Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 08:19:42 -0800 From: "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jeremiah@sherline.com> To: "Nils Holland" <nils@tisys.org> Cc: "Paul Robinson" <paul@akita.co.uk>, "David Johnson" <djohnson@acuson.com>, "Brett Glass" <brett@lariat.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>, <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: NatWest? no thanks Message-ID: <001701c163ba$3d9709a0$018410ac@cx443070c> References: <20011102163728.F588-100000@howie.ncptiddische.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hmm, forcing computer manufacturers to install their system is what made > them successful - not very much more. If you turn on your TV set and have > a look at CNN, you should see what I mean... And I assume they enslaved those people charging into the store to buy Windows 95 right ? Apparently they didn't get it preinstalled. > With many millons of dollars for marketing and a few easy psychological > tricks, I could get people to throw away their current PC and make them > buy an 8 bit machine with 64 KB of RAM instead. Of course, I would not > talk about the bits and the RAM, but I'd talk about easy to use, I'd > mention the words "total cost of ownership", maybe something like > "standard" - yes, all that stuff that sounds good. A few good looking TV > spots will be helpful too. And then, I'd present *myself* as the best > marketing tool, just like Bill Gates is Microsoft's mascot now (we have a > daemon, they have a Gates). Oh, would my 8 bit machine sell fine!!! (a) You're implying that Windows has no technical merits to stand on, that it's all marketing. I would simply ask you this: Is Windows combined with Office not the most productive desktop for an ignorant office worker ? Don't rant about crashing and tech support, I'm talking about comparing a person sat down on a computer running Windows vs. Mac OS vs. any of the Unix desktops. You can argue for Mac OS, but that's something of a lost cause in the workplace. Windows and Office being the most productive desktop gives them technical merit, and therefore any implications that it's only marketing are senseless. There is *nothing* that compares to Office 2000 or XP. Sun's StarOffice is about as useful as the old version of Microsoft Office I used to install with 15 floppy disks under Windows 3.1. The point is, if you can't offer anything better in that catagory, you can't claim that there's no technical merit in the market leader. You don't have a better desktop, you don't have a better browser (no, you don't), you don't have a better office solution, you don't have better hardware support (we all know the reason for that, but that doesn't matter), and you don't have better APIs (There are MANY different ways for all sorts of people to develop Windows software, that's how they beat everyone. The free SDK is what conquered Apple, believe it or not. And I believe those familiar with it will admit the Win32 API is very powerful.). What you do have is a rock solid kernel, excellent speed, excellent design, and an awesome foundation. That's what makes Apple the genius of them all. The foundation of Mach/Darwin/BSD with a truly productive and usable GUI on top. Add Microsoft Office, a nice RISC processor, some marketing, a rabid customer base, and we have a winner (And no, I don't even like Macs). Apple is playing the game. Microsoft is playing the game. We aren't even playing the game. Linux *thinks* they're playing the game, but they aren't (which is sad). If the game is selling desktop machines, marketing is the key. But don't claim that all these years of Microsoft development have lead to zero technical merits. I know their kernel isn't locked under SMP when a single process makes a syscall. We're catching up to some of their past accomplishments. I'm not trying to be Pro-Microsoft, I just hate one sided arguments that talk about mascots and marketing as though that's the only reason a product succeeded. (b) And you're going on the common open source community belief that marketing is some sort of underhanded tactic. No offense, but have you ever taken a business or economics course ? Marketing is one of the tools used in business. I know marketing laws are a little different in Germany, but the concept remains the same. You can have the most powerful product in the world, and fail because you lack proper marketing. Do you blame them for their success ? Are you jealous ? Why do you mock them for doing with their operating system, what we would like to do with ours ? Succeed. You don't have to like their product. But you can't blame Microsoft for doing everything they could to succeed, including marketing to stupid non-tech IT Managers who look for industry buzz words like TCO to repeat to the officers of their corporation. Blame the companies for putting non-tech people in a position of purchasing authority in regards to technical products. We all create the customer base, they simply tailor their marketing to match. Right now, the tech people are not in the positions of major purchasing power, so they're not going to market to us. You can't blame a company for trying to sell what they have, to those who have the power to buy it. You can blame those who put stupid uninformed lemmings in the position to make such purchasing decisions. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001701c163ba$3d9709a0$018410ac>