On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:03:58PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 01:25 +0100, Peter Brinkmann wrote:
> > That said, I did find this line about "newly-developed proprietary software"
> > slightly objectionable because they seem to imply that proprietary software
> > is a mark of quality, or else they wouldn't have mentioned this in a
> > marketing document.
>
> So? That just means that (surprise!) the marketing people wrote that
> press release and not the engineers.
I didn't say I found this surprising, just slightly objectionable ;)
> All marketing types think proprietary==good.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I'd say it's deeper than that. Marketing
types like proprietary stuff because they think that proprietary==$$$, but
they wouldn't write this in a marketing document unless they thought that
potential users will think that proprietary==quality. Is it true that
Joe Q User will have more faith in a piece of software if it's
proprietary? Chances are that the word has been focus group tested;
it would be interesting to know how the general public perceives this
term.
Peter
