Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Isaac_K_Rabinovitch
From: Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Where is my MSC 5.0
Message-ID: <1249@cup.portal.com>
Date: Tue, 3-Nov-87 13:20:29 EST
Article-I.D.: cup.1249
Posted: Tue Nov  3 13:20:29 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Nov-87 02:29:43 EST
References: <1926@uwmacc.UUCP> <7736@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 23
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.1472


Bill Davidsen:
->I see nothing wrong with advertizing a product when it's in beta test.
->It lets the customer know that there is a reason to wait. I do object to
->taking orders to finance software development (I know at least one
->company which started that way).
The problem isn't that companies advertise products that haven't passed
QA.  The problem is that there's no way from looking at the advertising
to distinguish companies who products are behind schedule from the purveyors
of vaporware.  Incidentally, even "reputable" companies have been known
to advertise products that don't even exist as specifications, just to
take the winds of their competitors sails.

Honest software advertising would indicate the planned release date instead
of always implying that product already exists.  This breaks with Madison
Avenue tradition and also cause the company some embarassment when dates
slip, but it would raise the most customers' trust in the company.  Of course,
the leading MS-DOS software companies have always had a "we don't care, we
don't have to" approach.

Isaac Rabinovitch
Disclaimer:  Just because I think you're wrong, doesn't
             mean I don't think you're a fun person!
:-)