[NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Whil Hentzen (Pro*)]

Is MSFT paying bloggers to say nice things?




Whil


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ed Leafe]

On Dec 28, 2006, at 6:58 PM, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) wrote:

> Is MSFT paying bloggers to say nice things?
>
> 
> 

Really pathetic, if you ask me. If Vista offered anything compelling  
people would be flocking to it, rather than having to be bribed with  
a free laptop in order to try it out.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Rick Schummer]

Ed,

>>Really pathetic, if you ask me. If Vista offered anything compelling people 
>>would be flocking to
it, rather than having to be bribed with a free laptop in order to try it out.<<

First I will say I have never accepted a dime for ads on my Web site, never 
blogged after being
"bribed", and have not made up my mind if this is something right or wrong. I 
do know disclosure is
an absolute requirement if it is in play. I have not even loaded Vista yet on a 
Virtual or real PC.
No one sent me a free laptop for Christmas, I bought my own, Vista capable - 
running XP Pro.

There are two other points of view on this topic:
1) Paid endorsements are not uncommon in marketing. Just watch your TV for more 
than 5 minutes, open
any newspaper, heck - even open you yellow pages book if you still have one 
around. Even someone
like Dan Marino is endorsing some weight loss program these days. All are 
getting something to push
a product into your face.

2) Most technical reviews you read in any tech magazine were done with products 
provided by the
vendor. Most reviews you read are positive (especially software reviews). Most 
reviews are
accompanied with advertisements from the vendor in the issue their products are 
reviewed. The author
is getting free software or hardware, typically paid to write the review, and 
the vendor is getting
exposure.

Other things to consider after I read the two links in this thread:
1) Microsoft did not declare a review had to be written, did not even ask the 
potential reviewer to
say something nice, and did not declare they even had to accept the "bribe".

2) Microsoft takes a risk as do any company doing any marketing. To paraphrase 
something Whil put so
eloquently once (or maybe twice): when it comes to marketing, nothing works. 
But we all try to do
things hoping something does. Microsoft is trying out the "new media" as are a 
lot of companies.
Blogging has an impact, but how much is not really known by a lot of larger 
companies. I applaud
them for trying something like this. It is a bold move.


I look forward to you helping me make up my mind if this is really wrong, or 
just another way
companies can market. Or is this another opinion you are forming because you 
really dislike
Microsoft and by default it is evil?

My mind is open.

Rick
White Light Computing, Inc.

www.whitelightcomputing.com
www.rickschummer.com
586.254.2530 - office
586.254.2539 - fax
  



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ted Roche]

On 12/29/06, Rick Schummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> First I will say I have never accepted a dime for ads on my Web site, never 
> blogged after being
> "bribed", and have not made up my mind if this is something right or wrong. I 
> do know disclosure is
> an absolute requirement if it is in play. I have not even loaded Vista yet on 
> a Virtual or real PC.
> No one sent me a free laptop for Christmas, I bought my own, Vista capable - 
> running XP Pro.

Rick:

Sorry to hear you were not among the "lucky winners," but let me say
that I have never had any doubts as to the honest truth of your
writings in books, magazines or blogs.

This can be an ethical slippery slope. (And take it from a guy who's
fallen down that slope a few times )  Magazines that write reviews
of products usually have a code of ethics which dictates that
reviewers are not to be paid or given free materials in exchange for a
review. Big "J" Journalists consider this an absolute rule; some trade
publications are more lax. It is not in a vendor's interest to take
back a review copy, so they often ignore this rule. I've reviewed a
few pieces of software in my day - xCase and DynaZIP come to mind -
and I bought copies of them for commercial use.

> There are two other points of view on this topic:
> 1) Paid endorsements are not uncommon in marketing. Just watch your TV for 
> more than 5 minutes, open
> any newspaper, heck - even open you yellow pages book if you still have one 
> around. Even someone
> like Dan Marino is endorsing some weight loss program these days. All are 
> getting something to push
> a product into your face.
>

There's nothing wrong with paid endorsements. The problem is
disclosure. TV ads show "Paid Endorsement" on them, as newspapers
clearly mark advertisements. With bloggers, it's more tiresome. I know
I regularly read bloggers like Doc Searls and Dave Winer, who have to
keep repeating "I'm on the board of xyz.com" or "I made a financial
investment in abc." Some have gone to the tactic of adding a
"Disclosures" page to their blog and just add a "see Disclosures" link
when they feel it necessary.

> 1) Microsoft did not declare a review had to be written, did not even ask the 
> potential reviewer to
> say something nice, and did not declare they even had to accept the "bribe".
>

If a $5k laptop arrives on my door with a note "no strings attached,"
I am going to have a more positive view of the vendor.

> 2) Microsoft takes a risk as do any company doing any marketing. To 
> paraphrase something Whil put so
> eloquently once (or maybe twice): when it comes to marketing, nothing works. 
> But we all try to do
> things hoping something does. Microsoft is trying out the "new media" as are 
> a lot of companies.

Much as it pains me to say this. Microsoft has done nothing wrong in
this act. They are a vendor and they are trying to influence people in
the market whose opinions are followed. The "blame" and I don't even
think it should be that strong, is at the feet of the recipients. Each
should add a "Microsoft tried to buy me off" entry to their blogs.
That's fine. Disclosure is the key there.

> Or is this another opinion you are forming because you really dislike
> Microsoft and by default it is evil?

That's a separate discussion . Microsoft may be evil, but we know you're not.

> My mind is open.

That's cool. There's nothing wrong with vendors showering you with
free stuff. You just need to disclose it.

My disclaimer page is at http://www.tedroche.com/blog/?page_id=2621.

-- 
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ed Leafe]

On Dec 29, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Rick Schummer wrote:

> I look forward to you helping me make up my mind if this is really  
> wrong, or just another way companies can market.

Why the free laptop? Why not provide a free copy of Vista? Why not  
do what hardware companies do, and provide a paid shipping box for  
returning the hardware after the review?

I suppose that if corporate lobbyists gave politicians free travel,  
free golf outings, free dining at fine restaurants and yes, even free  
computers, but said "Senator, this isn't a bribe! No, no, of course  
not! I just want you to *think* about our interests before you vote.  
You don't have to promise to vote a certain way!", you'd consider  
that to be ethical? I mean, after all, they explicitly did not  
require a quid pro quo, so it is just "another way that companies can  
market" to politicians.

> Or is this another opinion you are forming because you really  
> dislike Microsoft and by default it is evil?

Oh, geez, not that crap again. Do you want everyone to immediately  
discredit anything you write because you work for Microsoft? Does  
your relationship with Microsoft by default mean that you are a  
shill? Would you hold a high opinion of someone who used that as  
their only basis for discrediting your writing?

I don't "really dislike" Microsoft and don't believe that "by  
default" it is evil. I also don't appreciate having my opinions  
trivialized and misrepresented by you or anyone else. I have observed  
Microsoft in action for over two decades, and have certainly formed  
opinions on their business practices, many of which are negative. I  
also have very negative opinions about some of Apple's business  
practices, as well as several other tech and non-tech companies.  
Belittling those opinions by reducing them to a simple irrational  
'dislike' is insulting.

> My mind is open.

I sure hope that you don't mean to imply that mine isn't. That would  
be well below your standards for discourse.

How open are you? How many operating systems do you use on a daily  
basis? How many development languages do you use regularly? Out of  
those, how many are not Microsoft products?

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Whil Hentzen (Pro*)]

> I look forward to you helping me make up my mind if this is really wrong, or 
> just another way
> companies can market. Or is this another opinion you are forming because you 
> really dislike
> Microsoft and by default it is evil?

If someone doesn't disclose front and center that, by the way, the nice 
things they said about 'x' have nothing to do with the fact that they 
not only got a free copy of 'x', but also a very expensive copy of 'y' 
from the folks who make 'x', then, yes, it's wrong. Period.

MSFT certainly isn't alone in doing this. Look at the hub-bub about 
Congress taking paid 'fact-finding' trips to places like... oh... 
Tahiti, Hawaii, Switzerland... paid for by folks who will be materially 
affected by legislature that said Congressperson is working on. 'nuf said.

I agree with one of the authors who said that regardless of specific 
strings attached, the receiver of such goodies can't but be drawn into a 
social contract with MSFT. It _is_ more difficult to say something 
negative, or to not say something positive, about Vista in this 
situation. Just human nature.

There's another piece here... MSFT has long intimidated folks with the 
threat of being excluded if you don't play by their rules. I have a 
long, involved history in this, spanning a decade and a half, from both 
sides of the game. Again, they're not alone in this; a couple of rather 
large car companies come to mind. 

It is not necessary to do this; Wal-Mart prohibits their purchasing 
agents from accepting as much as _a cup of coffee_ from a vendor. Check 
out the recent story behind their switch of ad agencies and how a couple 
of high-level marketing folks just got fired.

I see MSFT's move not as an innovative marketing move (hell, bribing 
folks under or over the table has been around for as long the world's 
oldest profession). I see it as desperation in trying to put a positive 
spin on a product disaster.

That was my point - they're so desperate for positive ink about Vista 
that they're starting to bribe folks to say something nice about it. It 
used to be that YOU had to pay THEM in order to be admitted to the 
'inner circle'.

They COULD be a lot classier, but in their fervent scramble to take the 
last crumbs on the table for themselves, they again show themselves to 
be as disgusting an organization as Standard Oil was a century ago, or 
the various railroads 150 years ago.

How a company made up of generally excellent people coalesces into an 
organization so vile never ceases to amaze me.

Whil


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Hal Kaplan]

Planting stuff in someone's garden in the hope that it blossoms into
something positive is not new and the use of bloggers will not be the
last effort in this vein.

What is being discussed here is quite simply, trust.  Trust is one of
those things like respect, love, and software documentation that is
extremely difficult to create and extremely easy to destroy.

Philosophers have spent lifetimes trying to analyze this phenomenon to
no avail.  I don't think we are going to do better in this venue.  

Just do the right thing (whatever your gut tells you) and hope for the
best.

B+
HALinNY



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Hal Kaplan]

=> Subject: Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)
=> 
=> There's another piece here... MSFT has long intimidated 
=> folks with the threat of being excluded if you don't play by 
=> their rules. I have a long, involved history in this, 
=> spanning a decade and a half, from both sides of the game. 
=> Again, they're not alone in this; a couple of rather large 
=> car companies come to mind. 
=>
=> How a company made up of generally excellent people coalesces into an 
organization so vile
=> never ceases to amaze me.
=>
=> Whil
 
Two things here, Whil; separate but totally related.

First, thank goodness that the brewers of the world (particularly Milwaukee) 
have not deigned to be like MSFT or the "car companies."  Even though you are 
in the heart of it and always praising the virtues of it, I don't think you 
have ever succumbed to telling us exactly which beer you depend on for your 
whit and charm.

Secondly, the folks at MSFT, good as they may, have to deal with the likes of 
Olympia and Coors.  If they lived closer to the Great Lakes region, they would 
be much better off.

I will end by publicly declaring that my personal favorite is Kirin Light and 
I've paid for every drop, directly or indirectly.

B+
HALinNY


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Rick Schummer]

Hi Ed,

Thanks for responding.

>>  Why the free laptop? Why not provide a free copy of Vista? Why not do 
>> what hardware
companies do, and provide a paid shipping box for returning the hardware after 
the review?<<

I agree this is a bit much. If I was a blogger in this situation I would be 
stressing the specs
needed to run Vista based on the hardware I was sent, but this is not the point 
I am trying to
resolve.

One simple reason though is time. How long does it take for you to set up a new 
machine? How many
potential reviewers have extra hardware available? I have listened to Craig 
Boyd and the amount of
time he has taken to load and reload Vista on his machine during the CTP cycle. 
I would not have the
time or energy to do so. Microsoft also offered to take back the hardware or 
allowed the blogger to
give it away if they wanted. So in fact they should be satisfying your 
requirement.

I have said the same thing about beta software. I want vendors to provide me a 
virtual PC (VMWare
appliance, or VirtualPC image) to me so I don't have to risk my primary 
machine, or my backup
machine to test out their products. I beta test a lot of products (not all 
Microsoft) and this would
save me tons of time. What Microsoft did was save the bloggers time.

Would you be complaining about this if Microsoft simply handed out Vista DVDs 
with the same
intention? I am guessing a lot of people would. In fact, I would say the same 
thing would have
happened. Microsoft bribing bloggers with free DVDs - it is a slow news week.


>>  I suppose that if corporate lobbyists gave politicians free travel, 
>> free golf outings, free
dining at fine restaurants and yes, even free computers, but said "Senator, 
this isn't a bribe! No,
no, of course not! I just want you to *think* about our interests before you 
vote.  
You don't have to promise to vote a certain way!", you'd consider that to be 
ethical? I mean, after
all, they explicitly did not require a quid pro quo, so it is just "another way 
that companies can
market" to politicians.<<

While I see your point on this, I believe this is different from politics, this 
is marketing. The
government lives in its own world, and unfortunately lobbying is still legal, 
and will likely always
be legal unfortunately. In fact, this is an accepted practice because it is 
legal. I don't agree
with it, but it is as it is.

What we are talking about is free market enterprise and getting the word out on 
a commercial
product. We are also talking about the blogging communities self proclaimed 
"new media" title. So,
is it so wrong for a company to use the "new media" to do marketing/advertising 
provided the proper
rules of disclosure are followed? This is the core question I am trying to 
answer.


>>Do you want everyone to immediately discredit anything you write because 
>> you work for
Microsoft? Does your relationship with Microsoft by default mean that you are a 
shill? Would you
hold a high opinion of someone who used that as their only basis for 
discrediting your writing?<<


Definitely not, and in fact I asked this to clarify my understanding of your 
opinion. It is not my
intention to discredit your writing. I am trying to understand the situation 
and form an opinion.
That is all. I actually used the word "dislike" to tone down my question. I 
believe you have been
very strong in your opinions of Microsoft on this forum. I think most people on 
this list understand
how you feel. I find myself agreeing with you sometimes and disagreeing with 
you on others. In this
particular case I was trying to understand how you formed your opinion on this 
topic. Nothing more,
nothing less.


>>  I sure hope that you don't mean to imply that mine isn't. That would be 
>> well below your
standards for discourse.<<

Ed, I did not mean to imply this at all. I was trying to emphasize that I have 
not made up my mind
on the topic of PayForPost. I am really sorry you feel I was attacking you 
personally. It was never
my intention, honest. I am trying to make a business decision the same way I 
make all my business
decisions: based on understanding the facts, on the how it will affect 
profitability, based on my
moral and ethics, how it impacts my schedule and life, and whether it fits into 
the company's
mission.


>>  How open are you? How many operating systems do you use on a daily 
>> basis? How many
development languages do you use regularly? Out of those, how many are not 
Microsoft products?<<

For the record I believe it is six different operating systems (2003 Server, 
XP, 2000, NT4,
PocketPC, Fedora ), three or four different development languages (VFP, 
ASP, PHP , T-SQL
(depending if you consider this a language)). Not all of my business is 
directly resulting from
Microsoft products, but most is and the reason is simple: expertise and demand. 
My clients run
Windows and I develop for the platform. A simple implementation of fundamental 
economics - supply
and de

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Rick Schummer]

Thanks for the discussion Ted.

>>My disclaimer page is at http://www.tedroche.com/blog/?page_id=2621.<<

I am curious about "Recent winners should sit on their hands and let someone 
else play for a
change."

Care to explain?


Rick
White Light Computing, Inc.

www.whitelightcomputing.com
www.rickschummer.com
586.254.2530 - office
586.254.2539 - fax
  





___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ted Roche]

On 12/28/06, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is MSFT paying bloggers to say nice things?
>

How is that different from handing out free copies of MSDN Galactic?

"A favorite Saturday radio show is Michael Feldman's "Whad'YaKnow"
with its predictable lineup of standup, quiz shows, interviews and
yes, the Disclaimers. Since it seems I'm not a lucky winner of an Acer
Ferrarri for all the nice things I've said about Vista, I want to take
a stand here and say that I'm not taking back a single word. The issue
has brought up (again) the question of the imparitiality of bloggers,
a tempest in a teacup in the dead news week between Christmas and New
Years when not much else happens other than this-year-retrospectives
and pundit's predictions for next year. Some question the impartiality
of bloggers, to which I say, "Well, duh." Bloggers are real human
voices who have agendas, prejudices, biases, opinions and stubborn
beliefs. Here are some of my disclaimers:"

http://www.tedroche.com/blog/?page_id=2621

-- 
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ted Roche]

On 12/29/06, Rick Schummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am curious about "Recent winners should sit on their hands and let someone 
> else play for a
> change."
>

That's from the PRI show "Whatd'yaknow?" when they read the
disclaimers before playing the call-in quiz game. Pretty obscure,
although I guess it could apply...

-- 
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ted Roche]

On 12/29/06, Rick Schummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I was trying to emphasize that I have not made up my mind
> on the topic of PayForPost.

Tweet! Timeout! Off sides! I'd just like to clarify the context of our
discussion here.

Big-J Journalists have an explicit code of ethics that claims
impartiality, and disclosure of any relationship that could be
_perceived_ as a conflict of interest. Most bloggers are keeping
journals (small-j) of their personal writings and are under no such
expectations. The better ones should voluntarily disclose such
conflicts.

PayPerPost [1] is a much more explicit arrangement where writers write
ad copy for products and fail to disclose they are explicitly paid for
such subterfuge. I doubt any of us would endorse such a plan.

[1] http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/06/30/payperpostcom-offers-to-buy-your-soul/
or : http://preview.tinyurl.com/rhpoc

-- 
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Rick Schummer]

>>Tweet! Timeout! Off sides! I'd just like to clarify the context of our 
>>discussion here.<<

Thanks for the official clarification Ted.

But I really think the difference between a service designed to pay hired 
people to blog about
products, and individual or independent people blogging about products because 
some company sends
them something (money, computers, free software, subscriptions to a service, 
etc.) is very little in
the big picture. In my opinion it is splitting hairs. It was probably a mistake 
on my part for
including it in the discussion, but conceptually I feel they are close cousins 
anyway. Someone
getting paid for blogging/marketing without full disclosure.

Bloggers including Scolble and Splosky have pioneered this and have disclosed 
things for a long
time. They have lead the way and set the standard many of us in this industry 
can follow. Each have
gone their own way. I respect both and read their posts frequently and learn 
much in the process.

Maybe this is just the latest "growth" the new media needs to go through. After 
all, blogging is
still in the infancy stage. People are still learning to walk in this new world 
and mistakes will be
made in the process.

I am beginning to weigh heavily the credibility and reputation factor the same 
way I did back in the
late 90's when Advisor kept asking me to review products. I had written two 
reviews for them (one on
the old Stonefield Query, and one on QBF Builder) which were both products I 
owned and used. They
sent me several products to review and I told them I did not feel comfortable 
reviewing products I
was not familiar with. I think this is an important factor. On the other hand, 
there are plenty of
products I can learn more about in the process of researching them for use in 
my company, and for my
clients who are also developers.

Besides, I was taught a long time ago that you cannot believe everything you 
hear or read. This rule
can be applied to bloggers and mainstream media alike.


Rick
White Light Computing, Inc.

www.whitelightcomputing.com
www.rickschummer.com
586.254.2530 - office
586.254.2539 - fax



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ted Roche]

On 12/29/06, Rick Schummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> But I really think the difference between a service designed to pay hired 
> people to blog about
> products, and individual or independent people blogging about products 
> because some company sends
> them something (money, computers, free software, subscriptions to a service, 
> etc.) is very little in
> the big picture.

I see it differently, but suspect we agree more than disagree.

PayForPost: Intentionally writing about "stuff" because you expect to
be paid for it while promoting it as your own thoughts is deceitful.

versus

Promoting a company you are involved with is human nature, whether
that's a LAMP advocate (who, like me, hopes to make a living that
way), an MVP (who receives glory and goodies from Microsoft, and who
also uses it to promote their own business), or a member of the
business. I have no problem with Tim Bray occasionally praising Sun
when they get it right (he's an employee, a "Distinguished Engineer").
Scoble promoted good things happening at Microsoft while he was
employed there (and may be doing the same for the Edwards campaign, I
hear).

Failure to disclose can be anything from an oversight to intentionally
misleading. PerPerPost is clearly "guerrilla marketing" which some may
see as clever while others find it offensive. Promoting a company that
gives you free stuff because you sincerely believe in what they are
doing is at the other end of the spectrum. Who was it who said that
"Sincerity is the key -- once you've figured out how to fake that
you're all set."

> Besides, I was taught a long time ago that you cannot believe everything you 
> hear or read. This rule
> can be applied to bloggers and mainstream media alike.

True. Even the pillars of Journalism have their bad eggs, pretty regularly.

But I think it's incumbent on those of us who'd like to be believed to
lay our cards on the table.

FYI, Scoble is linking to a story that Microsoft PR is now asking for
the bloggers to return the laptops, turning a minor slip into a major
debacle:

http://scobleizer.com/2006/12/27/i-think-the-microsoft-vista-giveaway-is-an-awesome-idea/

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/vxdj5

-- 
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Rick Schummer]

>>I see it differently, but suspect we agree more than disagree.<<

Definitely.

I just read on Geek News Central about Microsoft pulling the laptops back after 
the bloggers are
done with the reviews. Dilbertville style of management lives strong even on 
the holiday break for
some people.

http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/006699.html 


Rick
White Light Computing, Inc.

www.whitelightcomputing.com
www.rickschummer.com
586.254.2530 - office
586.254.2539 - fax
  



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ted Roche]

On 12/29/06, Rick Schummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just read on Geek News Central about Microsoft pulling the laptops back 
> after the bloggers are
> done with the reviews. Dilbertville style of management lives strong even on 
> the holiday break for
> some people.

Well, on the bright side, at least Microsoft's A-List Bloggers won't
have to report the gift on their income taxes ;)

-- 
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ted Roche]

On 12/28/06, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is MSFT paying bloggers to say nice things?
>

"Do you really think Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal goes to
some secret underground Apple Store to buy his hot new iPod to review
a month before it's even announced? Do you think hardware review sites
sneak into processor fabs late at night to gain access to hardware
samples that won't be on retail shelves for months? Do you really
think they're sending all of that stuff back? Some are, some aren't,
and to be honest, I have no idea if Mossberg keeps the top-secret
stuff he's sent or not..."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061228-8514.html

-- 
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ed Leafe]

On Dec 30, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Ted Roche wrote:

> "Do you really think Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal goes to
> some secret underground Apple Store to buy his hot new iPod to review
> a month before it's even announced? Do you think hardware review sites
> sneak into processor fabs late at night to gain access to hardware
> samples that won't be on retail shelves for months? Do you really
> think they're sending all of that stuff back? Some are, some aren't,
> and to be honest, I have no idea if Mossberg keeps the top-secret
> stuff he's sent or not..."

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.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ted Roche]

On 12/30/06, Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uh, the review wasn't for the laptop; it was for the Vista OS.
>

I hadn't followed the case that closely; I know MS was the one who
sent the units to some of their influencers. Was Acer not involved?

> 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.

True. But the author was one of the Ars Technica's principals and he
was talking a lot about what Ars does and how it feels to be a dinky
review site in a tough world. "Even though we do not avail ourselves
of these unsolicited opportunities when they come our way, this whole
debacle has convinced me that Ars needs a disclosure page wherein we
list any potential conflicts of interest our authors have relating to
the subject matter we cover. Look for it in the next month or so."

Disclosure and transparency is good.

-- 
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Leland Jackson]

Q: Why are there rules in congress against our legislators receiving 
gifts from lobbyist?  A: Can anyone say "Quid Pro Quo":

http://www.answers.com/topic/quid-pro-quo

Regards,

LelandJ

Ted Roche wrote:

>On 12/28/06, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Is MSFT paying bloggers to say nice things?
>>
>>
>>
>
>"Do you really think Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal goes to
>some secret underground Apple Store to buy his hot new iPod to review
>a month before it's even announced? Do you think hardware review sites
>sneak into processor fabs late at night to gain access to hardware
>samples that won't be on retail shelves for months? Do you really
>think they're sending all of that stuff back? Some are, some aren't,
>and to be honest, I have no idea if Mossberg keeps the top-secret
>stuff he's sent or not..."
>
>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061228-8514.html
>
>  
>



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Stephen the Cook]

Ed Leafe <> 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.  The manufacturer,
M$, provided the equipment and set it properly for the tests to be
evaluated.  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 ;-> 




Stephen Russell
DBA / .Net Developer

Memphis TN 38115
901.246-0159

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided
missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.27/602 - Release Date: 12/25/2006
10:19 AM
 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ed Leafe]

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




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Stephen the Cook]

Ed Leafe <> wrote:
> 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. 

Probably.
 
>> 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. 

No. I does require drivers for a all the peripherals correct?  And M$ forces
the various vendors to make them allowing the manufacturer to put the
sticker for the OS on the computer right?  

Because of the driver possible miss configuration or lack of a driver for
some aspect of the laptop, M$ has set one up and it's all good.  
 
>> 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 unconsciously.  

Not even close in a comparison to the reality at hand.  You can attempt to
load Vista on any x86 hardware and YMMV.  Ram, processor, video card are all
big factors to the successful running of the software, wouldn't you agree?
Because there is a large mix of these M$ cleared that as a SMART advertising
expense.  Heck they won't pay anything to VFP so why not spend all that cash
on the new VISTA.  Hehehehe. 


>   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.  

Do I think you cross the ethics line for providing the package loaded for
the reviewer?   No!  If there was a 100 dollar bill in the DVD drive and a
stock certificate between the screen and the keyboard, then yes.

If there is a statement that the reviewer has instructions on how to return
the device after the review period is over, even better.  If M$ or Apple
will just expense the non returned devices as advertising well that is SOP.


Consumer reports considers themselves as an independent reviewer because
they purchase everything they test.  All other reviews could be skewed by
free content.  

I use to review some software for our local computer user group.  Some of
the manufacturers gave it free others requested that you uninstall it or
purchase it because it was shareware priced.   
  

Stephen Russell
DBA / .Net Developer

Memphis TN 38115
901.246-0159

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided
missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.0/610 - Release Date: 12/30/2006
2:59 PM
 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ed Leafe]

On Dec 31, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Stephen the Cook wrote:

> Not even close in a comparison to the reality at hand.  You can  
> attempt to
> load Vista on any x86 hardware and YMMV.  Ram, processor, video  
> card are all
> big factors to the successful running of the software, wouldn't you  
> agree?
> Because there is a large mix of these M$ cleared that as a SMART  
> advertising
> expense.

I guess you missed the part where these laptops where expressly  
*not* sent to the bloggers for review purposes. They went out of  
their way to make it clear that there was absolutely no requirement  
that a review of any sort be done, much less published. It was a gift  
in every sense of the word.

Publications regularly review software, and invite the companies to  
show it off in its best light. Big packages such as SQL Server or  
Oracle aren't reviewed by sending off a disk and having an  
inexperienced reviewer try to figure it out; instead, the companies  
send teams with experience and the necessary hardware to install,  
configure, and optimize the setup. When the review is concluded, the  
publication keeps neither the software nor the hardware - nor do they  
keep the techs.

Anyway, we're back to discussing whether this move was OK for  
Microsoft, when that isn't the issue at all. It's as though I want to  
talk about congressmen accepting freebies from lobbyists being wrong,  
and you keep talking about how lobbyists are smart to offer freebies  
to legislators.

> Do I think you cross the ethics line for providing the package  
> loaded for
> the reviewer?   No!  If there was a 100 dollar bill in the DVD  
> drive and a
> stock certificate between the screen and the keyboard, then yes.

Oh. So $100 is an ethical no-no, but a $2K+ laptop is just hunky- 
dory. Do you teach your kids that if a stranger offers you $100 to  
get in the car with him, don't do it, but if he offers you a state-of- 
the-art laptop, it's OK?

Sorry, but all your attempts at focusing on Microsoft's ethics  
doesn't distract me from the main point of this discussion: any  
blogger who accepted this gift and didn't immediately disclose that  
fact in their writings is unethical.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Rick Schummer]

...>> you don't succeed in business by being ethical.<<

Ed, are you saying you can only succeed by being unethical? Or that there are 
more factors in play
including being ethical to be successful?


Rick
White Light Computing, Inc.

www.whitelightcomputing.com
www.rickschummer.com
586.254.2530 - office
586.254.2539 - fax
  


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Leafe
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 12:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

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




[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ed Leafe]

On Dec 31, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Rick Schummer wrote:

> ...>> you don't succeed in business by being ethical.<<
>
> Ed, are you saying you can only succeed by being unethical? Or that  
> there are more factors in play
> including being ethical to be successful?

No, I'm saying that ethics alone does not determine your success.  
You succeed by dominating a market, whether your product is better  
than the competition or not, or whether you act ethically or not.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[john harvey]

Here's a great place to by Vista - It's only $50.00 for a full version of
Vista Business. (Wonder how long they'll be in business)

http://www.softwaremedia.com/category/1359.html

John

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Rick Schummer
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 1:39 PM
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

...>> you don't succeed in business by being ethical.<<

Ed, are you saying you can only succeed by being unethical? Or that there
are more factors in play
including being ethical to be successful?


Rick
White Light Computing, Inc.

www.whitelightcomputing.com
www.rickschummer.com
586.254.2530 - office
586.254.2539 - fax
  


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Leafe
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 12:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

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




[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Stephen the Cook]

Ed Leafe <> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Rick Schummer wrote:
> 
>> ...>> you don't succeed in business by being ethical.<<
>> 
>> Ed, are you saying you can only succeed by being unethical? Or that
>> there are more factors in play including being ethical to be
>> successful?
> 
>   No, I'm saying that ethics alone does not determine your success.
> You succeed by dominating a market, whether your product is better
> than the competition or not, or whether you act ethically or not. 

What a limited view of life.  Success is not a measure of #1 or you’re a
looser.   

Stephen Russell
DBA / .Net Developer

Memphis TN 38115
901.246-0159

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided
missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date: 12/31/2006
12:47 PM
 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Stephen the Cook]

Ed Leafe <> wrote:
>   I guess you missed the part where these laptops where expressly
> *not* sent to the bloggers for review purposes. They went out of
> their way to make it clear that there was absolutely no requirement
> that a review of any sort be done, much less published. It was a gift
> in every sense of the word.   

Missed that point when made.  
> 
>   Publications regularly review software, and invite the companies to
> show it off in its best light. Big packages such as SQL Server or
> Oracle aren't reviewed by sending off a disk and having an
> inexperienced reviewer try to figure it out; instead, the companies
> send teams with experience and the necessary hardware to install,
> configure, and optimize the setup. When the review is concluded, the
> publication keeps neither the software nor the hardware - nor do they
> keep the techs.   

Maybe someone could chain up Ellison instead of letting him go back?
hehehehehe

>   Oh. So $100 is an ethical no-no, but a $2K+ laptop is just hunky-
> dory. Do you teach your kids that if a stranger offers you $100 to
> get in the car with him, don't do it, but if he offers you a
> state-of- the-art laptop, it's OK?   

If you think so.

>   Sorry, but all your attempts at focusing on Microsoft's ethics
> doesn't distract me from the main point of this discussion: any
> blogger who accepted this gift and didn't immediately disclose that
> fact in their writings is unethical.   

Why?  What ethics do bloggers have?  Swift Boaters come to mind.  Blogging
is just hot air for the most part.  Some people are so prolific that you
have to think how they have the time to spew as much as they can on a multi
sections for a day.  

Do you want to see a "fine print law" enacted for truth in blogs?  Come on
Ed, you have to get out of your fairy land and back to real life.  Bloggers
are usually self funded, they don't have editors who can oversee inaccurate
statements and in general they are all about a personal agenda/ego that you
either follow them or not.  This is all in comparison to professional
writers with a variety of publications

Stephen Russell
DBA / .Net Developer

Memphis TN 38115
901.246-0159

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided
missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date: 12/31/2006
12:47 PM
 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ed Leafe]

On Jan 1, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Stephen the Cook wrote:

>>  No, I'm saying that ethics alone does not determine your success.
>> You succeed by dominating a market, whether your product is better
>> than the competition or not, or whether you act ethically or not.
>
> What a limited view of life.  Success is not a measure of #1 or  
> you’re a
> looser.

You like jumping from topic to topic, don't you?

We were talking about success in business. You know, bottom-line  
stuff. Not success in life. Geez.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ed Leafe]

On Jan 1, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Stephen the Cook wrote:

> Missed that point when made.

Well, uh, that was the whole focus of the discussion. Kinda makes it  
hard to discuss things when one party isn't aware of what is being  
discussed.

> Why?  What ethics do bloggers have?  Swift Boaters come to mind.   
> Blogging
> is just hot air for the most part.  Some people are so prolific  
> that you
> have to think how they have the time to spew as much as they can on  
> a multi
> sections for a day.

There are bloggers and there are bloggers. Just like there are  
newspapers and there are newspapers. You don't hold the National  
Enquirer to the same standards as the NY Times or even the NY Daily  
News. The bloggers who regularly cover tech issues and who have  
serious followings have a different standard than someone who signs  
up for a free Xanga account.

> Do you want to see a "fine print law" enacted for truth in blogs?   
> Come on
> Ed, you have to get out of your fairy land and back to real life.

Oooh, nice straw man. No one called for enacting any laws, did they?

The point is that the readers need to know about potential conflicts  
like this if they are to have any chance of determining credibility.  
Ted's call for disclosure is a big step in the right direction.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Yeah, a long time ago I had that viewpoint..

Nowadays I believe it’s a combination of family and friends and whether you
can look yourself in the eyes in the morning...
Don't get me wrong, you need enough income to pay the bills for the
lifestyle you choose, but there are more important things then money. 


Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.virgilslist.com
http://www.tccutlery.com
http://www.bierschwale.com
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Stephen the Cook
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 2:28 PM
To: 'ProFox Email List'
Subject: RE: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

Ed Leafe <> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Rick Schummer wrote:
> 
>> ...>> you don't succeed in business by being ethical.<<
>> 
>> Ed, are you saying you can only succeed by being unethical? Or that 
>> there are more factors in play including being ethical to be 
>> successful?
> 
>   No, I'm saying that ethics alone does not determine your success.
> You succeed by dominating a market, whether your product is better 
> than the competition or not, or whether you act ethically or not.

What a limited view of life.  Success is not a measure of #1 or you’re a
looser.   

Stephen Russell
DBA / .Net Developer

Memphis TN 38115
901.246-0159

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided
missiles and misguided men." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

http://spaces.msn.com/members/srussell/

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date: 12/31/2006
12:47 PM
 



[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [NF] Oooo, isn't Vista shiny? (paid to blog positively?)

[Ted Roche]

On 12/28/06, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is MSFT paying bloggers to say nice things?

Not very well, imo.

"Wait, bloggers can keep the free laptops after all: Microsoft"

http://apcmag.com/4895/wait_bloggers_can_keep_the_free_laptops_after_all_microsoft

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ydpr8a

-- 
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.