Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft FUD Watch
rs232 writes "Not a week goes by when Microsoft doesn't manufacture a little fear, uncertainty and doubt about something. Yesterday's financial analyst conference was full of it ... Our approach is simple: We look at who said what and why it's FUD. Lots of companies engage in FUD, and we only single out Microsoft because we're Microsoft Watch"
I'm sick of hearing of this acronym. Can't you just give it a rest? It's so very 90s to be complaining about "FUD". And a very shallow analysis.
Taking PR statements and criticizing them for being PR speak is #3 on the "10 dumbest ways to spend your time" list that I made a minute ago. Honestly, when I find a large company with a PR department that *doesn't* make exactly the same sort of statements Microsoft's does, I'm going to try really hard to make it back to this reality from the alternate one I somehow ended up in.
Hi we are Microsoft Watch and we spread FUD about their FUD, please FUD our FUD by FUDDING some FUD, preferably via FUD.
I like basketball!!1!
I don't know abour FUD watch, but many of their press releases are so obfiscated, long winded, badly phrased and rambling I find it difficult to follow. Its like Sir Humphrey Appleby from "Yes Minister", it takes a moment to actually understand what the hell they are talking about.
:-(
Is it just me or do these guys find it impossible to speak english in a plain and simple fashion?
Actually, I think there is a proper word for this - but for the like of me I cannot remember what it is.
Oh, Sweet Mother of God and Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick and Buddha in a Banyan, if there isn't something specific about Microsoft in the news on a Monday morning, some jackass has to manufacture something so there can be a day where MS is mentioned on the /. front page?
This is as bad as the guy at work that keeps talking about his ex-wife, who he divorced 15 years ago. Let it go! At least wait for Microsoft to actually do something, you know they will.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Where's the difference? Both serve only one purpose: To make potential customers and investors think you have something worth stuffing money into when there is essentially nothing to see and they'd move along.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ray Ozzie got his job because he worked alongside Dave Cutler at Digital, and he pretty much worships the Microsoft Way. Don't expect change from Ray Ozzie. Ray Ozzie made a career out of re-implementing VAX Notes. Twice so far, and neither successfully. He is overrated, and his image is overhyped. Heck, Bill Gates has better taste and better instincts for what makes good software. Microosft will continue down a path of FUDing and bullying based on their financial and market strength.
This isn't just how it inevitably is at big companies. Some are different. For example, Jonathan Schwartz got his job because he won't do things the Sun Way. No leader is perfect, and I know lots of people who don't like Schwartz. But Schwartz has backed up his promises by embracing GPL3 and hiring Ian Murdock to change the way Solaris is delivered.
You can reasonably expect Sun's performance to improve. You can reasonably expect Microsoft to continue to miss the point when trying to compete against Open Source software, and to grow worse, in fact, in the way they use PR, lobbyists, FUD, and financial bully tactics as they fail to find a way to stop alternative business models from chipping away at their lead.
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
Pointing out FUD is important to help prepare the IT professional to address the issues when management gets taken in by them. Having clear reasons why it is FUD is critical!
I suspect that you are correct. If so, you should immediately apply to MS for a technical authoring job at an astronomical salary -- you managed to explain it more clearly in about a quarter of the words. Incidentally, we now know that when Windows installation breaks, it isn't a bug, it's a "...a rich and complex installation experience."
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
Did you even read the article?
Yes, FUD is bad, but if you're going to complain about FUD it should at least meet that definition.
If the definition, as you say, 'has nothing to do with Microsoft', then I don't see how on earth were they flagged as FUD by the author.
Where is the unwarranted Fear, the Uncertainty, or the Doubt?
Were these statements directed at consumers considering competing products? (per the article itself, no).
3 of 4 statements are obviously non-FUD, since they're just positive statements about themselves, their products and their market - standard PR intended to instill confidence on the audience about it being a good company to invest in.
There's not even a serious mention of the competition, much less an attempt at FUD.
The other one (the last one) is just stating an obvious fact: Microsoft still eclipses Apple in size, which is a huge competitive advantage. The article's point for FUD-ness is absurd enough considering the audience:
"Wal-Mart typically takes in as much money in the first quarter as Target makes in one year. Is that a reason to pick one store over the other?"
Well, perhaps not if you're a consumer looking for the best product.
But if you're a financial analyst looking for the best investment, then very probably yes, and that was the audience for this statement.
It's not like there is a dearth of FUD material these days on the industry, so picking on this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term even means.
Euhm... am I really the only one that likes my installation experiences to be SIMPLE?
That said, I'm quite experienced in installing Linux. And that is not always easy. And no, I don't enjoy doing it.
While I agree with those that think a Microsoft FUD watch page is a bit of a waste of time, I'm still amused by the fact someone is posting it.
Let us not forget that Microsoft was the master of the FUD campaign. Consider how it used to be. A small, unknown company (Small Software Company) launches a software product that has great potential, but would result in users being semi-locked into that company. Microsoft sees the potential and announces they have their own version about ready to release, knowing full well they don't.
Average user thinks "Well, I'll just wait for the Microsoft product because I really don't know Small Software Company and whether they'll be around.", which gives Microsoft enough time to throw tons of money on a project to whip up a Version 1.0 to compete.
This model worked well for Microsoft for a number of years. But now, it isn't Small Software Company that Microsoft is chasing, it's Google and Apple, to name two. These are also well known to Mr. and Mrs. Average User.
So now, Apple or Google announces a new product, the Average User family starts using it. Microsoft announces their plan to release a competitor and the Average User thinks "a little late to the party".
The point is, people are getting more choice from companies they trust. So the FUD campaigns are not going to be as effective.
It is fun to watch, though.
Try to read legalese without a law degree and see how far that gets you. Same goes for any programming language without actually being a programmer or having any concept of computer science.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'