On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote:
> 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.
It doesn't explain everything, but you'd be a fool to think marketing is
not responsible for at least 50% of a product's success (and that's being
conservative).
> 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.
Let me get this straight...you're saying IBM can hardly be called
successful? This must be a typo.
> 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."
Sure, take the easy example of Microsoft, which was a fluke. They rode
the coattails of IBM and through sheer luck and determination ended up
where they did today.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar_at_siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See
http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
Received on Sun Oct 11 1998 - 15:24:39 BST