Openbytes_-_Bing_only_gets_3%_aft

Goblin · External Since: Jul 23, 2009 Posts: 238

A look at despite what Microsoft imply, Bing is not performing
(according to Netapps)

Now if, as some allege Netapps has a MS bias, Bing really is in trouble.

Of course Bing is old news, its only because we had a "Ballmer
performance" at the CES, that this "product" which Microsoft praise gets
a closer look.

http://openbytes.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/bing-only-gets-3-after-all-m...osofts-

--
Goblin - bytes4free RemoveThis @googlemail.com
The blog of Goblin! - http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com -

bbgruff · External Since: May 26, 2005 Posts: 233

Goblin wrote:

> A look at despite what Microsoft imply, Bing is not performing
> (according to Netapps)
>
> Now if, as some allege Netapps has a MS bias, Bing really is in trouble.

Hi Goblin -
I am one who has talked about "bias" wrt Netapps in the past, but to put the
record straight, not in terms of "pro-MS bias". Rather, that there is/was
a skewing of the sampling, so that their results (allegedly worldwide) were
very much weighted to the U.S. market.

Last Summer IIRC they corrected this to a large extent, by (I understand)
doing some proportioning sums on their results. One effect of that was
that the their reported "share" for Macs worldwide about halved!

As far as Bing is concerned, Bing was reported at one time as having
a "share" in the order of 10% soon after its launch.
Netapps now shows it as 3.27%, and historically never greater than 3.52%.

You can see how that came about if you look here:-
http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_engine-na-daily-20080701-20100109

That shows the North American results, and Bing at roughly 10%.
Click on "Worldwide" though on the same page, and you are looking at
something like 3.5%.
That latter is roughly in line with Netapps, and imo demonstrates
the "strong bias towards U.S. use" that Netapps used to have, but now has
done its best to correct.

> Of course Bing is old news, its only because we had a "Ballmer
> performance" at the CES, that this "product" which Microsoft praise gets
> a closer look.
>
>
http://openbytes.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/bing-only-gets-3-after-all-m...osofts-
>

amicus_curious · External Since: Mar 06, 2007 Posts: 151

"Goblin" wrote in message

>A look at despite what Microsoft imply, Bing is not performing

Well, I do not know about what you say about Microsoft advocates in
general, but I have constantly discussed the market potential of desktop
Linux without much comment on whether it is a technically good or
technically poor product. That is likely to be irrelevant.

You totally miss the essence of technical product marketing though. You
sneer at Microsoft’s promotional efforts and quote meaningless anecdotes of
others that are equally non-reflective of the situation.

Search engines, like client OS before them, have become non-interesting as
emerging products in the information environment. No one is going to budge
Google’s share of that market in any meaningful way just as no one is going
to budge Microsoft’s market in the desktop OS arena or in the office
automation area either. It cannot be done.

Read up on the Boston Consulting Group’s product positioning matrix at
http://www.netmba.com/strategy/matrix/bcg/

Consider that Bing and its predecessors are pretty much classic “Dog”
category products that, to unsophisticated eyes such as yours, appear to be
among life’s losers, but, as the article cited alludes to near its end, “a
business unit that is a dog may be helping other business units gain a
competitive edge”. A professor I had at MSU’s Eli Broad College of Business
was more colorful in pointing out that a dog was useful for barking at
intruders into your home (business area) and threatening to bite them if
they came in further.

Consider that in the light of Google’s rather lame efforts to promote SASS
initiatives into office automation and even OS. What we have are two giant
homeowners setting a variety of barking dogs out to warn off any direct
invasion of home turf. This is a classic marketing chess move, not something
that has any real meaning on the commercial stage.

You need to broaden your understanding, then you wouldn’t waste your time
and appear so petulant

Goblin · External Since: Jul 23, 2009 Posts: 238

bbgruff wrote:
> Goblin wrote:
>
>> A look at despite what Microsoft imply, Bing is not performing
>> (according to Netapps)
>>
>> Now if, as some allege Netapps has a MS bias, Bing really is in trouble.
>
> Hi Goblin -
> I am one who has talked about "bias" wrt Netapps in the past, but to put the
> record straight, not in terms of "pro-MS bias". Rather, that there is/was
> a skewing of the sampling, so that their results (allegedly worldwide) were
> very much weighted to the U.S. market.
>
> Last Summer IIRC they corrected this to a large extent, by (I understand)
> doing some proportioning sums on their results. One effect of that was
> that the their reported "share" for Macs worldwide about halved!
>
> As far as Bing is concerned, Bing was reported at one time as having
> a "share" in the order of 10% soon after its launch.
> Netapps now shows it as 3.27%, and historically never greater than 3.52%.
>
> You can see how that came about if you look here:-
> http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_engine-na-daily-20080701-20100109
>
> That shows the North American results, and Bing at roughly 10%.
> Click on "Worldwide" though on the same page, and you are looking at
> something like 3.5%.
> That latter is roughly in line with Netapps, and imo demonstrates
> the "strong bias towards U.S. use" that Netapps used to have, but now has
> done its best to correct.
>
>> Of course Bing is old news, its only because we had a "Ballmer
>> performance" at the CES, that this "product" which Microsoft praise gets
>> a closer look.
>>
>>
> http://openbytes.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/bing-only-gets-3-after-all-m...osofts-
>

Thanks for that info! Im doing a followup shortly with some other Bing
info that has come to light.

Cheers!

Kind regards.

--
Goblin - bytes4free.RemoveThis@googlemail.com
The blog of Goblin! - http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com -

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3651

Goblin wrote:

> Thanks for that info! Im doing a followup shortly with some other
> Bing info that has come to light.

Did it come from the same "reliable sources" Spamowitz quotes?

Goblin · External Since: Jul 23, 2009 Posts: 238

amicus_curious wrote:
>
> "Goblin" wrote in message
>
>> A look at despite what Microsoft imply, Bing is not performing
>
> Well, I do not know about what you say about Microsoft advocates in
> general, but I have constantly discussed the market potential of desktop
> Linux without much comment on whether it is a technically good or
> technically poor product. That is likely to be irrelevant.
>
> You totally miss the essence of technical product marketing though. You
> sneer at Microsoft’s promotional efforts and quote meaningless anecdotes
> of others that are equally non-reflective of the situation.
>
> Search engines, like client OS before them, have become non-interesting
> as emerging products in the information environment. No one is going to
> budge Google’s share of that market in any meaningful way just as no one
> is going to budge Microsoft’s market in the desktop OS arena or in the
> office automation area either. It cannot be done.
>
> Read up on the Boston Consulting Group’s product positioning matrix at
> http://www.netmba.com/strategy/matrix/bcg/
>
> Consider that Bing and its predecessors are pretty much classic “Dog”
> category products that, to unsophisticated eyes such as yours, appear to
> be among life’s losers, but, as the article cited alludes to near its
> end, “a business unit that is a dog may be helping other business units
> gain a competitive edge”. A professor I had at MSU’s Eli Broad College
> of Business was more colorful in pointing out that a dog was useful for
> barking at intruders into your home (business area) and threatening to
> bite them if they came in further.
>
> Consider that in the light of Google’s rather lame efforts to promote
> SASS initiatives into office automation and even OS. What we have are
> two giant homeowners setting a variety of barking dogs out to warn off
> any direct invasion of home turf. This is a classic marketing chess
> move, not something that has any real meaning on the commercial stage.
>
> You need to broaden your understanding, then you wouldn’t waste your
> time and appear so petulant
>

As soon as I saw the handle I knew it would be negative. Perhaps COLA
readers would like to go and see my comments sections where you typed
before you thought then simply disappeared when backed into a corner. I
can quote them here if you prefer.

Lets look at what you claim:

Quote "but I have constantly discussed the market potential of desktop"
This may come as a shock, but the article was nothing to do with
you...if you can stand to hear that read on.

Quote "and quote meaningless anecdotes"

Is that one? I quote what people are saying. If you think peoples
opinion is meaningless, thats for you to justify not me.

Quote "No one is going to budge Google’s share of that market"

and thats the whole point. Who is Microsoft talking to when they
suggest otherwise with their marketing campaigns and endless promotion
then? Force it down peoples throats enough and you'll get the message
across eventually, akin to propaganda used throughout history.

Quote "You need to broaden your understanding, then you wouldn’t waste
your time and appear so petulant"

Thanks for your concern, as I say others can check how you repeatedly
comment on my blog, have your "challenges" answered and then disappear
off with your tail between your legs when backed into a corner. I don't
see anyone responding in support of your tactics or opinion and I would
hazard a guess that its not me being seen as petulant due to the growing
readership of my site.

I look forward to your return on my blog. I do enjoy answering your
challenges and then you failing to answer mine.

@Everyone else:

Please don't take my word for it, you can visit my blog and see this
person in action and make your own mind up.

--
Goblin - bytes4free.DeleteThis@googlemail.com
The blog of Goblin! - http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com -

Goblin · External Since: Jul 23, 2009 Posts: 238

DFS wrote:
> Goblin wrote:
>
>
>> Thanks for that info! Im doing a followup shortly with some other
>> Bing info that has come to light.
>
> Did it come from the same "reliable sources" Spamowitz quotes?
>
>
>

If you mean Roy, I wouldn't know. Why not read it if you are
interested? I do quote the sources so you can judge for yourself.

--
Goblin - bytes4free.DeleteThis@googlemail.com
The blog of Goblin! - http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com -

amicus_curious · External Since: Mar 06, 2007 Posts: 151

"Goblin" wrote in message

> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>> "Goblin" wrote in message
>>
>>> A look at despite what Microsoft imply, Bing is not performing
>>
>> Well, I do not know about what you say about Microsoft advocates in
>> general, but I have constantly discussed the market potential of desktop
>> Linux without much comment on whether it is a technically good or
>> technically poor product. That is likely to be irrelevant.
>>
>> You totally miss the essence of technical product marketing though. You
>> sneer at Microsoft’s promotional efforts and quote meaningless anecdotes
>> of others that are equally non-reflective of the situation.
>>
>> Search engines, like client OS before them, have become non-interesting
>> as emerging products in the information environment. No one is going to
>> budge Google’s share of that market in any meaningful way just as no one
>> is going to budge Microsoft’s market in the desktop OS arena or in the
>> office automation area either. It cannot be done.
>>
>> Read up on the Boston Consulting Group’s product positioning matrix at
>> http://www.netmba.com/strategy/matrix/bcg/
>>
>> Consider that Bing and its predecessors are pretty much classic “Dog”
>> category products that, to unsophisticated eyes such as yours, appear to
>> be among life’s losers, but, as the article cited alludes to near its
>> end, “a business unit that is a dog may be helping other business units
>> gain a competitive edge”. A professor I had at MSU’s Eli Broad College of
>> Business was more colorful in pointing out that a dog was useful for
>> barking at intruders into your home (business area) and threatening to
>> bite them if they came in further.
>>
>> Consider that in the light of Google’s rather lame efforts to promote
>> SASS initiatives into office automation and even OS. What we have are two
>> giant homeowners setting a variety of barking dogs out to warn off any
>> direct invasion of home turf. This is a classic marketing chess move, not
>> something that has any real meaning on the commercial stage.
>>
>> You need to broaden your understanding, then you wouldn’t waste your time
>> and appear so petulant
>>
>
> As soon as I saw the handle I knew it would be negative. Perhaps COLA
> readers would like to go and see my comments sections where you typed
> before you thought then simply disappeared when backed into a corner. I
> can quote them here if you prefer.
>
Negative? In regard to what? Your silly blog, of course. Anything else?
You pretend to be open and neutral yourself but no one is fooled.

> Lets look at what you claim:
>
> Quote "but I have constantly discussed the market potential of desktop"
> This may come as a shock, but the article was nothing to do with you...if
> you can stand to hear that read on.
>
Well, that contradicts your opening statement: "if, as the Microsoft
advocates claim, a low market share is indicative of a poor product, then
Bing is doomed "

Here you certainly imnply that "Microsoft advocates", a generalization that
can include myself, are making a claim that is not supported by any evidence
you present.

> Quote "and quote meaningless anecdotes"
>
> Is that one? I quote what people are saying. If you think peoples
> opinion is meaningless, thats for you to justify not me.
>
You cite a bunch of comments from undocumented sources, pure and simply.
You provide those cites to substantiate your case. You need to justify that
the cites are from sources that would have some bearing on your position,
rather than from someone as biased as yourself.

> Quote "No one is going to budge Google’s share of that market"
>
> and thats the whole point. Who is Microsoft talking to when they suggest
> otherwise with their marketing campaigns and endless promotion then?
> Force it down peoples throats enough and you'll get the message across
> eventually, akin to propaganda used throughout history.
>
Well, you are just plain stupid then. We agree on the result of the effort
insofar as Google share will not be affected, but you miss the real purpose
of the initiative. Because it has no effect on share, you say it is a sign
of Microsoft impotence, but that is just because you have a flawed
understanding of the mechanisms at work here.

> Quote "You need to broaden your understanding, then you wouldn’t waste
> your time and appear so petulant"
>
> Thanks for your concern, as I say others can check how you repeatedly
> comment on my blog, have your "challenges" answered and then disappear off
> with your tail between your legs when backed into a corner. I don't see
> anyone responding in support of your tactics or opinion and I would hazard
> a guess that its not me being seen as petulant due to the growing
> readership of my site.
>
Oh you are too quick to congratulate yourself! Be careful and do not injure
yourself with your self-administed back patting!

> I look forward to your return on my blog. I do enjoy answering your
> challenges and then you failing to answer mine.
>
Well, your blog is somewhat limited in readership, I sense, and so I chose
to reproduce my remarks here, which has a wider readership.

> @Everyone else:
>
> Please don't take my word for it, you can visit my blog and see this
> person in action and make your own mind up.
>
Keep begging.

Ofeelya Pratt · External Since: Jan 09, 2010 Posts: 1

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:07:57 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

> "Goblin" wrote in message
>
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>> "Goblin" wrote in message
>>>
>>>> A look at despite what Microsoft imply, Bing is not performing
>>>
>>> Well, I do not know about what you say about Microsoft advocates in
>>> general, but I have constantly discussed the market potential of desktop
>>> Linux without much comment on whether it is a technically good or
>>> technically poor product. That is likely to be irrelevant.

>> As soon as I saw the handle I knew it would be negative. Perhaps COLA
>> readers would like to go and see my comments sections where you typed
>> before you thought then simply disappeared when backed into a corner. I
>> can quote them here if you prefer.
>>
> Negative? In regard to what? Your silly blog, of course. Anything else?
> You pretend to be open and neutral yourself but no one is fooled.

What a joke that blog is.
Goblin appears to be another Schestowitz wannabe.

> You cite a bunch of comments from undocumented sources, pure and simply.
> You provide those cites to substantiate your case. You need to justify that
> the cites are from sources that would have some bearing on your position,
> rather than from someone as biased as yourself.

Looks like Roy Schestowitz taught him well.

>> Please don't take my word for it, you can visit my blog and see this
>> person in action and make your own mind up.
>>
> Keep begging.

Don't waste your time.
Been to his blog and all I see are a collection of ultra extremists
patting each other on the ass.
It's probably one of the worst blogs on the net in fact.

Goblin · External Since: Jul 23, 2009 Posts: 238

amicus_curious wrote:
>
> "Goblin" wrote in message
>
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>> "Goblin" wrote in message
>>>
>>>> A look at despite what Microsoft imply, Bing is not performing
>>>
>>> Well, I do not know about what you say about Microsoft advocates in
>>> general, but I have constantly discussed the market potential of
>>> desktop Linux without much comment on whether it is a technically
>>> good or technically poor product. That is likely to be irrelevant.
>>>
>>> You totally miss the essence of technical product marketing though.
>>> You sneer at Microsoft’s promotional efforts and quote meaningless
>>> anecdotes of others that are equally non-reflective of the situation.
>>>
>>> Search engines, like client OS before them, have become
>>> non-interesting as emerging products in the information environment.
>>> No one is going to budge Google’s share of that market in any
>>> meaningful way just as no one is going to budge Microsoft’s market in
>>> the desktop OS arena or in the office automation area either. It
>>> cannot be done.
>>>
>>> Read up on the Boston Consulting Group’s product positioning matrix
>>> at http://www.netmba.com/strategy/matrix/bcg/
>>>
>>> Consider that Bing and its predecessors are pretty much classic “Dog”
>>> category products that, to unsophisticated eyes such as yours, appear
>>> to be among life’s losers, but, as the article cited alludes to near
>>> its end, “a business unit that is a dog may be helping other business
>>> units gain a competitive edge”. A professor I had at MSU’s Eli Broad
>>> College of Business was more colorful in pointing out that a dog was
>>> useful for barking at intruders into your home (business area) and
>>> threatening to bite them if they came in further.
>>>
>>> Consider that in the light of Google’s rather lame efforts to promote
>>> SASS initiatives into office automation and even OS. What we have are
>>> two giant homeowners setting a variety of barking dogs out to warn
>>> off any direct invasion of home turf. This is a classic marketing
>>> chess move, not something that has any real meaning on the commercial
>>> stage.
>>>
>>> You need to broaden your understanding, then you wouldn’t waste your
>>> time and appear so petulant
>>>
>>
>> As soon as I saw the handle I knew it would be negative. Perhaps COLA
>> readers would like to go and see my comments sections where you typed
>> before you thought then simply disappeared when backed into a corner.
>> I can quote them here if you prefer.
>>
> Negative? In regard to what? Your silly blog, of course. Anything
> else? You pretend to be open and neutral yourself but no one is fooled.
>
>> Lets look at what you claim:
>>
>> Quote "but I have constantly discussed the market potential of desktop"
>> This may come as a shock, but the article was nothing to do with
>> you...if you can stand to hear that read on.
>>
> Well, that contradicts your opening statement: "if, as the Microsoft
> advocates claim, a low market share is indicative of a poor product,
> then Bing is doomed "
>
> Here you certainly imnply that "Microsoft advocates", a generalization
> that can include myself, are making a claim that is not supported by any
> evidence you present.
>
>> Quote "and quote meaningless anecdotes"
>>
>> Is that one? I quote what people are saying. If you think peoples
>> opinion is meaningless, thats for you to justify not me.
>>
> You cite a bunch of comments from undocumented sources, pure and simply.
> You provide those cites to substantiate your case. You need to justify
> that the cites are from sources that would have some bearing on your
> position, rather than from someone as biased as yourself.
>
>> Quote "No one is going to budge Google’s share of that market"
>>
>> and thats the whole point. Who is Microsoft talking to when they
>> suggest otherwise with their marketing campaigns and endless promotion
>> then? Force it down peoples throats enough and you'll get the message
>> across eventually, akin to propaganda used throughout history.
>>
> Well, you are just plain stupid then. We agree on the result of the
> effort insofar as Google share will not be affected, but you miss the
> real purpose of the initiative. Because it has no effect on share, you
> say it is a sign of Microsoft impotence, but that is just because you
> have a flawed understanding of the mechanisms at work here.
>
>> Quote "You need to broaden your understanding, then you wouldn’t waste
>> your time and appear so petulant"
>>
>> Thanks for your concern, as I say others can check how you repeatedly
>> comment on my blog, have your "challenges" answered and then disappear
>> off with your tail between your legs when backed into a corner. I
>> don't see anyone responding in support of your tactics or opinion and
>> I would hazard a guess that its not me being seen as petulant due to
>> the growing readership of my site.
>>
> Oh you are too quick to congratulate yourself! Be careful and do not
> injure yourself with your self-administed back patting!
>
>> I look forward to your return on my blog. I do enjoy answering your
>> challenges and then you failing to answer mine.
>>
> Well, your blog is somewhat limited in readership, I sense, and so I
> chose to reproduce my remarks here, which has a wider readership.
>
>> @Everyone else:
>>
>> Please don't take my word for it, you can visit my blog and see this
>> person in action and make your own mind up.
>>
> Keep begging.

Quote "Negative? In regard to what? Your silly blog, of course.
Anything else? You pretend to be open and neutral yourself but no one is
fooled."

Can we confirm if you are replying here or on my blog or both?
The same "stupid blog" that you repeatedly return to? Open - yes.
Neutral? well when Microsoft offer a product that IMO is a good as or
better than an alternative that I use then yes as well.

Its hard to be neutral if I am commenting about MS products which do not
meet the grade compared to alternatives. Its hard to be neutral when
faced with allegations like GPL violations or the Plurk incident. What
do you want me to do? Not mention these? When I find that an MS
product lacks in comparison to an alternative, should I lie and say that
the MS version is just as good?

Nobody is neutral since we use the products we find are the best for
ourselves.

Quote "Well, that contradicts your opening statement: "if, as the
Microsoft advocates claim, a low market share is indicative of a poor
product, then Bing is doomed "

Here you certainly imnply that "Microsoft advocates", a generalization
that can include myself, are making a claim that is not supported by any
evidence you present. "

So you call yourself a Microsoft Advocate? Yes? If so then the
allegation of neutrality is silly, if you are not, then whats your problem?

The evidence is all over COLA, Twitter, Identi.ca and IRC. The common
argument goes like this "Well, Linux only has 1%" I bet that comments
been made here at least once in the last day.

Quote "You cite a bunch of comments from undocumented sources, pure and
simply. You provide those cites to substantiate your case. You need to
justify that the cites are from sources that would have some bearing on
your position, rather than from someone as biased as yourself."

Get a grip, I run a blog not court case papers. Last time I checked,
everyone knew blogs were personal opinion. People can judge for
themselves as to the worth of sources. If we are to go down your route
then the only quotes we would have would be from Microsoft, Canonical et
al. Personal opinion (like yours too) is judged by the person reading it.

Quote "Well, you are just plain stupid then. We agree on the result of
the effort insofar as Google share will not be affected, but you miss
the real purpose of the initiative. Because it has no effect on share,
you say it is a sign of Microsoft impotence, but that is just because
you have a flawed understanding of the mechanisms at work here. "

Maybe I have to go a little slower. If what Microsoft says and the
reality are difference (as per the article) then why should we believe
anything that is said? That was the point. Market share at the end of
the day is irrelevant if the product works for you.

Quote "Oh you are too quick to congratulate yourself! Be careful and do
not injure yourself with your self-administed back patting! "

Thats why I invite others to look and see for themselves.

Quote "Keep begging. "

I don't need to. The only reason I need to bring the readership issue
up is that people like you through unsubstantiated claims at me which
are general. The only begging I do is when people like yourself and the
other "regulars" here make a claim and refuse to provide evidence. When
they do (as you have in a small way here) I am happy to respond and justify.

--
Goblin - bytes4free RemoveThis @googlemail.com
The blog of Goblin! - http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com -

Goblin · External Since: Jul 23, 2009 Posts: 238

Ofeelya Pratt wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:07:57 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> "Goblin" wrote in message
>>
>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>> "Goblin" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> A look at despite what Microsoft imply, Bing is not performing
>>>> Well, I do not know about what you say about Microsoft advocates in
>>>> general, but I have constantly discussed the market potential of desktop
>>>> Linux without much comment on whether it is a technically good or
>>>> technically poor product. That is likely to be irrelevant.
>
>>> As soon as I saw the handle I knew it would be negative. Perhaps COLA
>>> readers would like to go and see my comments sections where you typed
>>> before you thought then simply disappeared when backed into a corner. I
>>> can quote them here if you prefer.
>>>
>> Negative? In regard to what? Your silly blog, of course. Anything else?
>> You pretend to be open and neutral yourself but no one is fooled.
>
> What a joke that blog is.
> Goblin appears to be another Schestowitz wannabe.
>
>
>> You cite a bunch of comments from undocumented sources, pure and simply.
>> You provide those cites to substantiate your case. You need to justify that
>> the cites are from sources that would have some bearing on your position,
>> rather than from someone as biased as yourself.
>
> Looks like Roy Schestowitz taught him well.
>
>
>
>>> Please don't take my word for it, you can visit my blog and see this
>>> person in action and make your own mind up.
>>>
>> Keep begging.
>
> Don't waste your time.
> Been to his blog and all I see are a collection of ultra extremists
> patting each other on the ass.
> It's probably one of the worst blogs on the net in fact.

Another new handle here?

Just what exactly is ultra extremist?

The bit where I said the 360 was the best of three consoles?

The part where I called XP a solid system which had a strong userbase
refusing to give it up?

How about my belief in a proprietary software model?

or my anti-piracy stance?

Maybe for everyone here you can highlight exactly what is extremist?

--
Goblin - bytes4free.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com
The blog of Goblin! - http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com -

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3651

Goblin wrote:

> Just what exactly is ultra extremist?

The bit where you said "www.boycottnovell.com is the most interesting and
informative site on the web."

Goblin · External Since: Jul 23, 2009 Posts: 238

DFS wrote:
> Goblin wrote:
>
>> Just what exactly is ultra extremist?
>
>
> The bit where you said "www.boycottnovell.com is the most interesting and
> informative site on the web."
>
>
>
>

and thats the sole basis of the claim...which may I add is made by DFS
and not the person making the allegation.

So because I find BN interesting I am extremist? There are many people
who must think the same since we see sites/blogs repeatedly trying to
insult him. The Wintrolls here are obsessed. Informative? Yes again,
despite what you think of his opinion the links he provide certainly are
interesting (just like here)

If you are trying to suggest that the comment somehow says I support
everything he says, please actually look at my opinions and see how they
differ from Roy. I show it often enough. Roys site for me opened
doorways to further reading and just like ANY site you don't agree with
everything.

So DFS whats the tactic now? Why not go down the "boring" route? That
hasn't been used by you Wintrolls today.

--
Goblin - bytes4free RemoveThis @googlemail.com
The blog of Goblin! - http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com -

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3651

Goblin wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Goblin wrote:
>>
>>> Just what exactly is ultra extremist?
>>
>>
>> The bit where you said "www.boycottnovell.com is the most
>> interesting and informative site on the web."
>
> and thats the sole basis of the claim...which may I add is made by DFS
> and not the person making the allegation.
>
> So because I find BN interesting I am extremist?

You don't find it just interesting... you find it the most interesting.

You don't find it just informative... you find it the most informative.

Out of all the millions of sites on the Web?

You're an extremist anti-MS idiot if you believe that - and you do and you
are.

> There are many
> people who must think the same

Maybe, but I've never seen anyone but you say his site is "the most
interesting and informative site on the web".

> So DFS whats the tactic now? Why not go down the "boring" route? That
> hasn't been used by you Wintrolls today.

There's no tactic. You asked what about you is extremist, and I told you.

Also, you seem to have a thing going with amicus where you claim you have
neutral or balanced viewpoints on operating systems, and he shows over and
over again that nothing could be further from the truth.

William Poaster · External Since: Dec 23, 2009 Posts: 4

Goblin wrote:

> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>> "Goblin" wrote in message
>>
>>> A look at despite what Microsoft imply, Bing is not performing
>>
>> Well, I do not know about what you say about Microsoft advocates in
>> general, but I have constantly discussed the market potential of desktop
>> Linux without much comment on whether it is a technically good or
>> technically poor product. That is likely to be irrelevant.
>>
>> You totally miss the essence of technical product marketing though. You
>> sneer at Microsoftÿs promotional efforts and quote meaningless anecdotes
>> of others that are equally non-reflective of the situation.
>>
>> Search engines, like client OS before them, have become non-interesting
>> as emerging products in the information environment. No one is going to
>> budge Googleÿs share of that market in any meaningful way just as no one
>> is going to budge Microsoftÿs market in the desktop OS arena or in the
>> office automation area either. It cannot be done.
>>
>> Read up on the Boston Consulting Groupÿs product positioning matrix at
>> http://www.netmba.com/strategy/matrix/bcg/
>>
>> Consider that Bing and its predecessors are pretty much classic ´Dog¡
>> category products that, to unsophisticated eyes such as yours, appear to
>> be among lifeÿs losers, but, as the article cited alludes to near its
>> end, ´a business unit that is a dog may be helping other business units
>> gain a competitive edge¡. A professor I had at MSUÿs Eli Broad College
>> of Business was more colorful in pointing out that a dog was useful for
>> barking at intruders into your home (business area) and threatening to
>> bite them if they came in further.
>>
>> Consider that in the light of Googleÿs rather lame efforts to promote
>> SASS initiatives into office automation and even OS. What we have are
>> two giant homeowners setting a variety of barking dogs out to warn off
>> any direct invasion of home turf. This is a classic marketing chess
>> move, not something that has any real meaning on the commercial stage.
>>
>> You need to broaden your understanding, then you wouldnÿt waste your
>> time and appear so petulant
>>
>
> As soon as I saw the handle I knew it would be negative. Perhaps COLA
> readers would like to go and see my comments sections where you typed
> before you thought then simply disappeared when backed into a corner. I
> can quote them here if you prefer.
>
> Lets look at what you claim:
>
> Quote "but I have constantly discussed the market potential of desktop"
> This may come as a shock, but the article was nothing to do with
> you...if you can stand to hear that read on.
>
> Quote "and quote meaningless anecdotes"
>
> Is that one? I quote what people are saying. If you think peoples
> opinion is meaningless, thats for you to justify not me.
>
> Quote "No one is going to budge Googleÿs share of that market"
>
> and thats the whole point. Who is Microsoft talking to when they
> suggest otherwise with their marketing campaigns and endless promotion
> then? Force it down peoples throats enough and you'll get the message
> across eventually, akin to propaganda used throughout history.
>
> Quote "You need to broaden your understanding, then you wouldnÿt waste
> your time and appear so petulant"
>
> Thanks for your concern, as I say others can check how you repeatedly
> comment on my blog, have your "challenges" answered and then disappear
> off with your tail between your legs when backed into a corner. I don't
> see anyone responding in support of your tactics or opinion and I would
> hazard a guess that its not me being seen as petulant due to the growing
> readership of my site.
>
> I look forward to your return on my blog. I do enjoy answering your
> challenges and then you failing to answer mine.
>
> @Everyone else:
>
> Please don't take my word for it, you can visit my blog and see this
> person in action and make your own mind up.
>
amicus_curious (Bill Weisgerber, though just watch the troll deny it)
always was a dishonest M$ shill.

amicus_curious · External Since: Mar 06, 2007 Posts: 151

"Goblin" wrote in message

> amicus_curious wrote:
>
> Can we confirm if you are replying here or on my blog or both?

Well, I originally replied on your blog, of course, but then I decided that
my golden words would go largely unread if I just left it at that, so I cut
and pasted the reply onto the COLA thread. Do you see something wrong in
that? Or even worth comment?

> The same "stupid blog" that you repeatedly return to? Open - yes.
> Neutral? well when Microsoft offer a product that IMO is a good as or
> better than an alternative that I use then yes as well.
>
Well, goblin, you are, in spite of the comments from others here, a cut
above the conventional COLA FOSS sycophant, so I have bothered to reply on
your blog to eliminate the cascade of rat, troll, Bill Weisberger, liar,
etc., replies from these fools, thereby doing a service to others who do not
then need to sort through them. But on occasion I feel obliged to let the
others in on the thought.

> Its hard to be neutral if I am commenting about MS products which do not
> meet the grade compared to alternatives. Its hard to be neutral when
> faced with allegations like GPL violations or the Plurk incident. What do
> you want me to do? Not mention these? When I find that an MS product
> lacks in comparison to an alternative, should I lie and say that the MS
> version is just as good?
>
Well, you continue to miss the point. You snipped the main theme of my
reply, out of ignorance, I suppose, so that makes your own comment rather
redundant. What you were doing wrong, to restate my point, is implying that
Microsoft's pursuit of a marketing initiative for Bing is a failed attempt
to alter the market when it was never that at all and has been rather
successful in its true purpose.

> Nobody is neutral since we use the products we find are the best for
> ourselves.
>
> Quote "Well, that contradicts your opening statement: "if, as the
> Microsoft advocates claim, a low market share is indicative of a poor
> product, then Bing is doomed "
>
> Here you certainly imnply that "Microsoft advocates", a generalization
> that can include myself, are making a claim that is not supported by any
> evidence you present. "
>
> So you call yourself a Microsoft Advocate? Yes? If so then the allegation
> of neutrality is silly, if you are not, then whats your problem?
>
An advocate in the sense of a defender of the truth certainly. I do not
claim neutrality either, it is your lame efforts to pretend to be analytical
that I call into question.

> The evidence is all over COLA, Twitter, Identi.ca and IRC. The common
> argument goes like this "Well, Linux only has 1%" I bet that comments
> been made here at least once in the last day.
>
That Linux has some 1% of user share is hardly an "argument", that is an
evidentiary fact. The implications drawn from that are arguments and the
implication that Linux is thereby a poor product is, I think, not often
drawn. Rather the implication is that, after such a long time and after
such a change in the nature of the market itself in terms of product life
cycles, to have attained a mere 1% in acceptance is highly indicative that
there is no future in that product and not even a past, since the 1% is the
high water mark of its history. That brands the product as a complete and
utter failure in terms of marketing. What it means technically about Linux
is unknown.

> Quote "You cite a bunch of comments from undocumented sources, pure and
> simply. You provide those cites to substantiate your case. You need to
> justify that the cites are from sources that would have some bearing on
> your position, rather than from someone as biased as yourself."
>
> Get a grip, I run a blog not court case papers. Last time I checked,
> everyone knew blogs were personal opinion. People can judge for
> themselves as to the worth of sources. If we are to go down your route
> then the only quotes we would have would be from Microsoft, Canonical et
> al. Personal opinion (like yours too) is judged by the person reading it.
>
Well, in the same vein, I could certainly cite DFS' opinion to demonstrate
that yours is faulty. Or a number of others. Is that compelling to you?
Certainly not. You could structure your claims in a simpler way and just
present the logic of your thesis rather than adding the words of various
rabble as you are doing.

-