22 Jan
2005
22 Jan
'05
6:21 a.m.
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:
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 Wilms
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