Re: PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]

From: Terry Austin <taustin@hyperbooks.com>

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000

graham@DELETETHISaffordable-leather.co.uk wrote:

>Hi there,
>
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:05:18 -0800, Terry Austin
><taustin@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>>>They'll be fools no matter how theives act towards them,
>>>>and are thus unworthy of anything but contempt.
>>>
>>>If someone is stupid enough to treat their customers with nothing but
>>>contempt, they'll suddenly find that someone else treats them with a
>>>bit of respect and they'll have no customers left.
>>
>>Yep. The trick is in figuring out what the customers consider being treated
>>with contempt.
>
>Well it's become pretty self evident that some people are unable to
>understand when they're being treated with contempt.

Just keep telling yourself that, while you're waiting for you 57 seconds of
time in Bankruptcy court.
>
>Others, however, are a bit brighter.

Nearly all are. Most just don't bother to explain why - or that - they'll
never buy from you again.
>
>>>>> Windows is, frankly, a lousy system, but agressively marketed
>>>>No, it is on the majority of computers because
>>>>it also is good enough for most needs,
>>>It wouldn't have got there, however, without the marketing.
>>Demonstrably untrue for the last several years.
>
>Define "several" Since '98? Since '95? Since 3.1 was released? I
>suggest you re-read what I wrote.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I was - obviously - talking about the MS
anti-trust ruling.
>
>>To wit: The anti-trust ruling. It gets there now because the illegal use
>>of monopoly power is cheaper than marketing.
>
>And how, boys and girls, did they *get* that monopoly?!
>
>Hint: One word,  begins with  "M" and ends with "arketing".

Nope. They got there by creating a situation where they could bypass
marketing entirely. Gates' real genius was writing contracts with OEM
manufacturers, and they are far too informed a market for anything like
marketing to be of any use. He just out-negotiated them.

And MS' strongarm tactics go back to before Windows 3.1. In point of fact,
they just settled the Dr. DOS lawsuit.

You really don't know much about the history of Microsoft.
>
>>>>> However, to drag this back to the subject of PBM, have you ever played
>>>>> "It's a Crime" from KJC? it wasn't the greatest game yet it still managed
>>>>> to be one of the most widely played and successful PBM.
>>>(no reply)
>>>Oh well, so much for trying to get this back on topic.
>>If you don't know better, you're far too stupid to figure it out.
>
>Oh forgive me!  I am unworthy!!!

Yep.
>
>Terry does not reply to my point and from this I am supposed to divine
>(err, what *am* I supposed to divine? Anyone?)

That you didn't have a point.
>
>Clearly I am so unintelligent and not capable of debating with him.

Pretty much.
>
>Next week, Terry will model the Emperor's New Clothes...

And you'll be there with your tongue wagging.
>
>>>Yes, if it isn't *any* good. But that wasn't the point I was making.
>>>It doesn't have to be the best if you market it well.
>>
>>In the sense of making what the market wants, and making sure the market
>>knows where to get it.  It doesn't have to be the best of the market doesn't
>>*want* the best.
>
>The art of *successful* marketing is finding something that the market
>didn't even know it *wanted*!

The art of successful marketing is offering the right deal on the right
good, whether the market knows what it wants or not.
>
>>After all, not everyone buys a Rolls Royce.
>
>Of course not, but by making such a comparison you merely indicate
>that you really don't understand what marketing is about.

Or you do.
>
>If everyone *did* buy a Rolls Royce then they would be no better than
>a Ford Escort. The whole point of the Rolls Royce brand it its
>*exclusivity* and that is what it is marketed on!

In other words, it's better than most people want. Glad you agree that
quality isn't the only issue be far.
>
>>>>> More people have lost their shorts thinking that just because they had
>>>>> a great product people will automatically buy it.
>>>> For that to even be possible, there would have to be more people who
>>>>*had* a great product, which is utter rubbish.
>>>On what do you base this?
>>Sturgeon had it right, except perhaps in underestimating how much of
>>everything is shit.
>
>I presume you are referring to the saying which runs something like
>"80% of everything is crap"?

I believe Sturgeon's number was 90%.
>
>I suggest you look in the dictionary for words such as "cynicism" and
>"irony" and then consider the following quote:
>
>"No generalisation is true. Not even this one".

You have a point? Exceptions are just that: exceptions.  The rule is still
the way to bet. The biggest mistake most failed businesses make is in
thinking they're special. Fastest way to the poor house, that.
>
>>>There are plenty of products which, even though they have been
>>>excellent at what they do, have failed in the market place due to
>>>inadequate or incompetent  marketing.
>>
>>There have been far more that have failed because they weren't what the
>>market wanted at all.
>
>As mentioned above, the art of successful marketing is finding
>something that the market didn't even know it wanted and selling it to
>them!
>
>The trick is to *create* that want. *That's* Marketing!

No, it's not. That can be how it works. But usually isn't. Marketing is
finding what will sell, and generally, that's what the market thinks it
wants. The best marketing is usually asking the right questions of potential
customers.

Clueless.
>
>>>>> >Marketing is irrelevant when you have a monopoly.
>>>>> Not when there are up and coming competitors and you want to *keep*
>>>>> that monopoly.
>>>>Marketing is irrelevant then, too. Illegal strongarm
>>>>tactics are far more important.
>>>"Illegal"? That sounds so much like a small child stamping its foot
>>>and shouting "it's not fair!"
>>You *have* hear of the anti-trust ruling, haven't you?
>
>Yes. If you noticed (or bothered to read what I'd written) you'd have
>seen that Micro$oft have already circumvented it.

I noticed the government hasn't ruled on just how it's going to handle the
legal violations, meaning it's far from settled.

In other words, you're full of shit. Fucking idiot.
>
>>We *were* talking about Microsoft, you know,
>
>Yes, I *do* know, Terry. And, as I pointed, they've already outsmarted
>the ruling and pulled its teeth.

Bullshit. They're looking at a fight to the Supreme Court, with little
chance of winning, over MS being broken up into multiple companies.
>
>>I'm merely quoting a federal judge's ruling on the matter. There's quite a bit
>>in that ruling about how MS doesn't market, they abuse their monopoly power.
>
>Yes, Terry, I /know/. They've already *successfully* marketed their
>product, please try to keep up.

They're not marketing their product *now*, because they have a monopoly they
have supported through illegal strongarm tactics for the precise reason of
eliminating the need to market at all.

Read the fucking ruling, retard. That's *exactly* the point of it.
>
>>>See below for a definition of marketing.
>>That should be amusing.
>
>Good. It's a simple definition. And we all know what they say about
>simple things.

They come from simpletons.  Case in point.
>
>>>>Go read the Micorsoft ruling sometime.
>>>Which one? The one that they've recently entirely circumvented by
>>>saying "ok, if you don't like us bundling our software, we won't do it
>>>at all" because they know that they've now got enough of a hammerlock
>>>that retailers can't afford *not* to put in Windoze with a new PC?
>>The one saying they are an illegal monopoly, and that is currently the basis
>>of serious discussion of breaking MS into at least two, and probably three
>>companies.
>>Remember that one?
>
>Hello? Terry? Are you *out* there?
>
>Please could you re-read the above quote and try to understand what I
>actually *wrote*?

What you wrote is bullshit, and everyone but you knows it. What the fuck
planet are you living on?
>
>Yes, I *know* there's been this ruling.

And you have no fucking clue what's in it.
>
>And I *know* that they've already by-passed it by simply saying that
>they're not going to bundle their software any more. So any attempt to
>break up the company on the basis of that ruling will fail.
>
>Which part of this don't you understand??

The part where you pull this shit out of your ass. Very, very little of the
ruling as *about* their browser, fucktard. It also covered, in depth, Java,
multimedia software, and quite a few other illegal acts of MS.  The browser
itself wasn't even the point. It was literally a cosmetic feature of the
tactics under scrutiny. It wasn't about bundling a browser. It was about
maintaining a monopoly.

If you'd read the ruling - or even a decent summary of it - you'd know how
fucking ridiculous you look right now.
>
>>Moron.
>
>May I introduce you to my solicitors: Messers Pott and Kettleblack?

May I introduce you to your ass?  It's wrapped around your head.
>
>>>>Marketing does not enter the picture in any way.
>>>I have to wonder if you *really* comprehend what "Marketing" is.
>>>Marketing is getting your product into the marketplace, nothing more,
>>>nothing less.
>>That's not the definition Henry's using, which seems to involve sacrificing
>>virgins.
>
>And precisely *what* does this have to do with either the price of
>fish or what *we* are discussing here?

About as much as your delusions have to do with the Microsoft ruling.  BTW,
the "response" you cite from MS is about a year and a half out of date, and
predated the actual ruling by at least a year.

Fucking idiot.
>
>What definition Henry wishes to use is entirely up to him.
>
>Please try to answer the points that *I* am making, rather than
>attempting to shift the goalposts.

The only points you're making is that you have no fucking clue what you're
talking about. I can't answer them because they are not connected to the
real world in any way.
>
>>>Whether that's persuading/ encouraging/ forcing/
>>>whatever retailers to bundle your software in with new computers or
>>>advertising it such that people *want* retailers to bundle it because
>>>they think they can't do without it, it's *still* marketing.
>>>
>>By your definition, MS isn't marketing any more. They're not *getting* their
>>product into the market.  They've already *got* it there, with as close to
>>100% penetration as they can ever expect to get.
>
>Err, have you heard of Windows 2000?
>
>Just because you have *acheived* success, doesn't mean you are going
>to *maintain* that success.

When you have a achieved a monopoly, and are willing to break the law to
maintain it, it *does* mean you will *maintain* that monopoly.

And that is exactly what the judge ruled that Microsoft has done.

Which anyone who has read any part of the ruling would know. And which you
don't.

>So you have to improve and update your
>product and then *MARKET* it so that existing customers go out and
>*BUY* it instead of staying with the old one or switching to something
>better from someone else.

So, tell me, why did Microsoft not consider the price of their competitors
in determining what they would charge for Windows 98? That's directly from
their own internal memos, BTW. Microsoft does not consider any other company
to be competitors in *any* way. They consider their primary competition to
be software pirates, because more people pirate Windows than buy other OSes.

If you'd read the ruling, you'd know that. And wouldn't look so fucking
stupid.
>
>>Read the anti-trust ruling. It's quite enlightening as to why MS is *not*
>>marketing any more. Or not.
>
>Once again I invite you to *read* what I wrote, rather than what you
>want to believe I said.

I invite you to write something about the real world, and not the rambling
drug dreams dribbling out your ass.

Read the ruling. Right now, you look like a fucking moron.
>
>>You're pretty stupid, and you seem to like it that way.
>
>You know, Terry, it's a shame. You appear to be literate and
>intelligent and capable of constructing somehing which is close to a
>sensible and well reasoned argument and then you manage to let
>yourself down by childish ad hominem attacks which really do you no
>credit at all.
>
I get that way when people start making shit up, and lying about where they
got it.

You're a fucking idiot. You've said nothing to which I can response
intelligently, because it's all basically made up as you go.

That is *obvious* to anyone who has _read the fucking ruling_.

--
Terry Austin <taustin@hyperbooks.com> http://www.hyperbooks.com
"Terry's an artist and a master chemist; he can set fire to water."
--Sea Wasp, rec.arts.sf.written

References

Re: Map Generator....
gherbert@crl3.crl.com (George Herbert)
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
Ed Chauvin IV <edc81u4@newsguy.com>
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
"Terry Austin" <taustin@hyperbooks.com>
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]
graham@DELETETHISaffordable-leather.co.uk
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]
graham@DELETETHISaffordable-leather.co.uk
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
Ilya <ilya@spam.free.gamecommandos.com>
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
htp@mac.com (Henry)
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
Carol Mulholland <Carol@flagship-uk.demon.co.uk>
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]
graham@DELETETHISaffordable-leather.co.uk
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
htp@mac.com (Henry)
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]
"Terry Austin" <taustin@hyperbooks.com>
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]
Terry Austin <taustin@hyperbooks.com>
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Map Generator....
gherbert@crl3.crl.com (George Herbert)
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
Ed Chauvin IV <edc81u4@newsguy.com>
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
"Terry Austin" <taustin@hyperbooks.com>
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]
graham@DELETETHISaffordable-leather.co.uk
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]
graham@DELETETHISaffordable-leather.co.uk
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
Ilya <ilya@spam.free.gamecommandos.com>
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
htp@mac.com (Henry)
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
Carol Mulholland <Carol@flagship-uk.demon.co.uk>
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]
graham@DELETETHISaffordable-leather.co.uk
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Map Generator....
htp@mac.com (Henry)
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]
"Terry Austin" <taustin@hyperbooks.com>
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBMs [was Re: Map Generator....]
Terry Austin <taustin@hyperbooks.com>
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0000