On Friday 21 January 2005 08:26 pm, 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. > > > > 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 Proprietary means they're the sole source, thats why marketing likes it. Nobody else's doohickey does what ours does because our technology is proprietary. No Virginia, you can't buy the knock off and have it be just as good because our's has got magical powers and we ain't telling what. > 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; Joe Q User doesn't give a rats arse about quality, he wants exclusivity. Pros can smell the bullshit, consumers cannot. > it would be interesting to know how the general public perceives this > term. > Peter
