[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: of product promotion and consumer representation
- To: "Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO" <am-info@essential.org>
- Subject: Re: of product promotion and consumer representation
- From: Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>
- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 09:53:30 -0800
- Delivered-To: am-info@venice.essential.org
--- From a message sent by Lewis A. Mettler on 12/11/99 3:53 PM ---
>It really should not of any surprise to anyone that most of the users of
>this list are promoters of particular products and brands. After all,
>why would a consumer get on here? They are not interested in discussing
>technology issues must less the ways in which particular vendors try to
>control the markets they sell through.
>
>Thus, a highly pro promotion group is what you should expect here and on
>most public forms. Developers, vendors, OEMs, etc., and yes maybe a few
>lawyers looking for clients. But, there is not much of a career in
>consumer representation. I suppose if someone wanted to file a consumer
>class action law suit against Microsoft or anyone else, they would not
>be openly discussing their legal theories on this forum.
>
>However, if someone wanted to promote a particular product or brand,
>this would be an ideal place to post views to that end. They would not
>need to own the product or even sell it. They could simply work for a
>company having a vested interest or simply own too much stock in order
>to be unbiased.
>
>Or, they could just think that consumers should not have the right to
>pick and choose which products they buy. However, everyone does attempt
>to retain that right for themselves.
Or they may have availed themselves of the opportunity to patronize
Microsoft's competition and thus actively promote diversity in the
industry. In some cases, they may have gone even further out on a limb
and "put their money where their mouth is" so to speak, by investing in
the entire proposition of a competitive industry. As has already been
pointed out, this is one thing you have notably failed to do, which I
take it is the reason why in your mind Microsoft's products need to be
transformed into more a "benevolent" monopoly.
In any event, the above is apparently little more than an expression of
your own rationalization of why you've had so little success persuading
anyone on this list to accept your theories (which of course has nothing
to do with their merits).
Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net