On 29 Jun 2009 at 11:08, dhbailey wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:30, dhbailey wrote: > > > >> David W. Fenton wrote: > >> [snip]> I don't know. While one could say that Apple had an > >> agenda, MS came > >>> late to that ballgame. > >>> > >>> Why would Apple and Microsoft have an incentive to misrepresent the > >>> research? What good would it do them to design their products to be > >>> less useful than they could be? > >> To sell mice. > > > > *snort* > > > > Yes, that's it -- Microsoft's mice are such high-profit items that > > they want to sell them. > > If they're not such high-profit items, why do they sell > them? After all, Microsoft is a software company. And Bill > Gates and his heirs-to-the-company are much too smart to > sell items they take a loss on.
My guess is that they want to have a reference quality design. There are no mice better than Microsoft mice, in fact. But to argue that they would alter the design of their OS's and softwware simply to promote the sales of their mice is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. And that's what your suggestion comes down to, that they would intentionally skew their research results to favor the mouse and then redesign their software to fit those results, and all of it in order to promote sales of an item that costs less than a single copy of Windows. This is crazy conspiracy theory reasoning and not worthy of even one more line of response. The assertion is completely implausible on its face and the idea that anyone would seriously promote the idea suggests to me that reason has been thrown out the window and there's massive irrationality in operation at this point. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
