On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 02:26:23AM +0100, Peter Brinkmann wrote: > > 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. > > > 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 To me proprietary in such press releases translates to: - no one else but we have this to offer - it might be based on specialized and not freely availabe knowledge/research --- Thorsten Wilms
