Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] [Rival] Windows 7 Steals Appeal from Vista, Likely to be Delayed (Beyond 2010)

  • Subject: [News] [Rival] Windows 7 Steals Appeal from Vista, Likely to be Delayed (Beyond 2010)
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:04:11 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Netscape / schestowitz.com
  • User-agent: KNode/0.10.4
It is Silly to Wait for Windows 7

,----[ Quote ]
| Do you really want to wait for Windows 7 instead of upgrading to Windows 
| Vista? What if there were more problems in Windows 7? What if the date slips 
| again. What if it takes two years for Windows 7 to stabilize after its 
| release?   
`----

http://www.windowsvistaweblog.com/2007/07/31/it-is-silly-to-wait-for-windows-7/

Penetrating the Windows 7 Hype

,----[ Quote ]
| Gartner recently put out an advisory, suggesting that companies would face 
| challenges if they didn’t upgrade to Vista before upgrading to Windows 7, but 
| the reason was that Vista was delayed so often that it is foolish to count on 
| Windows 7 being released on time.   
| 
| The Business Technology Blog tried unsuccessfully to get a Microsoft 
| spokesperson to tell us everything there was to know about Windows 7. 
`----

http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2007/07/30/penetrating-the-windows-7-hype/?mod=yahoo_hs

Why are they citing a Microsoft analyst/puppet?


Related:

NY Times bans Microsoft analysts from Microsoft stories

,----[ Quote ]
| If the paper would prefer not to quote an analyst who has
| experience with a client, it did a poor job. Silver is Gartner's
| vice president in charge of client computing. Microsoft happens to
| do lots of business with Gartner and also happens to have a
| client-software monopoly. We're guessing that Silver knows
| Microsoft's products well and has direct involvement with the
|                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| company.
| ^^^^^^^
| 
| And, sure enough, he appears a number of times on Microsoft's
| own site and thousands of times in stories about Microsoft.
| 
| Jim Murphy - wait for it - covers Microsoft too and is even more
| prolific than Silver.
| 
| [...]
| 
| Part of the problem stems from the reticence of companies such as
| IDC and Gartner to reveal their clients. That should make everyone
| nervous, but it doesn't. So called objective technology publications
| keep publishing material bought by vendors without telling you this.
| They're also too lazy or scared to ignore the likes of Gartner and
| IDC until the firms change their disclosure rules.
`----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/15/nytimes_ms_ban/


http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf

“There’s an interesting article in the April 2007 issue of Harper’s magazine
about panels, audits, and experts. It is called CTRL-ALT-DECEIT and is from
evidence in Comes v. Microsoft, a class action suit in Iowa. Here’s a
paragraph from a document admitted into evidence, called “Generalized
Evangelism Timeline,” about guerrilla or evangelical marketing:

Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology
is a key evangelism function. “Independent” analysts’ reports should be
issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring
them). “Independent consultants should write articles, give conference
presentations, moderate stacked panels on our behalf, and set themselves up as
experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour. “Independent”
academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and granted research money).

They advise cultivating “experts” early and recommending that they not publish
anything pro-Microsoft, so that they can be viewed as “independent” later on,
when they’re needed. This type of evangelical or guerilla marketing is
apparently quite common in the high-tech fields, and seems to be used
liberally by open source developers.

The document admitted into evidence also says, “The key to stacking a panel is
being able to choose the moderator,” and explains how to find “pliable”
moderators–those who will sell out.

It is all a big money game. Most activists in any field know of
countless “hearings,” in which hundreds of citizens would testify before a
panel, only to be ignored in favor of two or three industry “experts.” When a
panel is chosen, the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion. As with
elections, they don’t leave anything to chance.”
(a post from a Mark E. Smith about exhibit PX03096 “Evangelism is War” from
Comes v. Microsoft).

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index