RE: A "hidden" cost

From: Michael Martinez <Michael_at_xenite.org>
Date: Tue 22 May 2001 09:26:59 -0500

IAN IPPOLITO <IanIppolito_at_planet-source-code.com> WROTE:

>As a professional computer programmer, I usually am
>learning more than I am submitting to this forum.
>However when I read the statement that Microsoft's
>marketing compensates for their low quality software,
>I had to comment.

Well, as one professional programmer to another, I
welcome the debate, but this forum may quickly become
tired of it. I'll try and keep as much of a marketing
orientation as possible.

MICHAEL MARTINEZ <Michael_at_xenite.org> REPLIED:

>Matters only became worse as Windows 3.1 replaced 3.0,
>and the Win95 replaced 3.1, and then Win98,

TO WHICH IAN IPPOLITO REPLIED:

>The operating systems Microsoft created were initially VERY bad.
>However, with Windows 3.11 a semblance of stability was created.
>When NT was released, stability took a major step forward. And
>their last release...Windows 2000 (which most users won't really
>see until Windows XP comes out, because it is mostly on servers)
>is rock solid. I am speaking from experience--we run several
>Windows 2000 servers and they are joys to behold. I haven't
>rebooted or touched them since they were installed (over a year).

That's nice, but most people are still using Windows95,
Windows98, or WindowsME because A) that's what came
pre-installed on their PCs or B) it's cheaper to stay with
the crummy line of products than to install the stable
operating system.

Windows NT has always or nearly always had a good
reputation. Unfortunately for the majority of PC
users, it was never marketed the way the crummy Windows
OS has been. And it's simply not feasible to insist that
people upgrade to Windows NT or 2000. That's just not
going to happen until Microsoft negotiates new distribution
agreements with the PC manufacturers.

That's the downside of successful marketing for any
company: making your end-market dependent on an inferior
product impedes sales of the superior product.

MICHAEL MARTINEZ <Michael_at_xenite.org> WROTE:

>But the marketing behind the shoddy software is superb,
>second-to-none.

TO WHICH IAN IPPOLITO <IanIppolito_at_planet-source-code.com>
REPLIED:

> Microsoft's marketing is awful.

Well, their awful marketing ensures that over 95% of all
PC sales go with a Microsoft operating system. I'm not
aware of any other personal computer software provider
which has that kind of success rate.

It's sort of like popup ads. Someone decided that popup
ads would be the way to go. So now Web surfers have to
close the blasted windows they didn't ask for because the
popus come with the sites they visit. The ads themselves
may not be selling a lot of merchandise or services, but if
whomever had invented popups could have licensed the
technology, they would be in the Forbes list of the 20
richest people in the world.

Marketing is really about taking choice away from the
consumer. Effective marketing in a competitive market
persuades the consumer that there is really only one
choice. But that's not the only way to market a product
or concept. And, hence, we have antitrust laws which
really satisfy no one.

Michael Martinez
 Science Fiction and Fantasy info_at_xenite.org
  Visualizing Middle-earth, a book for all Tolkien fans
    http://www.xenite.org/



Received on Tue May 22 2001 - 09:26:59 CDT