On Dec 30, 2006, at 7:51 PM, Stephen the Cook wrote:
>> Uh, the review wasn't for the laptop; it was for the Vista OS.
>>
>> A better analogy would be if Apple sent a killer home theatre system
>> to the reviewer for free with no strings attached, on the hope that
>> he might evaluate the video iPod.
>
> What a load of crap.
>
> Sorry but you have to have a equipment for an OS eval.
This is a version of Windows, right? You don't need special hardware
for Windows.
> The manufacturer,
> M$, provided the equipment and set it properly for the tests to be
> evaluated.
That in itself should be the headline then: Vista - requires extreme
hardware configuration to run.
> They are trying to stack the deck for a positive eval, sure.
> Making the hardware consistent and taking one major point of the a
> possible
> problem should be done by any manufacturer in this case. I'm sure
> that
> Apple did it as well ;->
Again, that's my point. You can evaluate Vista on any x86 hardware.
You can also evaluate a video iPod using its built-in screen. Sure, a
whole home theatre will make it look better, and giving it away will
certainly influence the reviewer, consciously or unconciously.
The question isn't whether Microsoft was acting ethically. Of course
they weren't; you don't succeed in business by being ethical. Apple
has also acted unethically at various time in the past; I guess you
think that that somehow makes it OK for me, as if I'm some brainless
drone who worships Apple. The issue is the ethics of the reviewers
who either didn't recognize this for the payola it was, or who chose
to ignore that inconvenient fact.
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
©2006 Ed Leafe |
