Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe

Subject: Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe
From: Tom Huffman <tlhuffman -at- EARTHLINK -dot- NET>
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 20:34:00 -0500


You evidently didn't bother to read my follow up post in which I explained that,
of course, MS simply can't release *anything* and have it succeed. I did not
claim, nor do I believe, that literally everything that MS has done or will ever
do is destined for success, regardless of any other factors. This is, indeed, a
gross oversimplification, but not one that I ever expressed. That Bob has been
mentioned twice now only serves to demonstrate the lengths to which MS
apologists must go to cite a failure of a mainstream MS product. Active X and
Channels are non sequiturs, insofar as neither are even products, but merely
features of a product, IE4 to be specific. The United States Department of
Justice has much to say about MS's commitment to seeing *that* product win by
quality alone.

Regarding my supposed logical inconsistency, I was merely offering an example of
how an MS product that is demonstrably (and by quite a wide margin) inferior can
nonetheless win in the marketplace. I didn't site Word specifically, because I
think that the case is weaker here, especially with the release of Word 97. My
point was and is that--using database apps as an illustration--there is a
*structural irrationality* in the marketplace in which virtually any MS
app--Word included--succeeds much more than quality alone would warrant. There's
nothing unusual about the logic of this and it certainly isn't "inconsistent."
BTW, a good case *can* be made in favor of WordPerfect over Word, especially
with the 6x release cycle in which Word 6 was clearly inferior to WP 6.1, and
yet this is when Word began to take over market share.

Finally, if anyone finds my statement--fairly summarized by you--that millions
of people have been hoodwinked by MS in a bewildering number of ways (not just
by marketing) as being off-color, then that's a vulgarity I'm delighted live


> I'm sorry, but marketing clout does not define success. What of Microsoft
> Bob? What of Channels in Internet Explorer? What of Active-X components
> targeted for the Web? There are all MS ideas that never flew and that MS has
> had to eat the cost in what amounts to failed products or product
> components/features. While I don't think that it is your intent, I think the
> implication of your statement, that millions of people who run otherwise
> very successful businesses set in competitive industries, have been
> hoodwinked or hypnotized by aggressive marketing, is off-color if not
> completely off the mark.
> And as far as the logical consistency of posts on the list goes (as you
> roundly browbeat another contributor for), you yourself are guilty of making
> a statement and then following up with different evidence (stating the
> reason for Word's success, and then inviting benchmark comparisons of
> database management programs as a proof).
> If you want to make a statement about where marketing oversteps reasonable
> bounds, go ahead, but gross oversimplifications do a disservice to us all.
> Todd Sieling

Tom Huffman
tlhuffman -at- earthlink -dot- net

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=

Previous by Author: Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe
Next by Author: Re: HTML question; mouseovers
Previous by Thread: Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe
Next by Thread: Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads