Jim Polaski wrote in
<jpolaski-2D758F.12443806072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:

>Ah, so Apple paid Adobe, Wolfram, Luxology and others?

What would they pay them for? These companies would be motivated to
read their Apple scripts because it's free PR and Adobe for example
has an alliance with Apple that it has to be sensitive of (esp. in
light of Premiere becoming Windows-only, ahem). You really have no
concept of the significance of these kinds of corporate utterances, do
you?

In article <k9cjgvk3kurdq8ir01uqu2tbrd08v0ujdv[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Jim Polaski wrote in
> <jpolaski-2D758F.12443806072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>
> >Ah, so Apple paid Adobe, Wolfram, Luxology and others?
>
> What would they pay them for? These companies would be motivated to
> read their Apple scripts because it's free PR and Adobe for example
> has an alliance with Apple that it has to be sensitive of (esp. in
> light of Premiere becoming Windows-only, ahem). You really have no
> concept of the significance of these kinds of corporate utterances, do
> you?

Sure I do. In fact, I've probably seen more of this than you ever will,
having been in the advertising biz for the years I have. Yes, it can,
CAN be common. Often it is for mutual benefit. You guys though spin it
to a negative for all involved and negative to Macs.

--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget

In article <jpolaski-AB93F5.20473910072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>,
Jim Polaski <jpolaski[at]NOync.net> wrote:

> In article <k9cjgvk3kurdq8ir01uqu2tbrd08v0ujdv[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
> > Jim Polaski wrote in
> > <jpolaski-2D758F.12443806072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
> >
> > >Ah, so Apple paid Adobe, Wolfram, Luxology and others?
> >
> > What would they pay them for? These companies would be motivated to
> > read their Apple scripts because it's free PR and Adobe for example
> > has an alliance with Apple that it has to be sensitive of (esp. in
> > light of Premiere becoming Windows-only, ahem). You really have no
> > concept of the significance of these kinds of corporate utterances, do
> > you?
>
> Sure I do. In fact, I've probably seen more of this than you ever will,
> having been in the advertising biz for the years I have. Yes, it can,
> CAN be common. Often it is for mutual benefit. You guys though spin it
> to a negative for all involved and negative to Macs.

You forgot to mention that while companies will do things like this for
free PR, it's unlikely in this case because:

1. In both cases, the majority of their customers use Windows. So
they're basically alienating the larger portion of their customer base
by telling them they bought a slower machine - and that Macs work better.

2. Companies will generally share in PR type activities only as long as
they're not too specific. "We like this product because it does xyz" is
common. The specific claims made here ("The Mac is twice as fast in
running our software") would generally be out of bounds.

3. Luxology, in particular, has gone to great lengths to defend their
statement that the Mac is much faster. If it were a PR stunt, they'd
probably not do that.

Frankly, the whole idea that companies will alienate the majority of
their customers for a PR stunt is silly.

Jim Polaski wrote in
<jpolaski-AB93F5.20473910072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:

>In article <k9cjgvk3kurdq8ir01uqu2tbrd08v0ujdv[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Polaski wrote in
>> <jpolaski-2D758F.12443806072003[at]netnews.attbi.com>:
>>
>> >Ah, so Apple paid Adobe, Wolfram, Luxology and others?
>>
>> What would they pay them for? These companies would be motivated to
>> read their Apple scripts because it's free PR and Adobe for example
>> has an alliance with Apple that it has to be sensitive of (esp. in
>> light of Premiere becoming Windows-only, ahem). You really have no
>> concept of the significance of these kinds of corporate utterances, do
>> you?
>
>Sure I do. In fact, I've probably seen more of this than you ever will,
>having been in the advertising biz for the years I have.

That's not surprising. What do you do, insert coupon sheets into the
weekly shopper?