On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 02:26:23AM +0100, Peter Brinkmann wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:03:58PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 01:25 +0100, Peter Brinkmann wrote:
> > > That said, I did find this line about "newly-developed proprietary software"
> > > slightly objectionable because they seem to imply that proprietary software
> > > is a mark of quality, or else they wouldn't have mentioned this in a
> > > marketing document.
>
> > All marketing types think proprietary==good.
> At the risk of splitting hairs, I'd say it's deeper than that. Marketing
> types like proprietary stuff because they think that proprietary==$$$, but
> they wouldn't write this in a marketing document unless they thought that
> potential users will think that proprietary==quality. Is it true that
> Joe Q User will have more faith in a piece of software if it's
> proprietary? Chances are that the word has been focus group tested;
> it would be interesting to know how the general public perceives this
> term.
> Peter
To me proprietary in such press releases translates to:
- no one else but we have this to offer
- it might be based on specialized and not freely availabe knowledge/research
--- Thorsten WilmsReceived on Sat Jan 22 16:15:05 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 22 2005 - 16:15:06 EET