Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Who are these bleating "average users", who are competent enough to use a
>> computer, but too dumb to resist the FUD? Certainly not you, or users on
>> this list, or members of your family?
>
> Everyone falls prey to some extent to FUD.  It's unavoidable.  Humans
> are set up that way.

This argument is now in the realm of "unprovable", and definitely off-topic. 
My personal opinion is that Windows won the OS war because at the time, it 
was a product that was superior (from "average" users' POV) to everything 
else.

> Ask the folks that publish "negative" political campaign ads what their
> REAL numbers are in polls versus when they run "positive" ones.

Are you saying this because you know I don't know anyone in the "negative" 
political campaign ads business?

> We're wired to have emotional responses, and to REMEMBER those
> responses, to NEGATIVE things -- survival of the fittest type stuff -- 
> in a much stronger (the so-called "reptilian brain") way than positive
> things.

I've heard a theory that states the exact opposite. It's why you quickly 
forget the bad things the astrologist predicted about your future, and only 
remember the positive things. The brain "blocks" the memories that create 
negative emotions.

> It's been proven time and time again, telling someone "Don't vote for
> that guy, he's dangerous!"  Works far better than, "Vote for this guy
> because he's better."

Proven by whom? Do you have references?

> Now we have
> "deregulation" in our telephone system here in the U.S. which has led to
> three major players, and a "race to the bottom" as far as quality of
> technology, and quality of service.  We got what we asked for.

Do you want to go back to the days where you could not connect equipment not 
authorized by Bell Telephone, to the telephone line? When you couldn't own 
your phone equipment, but had to rent it from Bell? Finally, do you think 
it's a problem that after Bell was broken down into Baby Bells, your started 
spending less on your phone bill?

> (When you can run a national ad campaign with a cellular phone tech
> saying "Can you hear me now?  Good!" and people are still willing to buy
> that low level of quality and LAUGH at the commercials, that's just sad.

You are comparing POTS to cellular. Why not also blaim bad TV reception on 
deregulation of the US telephone system?

>> Google has manipulated the search engine market -- by creating a better
>> search engine.
>
> Has anyone else noticed it's not QUITE as good as it once was, lately?
>
> Some people are really gaming their system to get really irrelevant and
> stupid stuff to show up as the top results for searches that are quite
> unrelated.

This was bound to happen. Still, Google beats the pants off everyone else.

>> The point is, you cannot make people buy something against their will, no
>> matter how much you spend on marketing. Otherwise, there would be ads on 
>> TV,
>> selling pink mini-skirts to Hell's Angels.
>
> Oh yes you can.  Making it ILLEGAL not to buy something gets the
> majority to buy.
>
> (Automotive insurance would be a good example in most areas of the world.)

I said, "no matter how much you spend on marketing". I'm sure that the 
government of North Korea can make the North Koreans buy anything they're 
told.

>> "Hi. Billy Mays here, for Pink Mini Skirts for Hell's Angels...."
>
> Heh heh... that guy is set for a lifetime of $19.95 offers on late night
> TV.  Not such a bad gig, since they probably pay him pretty well.
>
> His voice is so damn attention-getting, it's amazing.

True, true. :)  I like him better (hate him less?) than the "Sham-Wow" guy.

Anyway, to get back to the topic, I have not heard any convincing arguments 
on companies intentionally "building in obsolescence" into their products.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist