Re:why...

[Marianne Wolfman <marianne@ccnet.com>]

  Charles,
  
  I find your naivete hard to believe.
  
  At 09:06 11/9/97 -0500, you wrote:
  
  >Its pretty obvious why, Tod. They bought because they trusted and believed
  >in Microsoft. 
  
  No; they bought because they wanted a computer, and Microsoft was the only
  choice available to them.  
  
  >>They also bought because they liked the products. Its is a
  >real simple equation. 
  
  No, they bought what was available and loudly hyped, having no basis of
  comparison (speaking of the home consumer market).
  
  >...Millions of others bought Windows and Microsoft products because they
  >liked them. 
  
  See above.  If the only flavor of ice cream available is strawberry, and I
  buy it, you could claim that I like it, but in comparison to what?  What
  choice have I made, other than to buy ice cream?  What does my selection of
  strawberry mean other than that it was the only option?  (Substitute
  "computer" for "ice cream" and "Microsoft" for "strawberry".)
  
  >My theory is that people buy hardware and operating systems as "necessary
  >evils " to run the applications they like--for home consumers they buy
  
  Wrong again, especially referring to home consumers.   How do consumers
  find out what applications they "like?"  Computer precedes applications,
  and computer determines applications.  Bundled applications curtail choice
  further.
  
  >.... I give consumers credit as fairly intelligent people who
  >generally make informed decisions and choices. 
  
  That's nice of you, but how can consumers make informed choices with
  neither comparative information nor experience, and without options
  presented to them at the sales point?
  
  >There actually seem to be a lot of intelligent, otherwise well informed
  >people on this list. If they were just a little less consumed with blinding
  >hatred I think that they would be able to make more objective statements
  >and decisions. It may well be that they would end up in the same place, but
  >at least it would be less "hate-driven". This concerns me because most
  >"hate-driven" groups that I know of in history have not been looked upon
  >favorable in historical accounts.
  
  I think you mistake uneasiness with a situation for hatred.  Perhaps you
  mistake opposition to the marketing practices of Microsoft for hatred, or
  perhaps it's just disagreement with you that you mistake for hatred.  Why
  not give participants in this discussion the same credit you give consumers
  as "fairly intelligent people who generally make informed decisions and
  choices?"
  
  >...This "I hate Microsoft" is fear driven from
  >the unknown. I doubt if anyone on this list really knows much about
  >Microsoft other that what they fear. 
  
  Alas, another misapprehension.  Microsoft is a well-known entity to many of
  us.  Cumulatively, the participants on this list probably have well over a
  hundred years of experience with Microsoft.  I question who is being driven
  by the fear you mention.
  
     ---  Marianne          marianne@ccnet.com