Entry 855, on 2008-09-19 at 20:12:28 (Rating 3, Computers)
Continuing my negative and insulting series of rants against people and groups I don't like (see my previous blog entry "Stupid and Ignorant") I would like to offer this post in a similar vein. Two articles prompted this particular tirade: one, an opinion piece titled "Why better often doesn't sell" on ZDNet blogs, and another a news item on Microsoft's latest advertising efforts.
First: why better often doesn't sell. Clearly there have been technically superior products which have been killed off by competing options which were inferior. Technical excellence shouldn't be the only factor used in deciding on what product to use, but it should be a factor with perhaps more prominence than it currently has. By basing purchase decisions on factors which imply safety progress is being thwarted.
There is a classic line in the IT community that says "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". Interestingly that is no longer the case but it might now be changed to "no one ever got fired for buying Microsoft". But if people are just going to take the safe option and use what everyone else does, even when that option its technically inferior, over-priced, and deficient in other ways, why pretend they are making an important decision at all?
I have seen this effect many times. I'm a Mac consultant so I support a minority platform. When anything goes wrong with a Mac its like its the end of the world and people run around thinking maybe they should have got a PC after all. The fact that the person in the next office has a PC which spends half its life having viruses removed and the other half having the OS re-installed doesn't seem to matter: that's just an accepted part of using a PC.
And before anyone starts complaining that they have a PC and it doesn't get infected with viruses or need re-installs I will just clarify that comment by saying that, statistically speaking, those things are far more likely to happen to a PC running Windows than other platforms. And please don't give me the excuse that PCs get viruses because there are far more of them. That might be part of the picture but its not all. And even if it was, does that reasoning make having an infected PC any easier for the owner?
So most purchasing decisions are made by managers in large organisations who are more interested in keeping their job safe than improving the standard of IT in their organisation, or by people in small companies or homes who just don't know that there are reasonable alternatives to the "standards" like Windows and Microsoft Office.
Here's a quote from the article that I think sums up the situation: "thus almost everybody not selling PC products agrees that Microsoft's products are shoddy and the support worse, yet nobody gets fired for buying from Microsoft". Clearly this is a recipe for mediocrity and backwardness.
So what about the famous Microsoft advertising campaign? Well I find advertising in all forms insulting and tedious (except for some of those entertaining beer ads and, of course, Apple ads). In general the more a company advertises the less likely I am to buy their products (or maybe I'm just kidding myself). But so far I have found the Microsoft ads more puzzling that annoying!
This blog comment by "Baroness" took it further and suggested they were actually insulting: "They were just horrible, horrible ads. Unfunny 90's nostalgia for dull white guys. And hideously condescending to boot: Bill and Jerry going to live with "normal people". In other words, the joke was their insane wealth, so it's meant to be funny for them to play ping-pong with the Poors. This is how you rebrand your operating system in 2008? For reals? Dreadful." I think she made a good point!
Apparently the "second phase" will drop Jerry Seinfeld and concentrate on answering the Mac ads more directly. Some reports suggest there will be not so subtle allusions to Apple's ads in the new ones from Microsoft. I bet Apple love that! By emphasising the comparison more people will see the message that Apple is a viable alternative even more clearly. Well, at least some people will. Those that follow the mantra that "no one ever got fired for buying Microsoft" will probably be happy staying in the dark ages!
Comment 1 by SBFL on 2008-09-19 at 20:56:47:
Don't think I've come across someone so obsessed with Microsoft!!
Comment 2 by OJB on 2008-09-20 at 14:06:02:
Even though I use a platform which doesn't rely on a Microsoft operating system I still get affected by Microsoft's incompetence and dirty tricks. I have to cope with web sites coded for a browser which doesn't do things properly (IE). I have to support other people who use buggy Microsoft Office on their Macs. I have to try to deal with proprietary Microsoft technologies which don't work very well.
I do care about computing because its my job and one of my major interests outside my job. I'm convinced that if Microsoft wasn't in the monopoly position it is in now that the industry would be far more advanced. And I like to wage personal crusades against companies and organisations I don't like!
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2008-09-28 at 21:04:53:
I read an article on CNN today about some students using WindowsXP to find a 13 million digit prime number. Hmmm, "mediocre and backward"? I think not!
Comment 4 by OJB on 2008-09-28 at 22:06:37:
A simple mathematical algorithm and involving little interaction with other services. Unlikely to be too challenging. The OS in that case would be largely irrelevant. Probably would have only taken 60 computers (instead of 75) if they were running Linux!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE