I've just read the post by Brian Proffitt, regarding Microsoft's tactics in Africa.
I have something to say to Brian:
Not everything a big corporation does is illegal. Yes, even Microsoft does most of its business in completely legitimate way. Now, you argue, that Microsoft has to "help" people choose its products?
Well, that is called competition. When you are a vendor, and your product is being considered for purchasing by a customer (not when a customer comes to you and starting to choose which one of your products to buy - no, when the same customer comes to 5 vendors with similar products) you fight for his attention. It means you're trying to undermine your opponents, undermine their products, and give your product the best spotlight you can. Because all vendors do, and if you won't - you don't get a deal.
So when a customer decides upon a vendor, there are factors to consider: price, functionality, longevity and support.
Price lately is not the primer concern to customers. Of course, they want to buy the same thing for a half of the price, but they still buy it anyway; functionality is the main thing. I would not buy things I don't need. Ever. Unless they're bundled with what I really need, and then I'll ask for a bargain. But if your product does not provide functionality I need, I will not buy it even if you give me huge discounts; longevity is also very important - I don't want to know that the product I just bought will be out of service in couple of months. I need a vendor who's pledged to support me for a long time support is an important tool to gain more customers. If your support sucks, I will try and avoid you next time.
In case you're talking about, Microsoft suggested a subjectively better deal. They gave it with some money presents.
Is their product much worse? No
Is their product much more insecure? Not really
Is it important for kids to use Linux over Windows? Not technically, no. Subjectively, in my opinion though - yes.
Is the price important? Yes.
So the decision was made based on price.
Microsoft doesn't have to pay people to use their software, they just offer it as a business proposition.
And you know what? I like it. Let them pay.
Just a matter of opinion
-A
Powered by ScribeFire
I have something to say to Brian:
Not everything a big corporation does is illegal. Yes, even Microsoft does most of its business in completely legitimate way. Now, you argue, that Microsoft has to "help" people choose its products?
Well, that is called competition. When you are a vendor, and your product is being considered for purchasing by a customer (not when a customer comes to you and starting to choose which one of your products to buy - no, when the same customer comes to 5 vendors with similar products) you fight for his attention. It means you're trying to undermine your opponents, undermine their products, and give your product the best spotlight you can. Because all vendors do, and if you won't - you don't get a deal.
So when a customer decides upon a vendor, there are factors to consider: price, functionality, longevity and support.
Price lately is not the primer concern to customers. Of course, they want to buy the same thing for a half of the price, but they still buy it anyway; functionality is the main thing. I would not buy things I don't need. Ever. Unless they're bundled with what I really need, and then I'll ask for a bargain. But if your product does not provide functionality I need, I will not buy it even if you give me huge discounts; longevity is also very important - I don't want to know that the product I just bought will be out of service in couple of months. I need a vendor who's pledged to support me for a long time support is an important tool to gain more customers. If your support sucks, I will try and avoid you next time.
In case you're talking about, Microsoft suggested a subjectively better deal. They gave it with some money presents.
Is their product much worse? No
Is their product much more insecure? Not really
Is it important for kids to use Linux over Windows? Not technically, no. Subjectively, in my opinion though - yes.
Is the price important? Yes.
So the decision was made based on price.
Microsoft doesn't have to pay people to use their software, they just offer it as a business proposition.
And you know what? I like it. Let them pay.
Just a matter of opinion
-A
Powered by ScribeFire
4 Comments:
Well, it's legal (in most of the world) to tell everybody that your product is the best, and your competitor's product is worse. And it's done in business this way. But is it honest actually? Personally I think it's not.
In Russia it's even illegal. Our laws concerning advertising say that you can talk about the features of your own product, but you are not allowed to say that your competitor's product is worse, lacks features or is somehow inferior to yours. You can point out features that are unique to your product, you can even say your product is "the best" or "No. 1", as long as you provide reference to some survey that says so (even if you funded that survey, but that would be easy to find out), but you cannot black-advertise your competitor's product. That's Russian law, and I think it's honest and good (very few of Russian laws are, but this one certainly is).
It's all just the matter of respect: respect to your customers, respect to your competitors and, as the consequence, respect to yourself. It's such a great pity that modern business-world lacks this respect...
OK, I got this one.
But if you look close at almost any advertising, everyone advertises and compares its own products to "regular" or "competition" which are very opaque but still point to their direct competitors.
It is weird that such a thing would be protected by law...
"Such a thing" wouldn't, at least if it is opaque enough for the exact products or companies not to be recognized.
True, but many times you can easily recognize who is it talking about.
Post a Comment