Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia

From: Doug Yowza <yowza_at_yowza.com>
Date: Sun Oct 11 15:16:23 1998

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:

> Perhaps I'm cynical, ...
> But I maintain that what determines the course of the industry is NOT the
> quality of the technology, but the marketing. How else do you explain
> the successes of IBM, MS, etc.? Surely not due to their superior
> quality?!?

No, not the "M" word! We just had a "marketing" thread and the term was
tossed around like it was this magical thing that was responsible for
everything that couldn't be explained by technical merit.

First of all, IBM can hardly be called successful. *In spite* of all the
"marketing" they did, Taiwanese with no marketing at all were able to
completely erode their PC market share.

Microsoft is certainly successful, but do you honestly believe it's due to
their inane marketing? Puuhlease! They own the API, and their platform
has huge momentum due to the number of software titles available for it.
You can't fight that momentum with mere technical superiority, and
certainly not with "marketing."

-- Doug
Received on Sun Oct 11 1998 - 15:16:23 BST