MESSAGE
| DATE | 2008-07-08 |
| FROM | From: "Ronny Abraham"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Maybe its because lindows just sucked
|
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> Corel screw up their target market by using a lot of non-free software in their crap and then failing to market it. The product was fine. It was down right impressive.
Ruben, I have not used the Corel office suite. I don't need to.
Because I know how fast Java apps at the time worked. But I like to
think of myself as fair. So I'll tell you what, if you manage to get
the Corel Beta of the time running at good clip on an x386 machine
then I'll concede the entire argument. Not a 486 or a 586, but a 386.
Because that is what most of the office workers were typing on.
> Yeah, those points are death to any product. You do not give customers what
> they want, you drive a new business by exceding their expectations and
> teaching them what they want.
>
> This is marketing and PR 1.0
>
> You create markets with advertising, and public realtions.
So according to this reasoning, products don't fail because they don't
deliver, they only fail because there wasn't enough PR.
Did it ever occur to you that the PR people are the ones who want you
to believe that because they like having jobs?
> Did you ever see the film Tucker?
No, but it's probably a better example than Rockefeller.
> Its a wiki, go to a business library and look it up.
Not happening. I simply don't care enough to go to a library and read
a book on a subject in order to understand a point you are making. If
you want to make a point to me, you have to do more of the work than
say "go to a library".
> Bullshit. IBM invented the market. They just didn't care to compete after they
> had the Department of Justice kick them around but good.
Fair enough. Like I said, I don't have hard facts in that case, so
you can take it for what it's worth.
> What? Sometimes you are a little weird.
Rubin, if you gave me one or two examples, then sure, I'd put out the
time to understand it. Especially if I thought that it would improve
my general knowledge. But if you hand me five examples to one
argument, I am simply not going to hunt down every one of them. I am
not a historian, I am not a lawyer. I am totally uninterested in
going to a library to read a book to better comprehend some obscure
point being made in a conversation that probably isn't going to change
anyone's opinion. My point was, give me one or two counterexamples
that illustrate what you are trying to say. This isn't a "two men
enter, one man leaves" argument. This is about how we can best
utilize our time. Given that the entire GNU/Linux enterprise is
successful because people like you and me devote our time, I think
that's actually an important question.
Now the reason I am actually arguing this with you is very simple. I
think and feel, very very strongly that "marketing is everything" is
total and complete bullshit. I have heard Democrats make that
argument, I have heard Republicans make that argument. I have heard
the guys from Sun make that argument too. And the truth is, marketing
definitely has impact. But it is not even close to everything.
Distribution is a factor
Cost of risk vs. reward is a factor.
Ease of use is a factor
Convenience in getting it up and running is a factor
Need is a factor.
Stabilitity is a factor.
Learning curve is a factor
Now Linux is very good, at the present time, in filling some of these
requirements. It is very stable, and thanks to the fast internet
connections it's distribution is fantastic, but regarding all the
other points, it is simply NOT THAT GREAT.
>
> No, when my system craps out patients DIE DIE DIE.
>
> Gee, you think that would be incentive. Or to what 500 million dollars of
> arbitrage go past you on the Chicago exchange?
>
> Some businesses actually do something.
Businesses are run by people. People want to cover their ass. People
stick with a brand because it's worked "well enough" as far as they
are concerned ... I can't believe I'm actually arguing over something
this obvious.
this is ridiculous.
You know what Ruben? If you really believe everything you are saying,
then why don't you stop bitching about it, and take courses in
marketing and PR, and then do something about it? You are one of the
smartest guys I know, you can probably be successful at anything you
like, so just do it. You're effectively telling me, that he who
controls PR controls the world, so go for it. If it's as important
and certain as you make it out to be, there shouldn't be any risk
whatsoever in moving to ad agency right?
After all, if marketing is everything, then anyone who is good at it
will make the company a bundle of cash right? Given that you are a
very smart and capable man, you should be able to master it fairly
quickly. Therefore, you should be able, with a minimum of effort and
almost no risk whatsoever be able to switch jobs and make a bundle.
So do it.
But of course, marketing isn't everything. PR is not everything.
Being able to talk your way is not always going to cut it. If you
tried that you'd be risking quite a lot which means you'll never do
it. Because, you are, in fact, a smart guy and not an idiot.
> The only way for any business to succeed is to INOVATE and create a NEW MARKET,
> especially when competing against a legal monolopy which would also break
> any law, take any action, pursue in court any competitor, in order to crush them
> and maintain their monopoly.
If what you said was true, then Ford wouldn't be about to go bankrupt,
and the Japanese wouldn't be taking over the auto industry.
>
>
>> I believe this so much, that the second I get a chance I'm
>> going to start donating time to WINE.
>>
>
> I'd have to be more insulting then I care to be to answer that. What can be
> said? This has been tried for a decade and failed.
I'm a sucker for a lost cause.
> You haven't seen them?
No, where can I find them? I'm very interested.
|
|
