So anyway, it was like, 20:00 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Homer was all like, "Dude,
> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>> So anyway, it was like, 03:42 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and,
>> yeah, Homer was all like, "Dude,
>>> Claiming that a vendor "recommends" a product, when in fact
>>> they've been bribed to fake that recommendation, is misleading
>>> advertising.
>>
>> All those TV celebs who promote products (in return for money) will
>> need to be appraised of this then, I take it, so they won't be sued
>> along with MS when the revolution comes.
>
> An avert on TV (or elsewhere) is very obviously an advert, and
> regardless of who is promoting what product, it is equally obvious
> they are only /working/, not giving a personal and impartial
> recommendation.
I think neither is more obvious than the other. TV chefs who say they
recommend (yes, "recommend", not just grin and stick their thumbs up)
certain brands of spices or kitchenware, are they any less misleading
than the computer makers? Do you really think all those professionals
privately and professionaly use the brands they endorse, and nothing
else?
I seem to recall some pop star who was endorsing a certain brand of
caffeinated carbonated beverage got caught drinking another brand. If
I recall correctly, the pop star lost the contract but wasn't actually
dragged into court for misleading the consumers or lying.
> OTOH when one sees "[Vendor] recommends Vista" next to a PC on a
> Website or in a store, it is /not/ obvious, to those other than
> cynics like me,
I think you put too little faith in the intellect of consumers in
general (okay, maybe that's not actually possible, but still). It's
not like most people actually choose a microsoft product over another
on their brand new laptop because the sticker says it's recommended
- rather there's no other choice being offered up at that particular
store at that particular time.
Those of us who build our own computers, or have the inclination to
switch out the os on a laptop for something we prefer, either already
know about the options and go with what works best for us, or choose
microsoft for some other reason than it being promoted on a sticker or
website.
> that this "recommendation" is actually paid advertising, and should
> be viewed with scepticism (or IOW understood that it is basically
> false).
You're of course as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, so I'll
just have to conclude that we put different meanings into the word
"recommends" in this case. If you think it's sufficiently misleading
to warrant a lawsuit, then I presume someone else will too, and
something will be done about it. Unless you or mr. Schestowitz is
going to take action yourselves, that is.
I still view it the same as any other (paid) advertising, if you're
willing to believe anything people, stickers or web sites tell you,
then you're going to be fooled most of the time. I also don't see
it as illegal to promote your own product over another.
> Example:
>
> [quote] Why? Because, according to the Morning Herald, both the
> Beijing Olympics committee and Lenovo, a major backer of the games,
> had deliberately chosen to run XP operating system on the games'
> PC because they didn't trust Vista. Turns out they shouldn't have
> trusted XP either, but they should have known that.
>
> Best of all, Lenovo chairman, Yang Yuanqing, said Lenovo had chosen
> not to use Vista because, "If it's not stable, it could have some
> problems."
>
> So, next time you go to an online PC sales Web site and you see that
> line about "We recommend Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium," just
> remember: They're lying. [quote]
>
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_b..._of_death_ever
>
> So the chairman of Lenovo believes Vista is "not stable, it could
> have some problems," and yet:
Actually he didn't say right out that he thought it wasn't stable, the
quote above is rather more conditional than you make it out to be. It
doesn't really help your side of the argument that you misinterpret
(I won't say "misquote", although it was rather changing the meaning
to cut out some of it) the people you use as an example of false
advertising.
> [quote] Lenovo recommends Windows Vista� Business for Business
> Computing. Lenovo recommends Windows Vista� Home Premium for
> Personal Computing. [/quote]
Perhaps the official opinion of Lenovo is that it's stable enough to
recommend to the public at large, but it was not proven stable enough
to use for their own mission-critical tasks (or whatever the "games'
PC" did).
>>> How many people do you suppose are motivated to buy a Vista PC
>>> instead of an XP one, or Windows (in general) instead of Linux or
>>> Mac, because a vendor (who also sells Linux and/or Mac products)
>>> claims to "recommend" whatever the Vole bribes them to?
>>
>> You keep using that word, "bribe". I do not think it means what you
>> think it means.
>
> A bribe is a (usually financial) inducement to do something against
> one's wishes; beliefs or principles. Lenovo obviously do /not/
> (in reality) recommend Vista, and yet they claim that they do,
> only because they have been paid to do so. That is clearly and
> unambiguously a bribe.
Apparently they did not consider it sufficiently proven to be
stable enough for whatever use they were going to put it to during
the olympic games. Unless you've talked to someone at Lenovo to
confirm this is still the case, I don't see how you can "clearly and
unambiguously" call it a lie as it stands now.
[..]
>> Sure, advertising is almost always misleading.
>
> It's because it is not clearly presented as advertising that it's
> misleading;
Oh, come on. How many adverts are *really* presented as advertising?
> the fact that the promoter is also blatantly lying (not just
> exaggerating - as is usual in advertising, but actually lying)
> merely compounds the issue.
You mean like those hair products that's been "tested at an
independant swiss hair institute"? If any of those bottles have been
even used at a swiss barber school I'll eat my hat.
> "[Vendor] recommends Windows [x]" needs to be clearly labelled as a
> paid advertisement, or removed by advertising standards authorities.
Until the authorities clamp down on this despicable behaviour, I guess
we'll just have to use our own criticism and awareness as consumers
and/or human beings and not believe everything we read.
[..]
> For a start, this is one of the core "initiatives" central to
> Microsoft maintaining their monopoly, exposing their bizniz� for the
> racketeering operation that it is.
You'll excuse me if I don't put on my tinfoil hat just yet, I hope.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
09:49:51 up 41 days, 22:37, 2 users, load average: 0.18, 0.18, 0.11
Linux 2.6.27.2 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
|
|
