[SunRescue] [OT] Sun TV commercials

[scohen - Stephen Cohen]

Gregory,

>Hmm, ok, so buying Sun == Loose Canon.  Offhand, I'd 
>say that's a bad association to be making.

Brilliant!  I wish I'd have drilled this deeply into this.

The ad is, indeed, not only ambiguous, but contradictory.  Superficially, it
wants to say "Sun is OK."  Yet, it conveys the message that it takes a
"loose cannon" to take such a risk.

On the other hand, it may also be 'tongue in cheek' about the association
with a Sun purchase to loose cannon.  Could the ad be poking fun at the
unqualified who may think of this as risky?

Regards,
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Leblanc [mailto:gleblanc at cu-portland.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 1:13 PM
To: rescue at sunhelp.org
Subject: RE: [SunRescue] [OT] Sun TV commercials


On 21 Dec 2000 17:27:00 -0600, scohen - Stephen Cohen wrote:
> David Rouse writes:
> >Sometimes the only meaningful information 
> >is buried in technical papers.
> 
> This is not by accident.  It is actually by design.
> 
> Those who understand what is found in the technical papers are very
> typically NOT those who make the purchasing decisions.  Sun isn't
marketing
> its wares to those who know - it is addressing a far, far larger audience.
> 
> There used to be a saying "No one has ever been fired for purchasing IBM
> computers."  While this is no longer true, it underscores that, all too
> often, the quality of a purchasing decision is made by unqualified
> observers.

I thought of quoting this in my first message... :)

> If, for example, a large financial institution had purchased something
other
> than IBM just a few years ago, its stock price may have suffered because
> Wall Street may have seen a huge risk that the institution's data
processing
> would no longer be stable.
> 
> Sun (and other companies) is trying to leverage the perception (one which
it
> created several years ago) that it 'powers the internet'. The unstated
> message being conveyed is that business can consider Sun to be a low-risk
> purchase decision.

So, let me get this straight...  Sun is trying to be seen as the sure,
safe computing purchase...  Sun runs an add, in which some is called a
(and I quote) "loose canon".  This "loose canon" purchases Sun
computers.  Hmm, ok, so buying Sun == Loose Canon.  Offhand, I'd say
that's a bad association to be making.

> Here is another example of how certain brain-dead decisions are made.
> Despite the fact that Apache has hordes of developers working all over the
> world to incorporate the latest advances into this web service, my company
> purchased Netscape Enterprise Server and runs it on WindowsNT!  The
> executive making the decision to reject Apache (on Linux, DEC Alpha, Sun
> SPARC & Sun on Intel) said that it is too risky to rely on something that
> isn't supported.

At least they're not using IIS (that's idiots information server) on NT.
:)  

> One can lead horses to water . . .

But cannot force them to drown in it.  It's good to know I don't work
for the only company with stupid politics.

    Greg
_______________________________________________
Rescue maillist  -  Rescue at sunhelp.org
http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue