 13:38
|
CGI or no, it looks more professional. Apple use renders on their site/ in their ads.
The photo itself is definitely blurry. The slogans/branding used is terrible. Whatever happened to 'It just works'.
Even if Canonical did not create the box art, they should have control over what is marketed. Most companies have very strict rules over how their image can be used. Letting someone else design and distribute crappy artwork for your product is as good as you doing it yourself.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 13:51
|
Either way, I dont care about the Canonical box. My problem with it is:
"The End of viruses"
"the end of crashes"
"reclaim speed"
My problem with these is that:
1) The box was obviously made by someone who doesn't know much in terms of the truth, only what they had heard (but they have never tested it).
2) Reclaim speed? And what happens when people try a program and its a bit slower. I don't like this claim. Different programs have different strengths in different OS's.
3) End of crashes. SURRREEE. Misadvertising. I could sue them after the first crash
4) No viruses are implied. Ubuntu doesn't END viruses, they can still be done.
This box instead should be playing out our real strength, like lots of included software, etc. I would never put that box on my shelves, because if it started crashing (which any OS will on different computers), there will be a royally pissed customer
|
|
Vadim P. wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 13:54
| |
Valusoft designed the box a while ago.
|
|
chipbennett wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 15:15
|
I think the comments regarding the thumbnail image of the box on Canonical's blog post are mis-directed; the image is a thumbnail, that links to a higher-res image. This practice is standard and well-accepted for blog posts.
On the other hand, I agree with those who take issue with the *content* of the box. It is completely unprofessional, and reflects poorly on both Canonical and - more importantly - Ubuntu.
|
|
everlasting.puneet wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 15:25
|
this is just a blog,just to inform about the product ... not official ubuntu site ,,, well may be the image is blurred but it is satisfying all needs to be used this picture in blog ..
you may be correct that apple would not do like this .. but one apple will may cost you 800$ ubuntu is free ... may be you can make a sexy picture of box and post the link as a comment they may upload.
Stop suggesting Start doing something .. this is not an idea.
some word written on the box are corny ;) but still that box is cool .. I guess this should be recycled box and environmental friendly
|
|
coolaj86 wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 15:40
|
The "Official" CDs from canonical are much better. Canonical generally has good marketing so I would blame the bad box on ValuSoft if at all possible.
Beware: Rant:
It's almost as bad as the "Why should I choose Vista page" (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/whynow.mspx) which paraphrased says "We made Vista to be visually pretty and sold it when it was pretty much still in alpha. You say it sucks, and, well, yeah, it is slower and more annoying. But we're not selling XP anymore so just deal with it. Give us some credit though; at least the new Beta (aka SP1) isn't as bad."
|
|
Hawke wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 15:43
|
I will agree that the box itself and verbiage thereon is not appropriate for how Ubuntu should be marketed. It looks like a box from the cheap crapware "Internet speed booster" and such, rather than a professional operating system box. I was going to mention "Prison Tycoon 3" as being typical of the sort of crap I'm talking about...and what do you know, ValuSoft is the publisher of that too.
I think it all comes down to the fact that ValuSoft is really not a company you'd want to be associating your product with...
|
|
belovedmonster wrote on the 11 Jul 08 at 22:33
|
chipbennett wrote:
---I think the comments regarding the thumbnail image of the box on Canonical's blog post are mis-directed; the image is a thumbnail, that links to a higher-res image. This practice is standard and well-accepted for blog posts.
WFT? No one is saying it is bad for Canonical to post a thumbnail that links to a bigger picture. They are saying the picture it links to is blury and the way it's taken on a table makes it look something you expect to see in an ebay auction not an official blog post by a multimillion pound company.
everlasting.puneet wrote:
---you may be correct that apple would not do like this .. but one apple will may cost you 800$ ubuntu is free ...
A. OS X is $129 not $800.
B. Mark Shuttleworth has personally said they he aspires for Ubuntu to be as good as OS X, and IMO this should include the way the OS is presented to the world.
C. Regardless what Shuttleworth says he aspires to, fact is Ubuntu needs to be just as professional as Microsoft and Apple for Ubuntu ever to capture a meaningful marketshare. Linux in general needs to shed its "done by volunteers and amateurs" status and be seen as a classy professional thing, pictures like this don't help in the slightest.
everlasting.puneet wrote:
---Stop suggesting Start doing something
Sorry but unless Shuttleworth wants to hire me as the Canonical PR person I can't see any way for me or anyone else to contribute to the official blog posts on Canonical's website. This is one area where they need to sort their own affairs out, and I hope they do it soon.
|
|
chipbennett wrote on the 12 Jul 08 at 21:32
|
@belovedmonster:
Perhaps it wasn't your original intent, but I've seen plenty of comments that imply that some people take issue with the thumbnail.
Though, I don't think the linked image is all that horrendously blurry - probably a personal preference.
I'm on your side here; I voted the idea +1.
But I did so mainly because I disagree with the image of Ubuntu portrayed by the *content* of the box rather than the quality of the image of the box.
|
|
belovedmonster wrote on the 13 Jul 08 at 09:52
|
You say the picture isnt horrendously blurry. That is true. But there should not be a scale of what is an acceptable amount of blur and what isnt. There should be zero blur what so ever! In that picture the background is clearly in focus more than the box art and this is not acceptable if Canonical want to come across as professional rather than a bunch amateurs running Ubuntu as a hobby.
The fact that people are saying that 'while it is slightly blurry the picture is fine' demonstrates the wider problem here in the Linux world. You guys "just don't get it". You wouldnt go to a job interview with a really scuffy appearance because you want to be taken seriously. So why is it OK to present your distro in a less than professional way? "It will do" is not something that should ever be said about the way Canonical present Ubuntu to its customers. You only get once chance to make a first impression.
And as for comments about the quality of the box itself...
Until the linux world "gets it" and realise what it takes to run a professional company concious of its public image and start taking pride in its design and style, you are never going to get Ubuntu coming in a beautiful box. Why would they take the time to come up with beautiful box art if they can't even be bothered to take a nice photograph of the box art?
Really the two problems are related. The blurry picture is indicative of a company that just doesn't care enough over the finer details to make sure it's branding and style matches what is expected. This brainstorm isnt just about this single one blurry picture, it's about the whole ethos at Canonical, where frankly I don't think they care enough about this stuff.
|
|
Vadim P. wrote on the 13 Jul 08 at 12:22
|
Frankly, I think you're obsessing over a single picture too much.
Does a home user care about that picture? No.
Does a small business care about that picture? No.
Does a middle business care about that picture? No.
Does a large business care about that picture? No.
Do some people think that the one picture matters to somebody so much they will reconsider getting Ubuntu? Oddly enough, yes.
|
|
belovedmonster wrote on the 13 Jul 08 at 20:52
|
This picture is indicative of that much wider problem and for me it was the straw that broke the camels back. That is why the title is "Ensure Canonical comes across as professional at all times" rather than "please don't take blurry pictures for your blog". This picture is a symptom of a much bigger problem.
Do not focus on the picture. Focus on the MIND SET OF SOMEONE TO RELEASE THIS PICTURE. That is what I am getting at. Canonical is not taking enough pride in how it presents it's products.
I would hope that me causing a stink here finds its way to someone important at Canonical and they say to themselves "You know what, if we want to be taken seriously as a credible alternative to Microsoft and as something you can trust your entire livelihood with, if we want to come across as a company with huge amounts of pride in our product we need to make sure something like this never happens."
Because this is totally an ethos thing. Someone at Canonical needs to develop an ethos were they take the same amount of pride in presenting their products to the world as they do in writing the code in the first place.
This is why you are totally wrong to say it doesn't matter to a business if this picture is blurry or not. It does matter, because if the ethos at Canonical is one where they don't even care if they present their products in the best light then that is going to be a huge barrier to attracting business users in the future. If Canonical don't even take pride in their products why should anyone else use them? Like I say, this is indicative of a much bigger problem.
With a lot of open source projects you can excuse them for having poorly written PR and clunky websites because they often don't have the resources to do these things, or the guy that is doing it is really a hacker doing this as a second job. But this is not an excuse for Canonical. They have the resources that who ever is doing their PR should be someone with PR experience rather than a Hacker, and more to the point, they are competing with companies that spend much more on advertising, and who have years of PR experience. They can't expect to compete with these companies without matching them in something as basic as this.
|
|
Vadim P. wrote on the 13 Jul 08 at 21:36
|
Canonical stuck the deal with Valusoft to begin with.
What is your indication that they are unprofessional? Besides the single picture, on which this is getting blown up.
|
|
chipbennett wrote on the 13 Jul 08 at 22:18
|
The vast majority of people reading Canonical's blog are already in the Canonical/Ubuntu/Linux camp - in other words, they're already sold. The quality of the picture will not sway such people *away* from Linux/Ubuntu/Canonical.
However, Average Joe who walks into Best Buy - who has never heard of Canonical, much less read a Canonical blog post - will see not the blog-post picture of that box, but the box itself.
I think the box content is more indicative of ValuSoft than of Canonical; regardless, that content would still reflect poorly on Ubuntu - and therefore, Canonical.
|
|
Vadim P. wrote on the 14 Jul 08 at 00:43
| |
I don't see any issues that Joe will spot on the box.
|
|
chipbennett wrote on the 14 Jul 08 at 03:19
|
@Vadim P.
Let's start with "Unable to run Windows(R)?"
Uh, who, exactly, would be unable to run Windows? Windows Vista, I could understand; but, as posed, the question might be a bit ambiguous. (Unable to run ...because of system requirements? ...because of lack of understanding of Windows? ...because of some other reason?)
Also, "Ubuntu is for you"
Does that mean that Ubuntu is only for those who are unable to run Windows? Or maybe that Ubuntu is only for computers that are not advanced enough to run Windows Vista (or perhaps Windows of any version)?
The other claims on the box (The end of... and Reclaim...) are debatable; but really, it is those two lines with which I take issue the most.
|
|
belovedmonster wrote on the 14 Jul 08 at 08:49
|
chipbennett wrote
---The vast majority of people reading Canonical's blog are already in the Canonical/Ubuntu/Linux camp - in other words, they're already sold.
This may well be true, but we are talking about the Canonical company website blog not an Ubuntu community blog. Had this appeared on a community blog and was squarely aimed at the users I wouldnt be kicking up a fuss, but it wasnt on a community blog it was on the Canonical company blog. I think you need to draw a line between the two. If Canonical is a company that wants to do business with huge corporations then it needs to treat its corporate stuff differently from its community stuff. If it doesn't wanna do that then what is even the point of having a separate Canonical website with its own news blog?
But that said, I do agree with you that the text on the retail box is dreadful. Maybe there should be a separate brain storm for kicking up a fuss about that? I dunno what can be done about it now though tbh. It's complicated by the fact the boxes are obviously a collaboration with another company.
|
|
cyphax wrote on the 14 Jul 08 at 12:19
|
Well, there are a few gripes about the box:
- End of crashes? I've seen it crash a few times on a laptop at home, it is a stable OS but so is Windows ever since, say, Windows 2000 (seriously). I wouldn't advertise this as it is not a good stab at Windows (if it's meant to be one). Apple stabs at Microsoft more efficiently, the question is: should you? I don't think so personally.
- Unable to run Windows? In all honesty, Vista is a resource hog and is unresponsive a lot in my experience. Ubuntu is better at that, but I still wouldn't put it on the box that way. It's already in the "Reclaim" table, which I do like.
Actually other than that, the box looks okay. Not particularly impressive, either.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 14 Jul 08 at 12:23
| |
Yeah, refer to my comment Cyphax. Here in Australia, it could be guaranteed that anyone going to Australian consumer affairs about the deceptive information on the box would win.
|
|
cyphax wrote on the 14 Jul 08 at 13:55
|
Indeed Auzy, I think it wouldn't impress people here (Netherlands) too much either, Ubuntu has a few very strong selling points so focussing on those might just work better than clutting the box with non-arguments.
I remember getting Hardy in the mail and thinking "wow, this white CD cover sure looks refreshing, very nice". I really hope the same style can be applied to the box. I most definitely like the idea of seeing Ubuntu on the shelves in the first place!
|
|
monstroxus wrote on the 15 Jul 08 at 06:56
|
I have some issues with the box itself. It is quite full of misleading information and claims to offer a "magic" solution for all. (just like those "tellsell" products on tv) One of the issues I have is a picture of the Compiz cube at the back cover. I think this will create possible dissappointment as this is not standard, and its even not possible on some computers. Furthermore, like someone mentioned earlier, why called it the "official desktop edition"? It indeed sounds very cheap and dubious/corny... is there an unofficial desktop edition? Keep it simple, point out a few facts, but in a non sensational way. More or less like the regular ship it cd's slips. Just point out that you can browse, do some office work etc. Also mention its linux (they only mention UBUNTU, that's not fair) and one more thing... why do they mention that an anti virus program comes along with it? (I know you can still run antivirus programs in linux, just in case, but better don't mention it as one of the "selling" points) I sincerely hope they rectify these things, because like someone mentioned earlier here; your first impression must be a good one.
I assume ValuSoft has the know how and established channels, however by combining a class product like ubuntu with a company that calls itself ValuSoft... drags down the overal class of Ubuntu a bit IMHO. I am afraid that some newbies will think ubuntu is an inferior (cheap) product. That will be a shame.
|
|
cyphax wrote on the 15 Jul 08 at 10:11
|
"Also mention its linux"
That would be wrong, as Linux is but a kernel. Ubuntu is a Linux-based distribution, but even then that wouldn't be complete information. It's also Gnome-based (or KDE in case of KUbuntu), and GNU (GNU-tools). So all in all, just saying it's Linux is not very accurate.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 15 Jul 08 at 10:29
|
I have no problem with the linux part, my main concern is the crap written about "wont crash" etc.
Has anyone tried emailing this idea to Valusoft & Walmart?
|
|
bertm wrote on the 16 Jul 08 at 17:19
|
I would really like a box as simple as the shipit CDs, with some additional information on it.
This ValuSoft box is crap. Yes, Linux boxes _can_ be impressive. Take a look at this one (it's actually quite old):
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003PMTT.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
For those who would like to respond with "but hey, that's not a box, that's a CGI render": you're absolutely right, but exactly the same box is standing right in front of me on my desk. In fact, it absolutely looks the same (only a bit more damaged), if not better (because you can hold it ;-) ).
We should avoid shipping these ugly non-impressive boxes with misleading statements on them.
It's not about the image, it's about the box on the image.
Idea: open a Ubuntu box-design contest?
|
|
AndersFeder wrote on the 19 Jul 08 at 03:40
|
I believe the word is Quality Assurance. It would be interesting if the community could be involved in that process, since it does not require any developer skills. On the other hands, its not really their responsibility - Canonical is a commercial and should be abel to conduct their own QA.
That picture decidedly is ugly (someone shot it with their camera phone in the office dining area?), but I'm not sure of the context it was published in.
|
Post your comment
|
