It doesn’t matter what side of the fence you sit on, Microsoft has a terrible PR problem at the minute. Hot off the news that Windows 7 will apparently ship in late 2009, we have a Microsoft PR guy slagging off Apple’s PR efforts..
Fair enough, but it’s a bit rich describing Apple’s makeover of the Apple TV as being lipstick on a pig when your job is PR and you’re utterly failing to convince people to switch to Vista. Yup, Vista has been out for two years and yet most customers are still buying Windows XP.
Now I understand that aspect is more to do with sales and marketing then PR, but still – with a company like Microsoft that has managed to amass such a bad PR presence, adding a PR company into the mix is the definition of lipstick. Unless, of course, we’re meant to wonder how bad their image would be if they didn’t have this expensive PR company keeping their name out of the dirt.
It’s all interesting reading though and provides a little insight I think into the shadowy world of P.R. Where abounds cut-throats and rapscallions!
On one side, we have a company that encourages open and honest blogging from all its staff – even its PR company. On the other, a company that guards information jealously, sues rumour sites to shut them down, and only talks publicly once or twice a year.
It’s funny to think that it’s Microsoft that’s the good guy here. Or the “less evil” guy, at least.
Why does blogging = good? And does open and honest blogging excuse you from being a convicted monopolist?
Apple talks publicly probably 8-10 times a year if you’re talking about the heads of state. Moreso if you’re talking about people further down the food chain.
And the suing of the rumour site was due to the misappropriation of trade secrets i.e. intellectual property. You all for freedom of information in this case or Apple being the only company not allowed to protect trade secrets?
>Why does blogging = good?
Good point. I thought you believed it was? Am I mistaken?
I think it’s a good thing as it allows a two way dialog between a company and its customers. I certainly found it very helpful, and made better products as a result – that was a win-win for the company.
>And does open and honest blogging excuse you from being a convicted monopolist?
Haha.. Go on, bring up Godwin’s Law 😉
Is being a convicted monopolist a bad thing? What about being a non-convicted monopolist? (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/03/2135259)
>You all for freedom of information in this case or Apple being the only company not allowed to protect trade secrets?
In the case of the rumour site being sued, that’s a tricky one. I think it made a lot of people like Apple less. I don’t think it was necessary for Apple to handle it in that way, when it was a rumour site run by people who loved Apple and just wanted to share information.
I think there’s boundaries that were crossed by Thinksecret in offering monetary compensation for people who broke their NDAs and released trade secrets. Apple wanted to know who broke their contracts, Think secret refused. Don’t mistake things here – Apple didn’t have a problem with Thinksecret, they had a problem with people. Journalistic protections exist when the information is for the public good – but why would whistleblower protections include the protection of contract breakers in anything that was not a health or safety issue. It was a miscarriage of justice the way things happened and weaseling behind whistleblower protection was just wrong as it devalues the protections they enshrine.
I don’t think Godwin’s Law applies here. Does being open and honest about blogging excuse you from breaking the law? I don’t think it does.
I’d love to know if ThinkSecret really did walk away from incident with a cheque.. I wish people would threaten me like that.. “Here, you… you… just take this money.”
I mentioned Godwin’s Law as it appeared you were using the monopolist statement to overrule anything that Microsoft might possibly do that was in any way good.
“Office 2008 for Mac is good!”
“No, it can’t be – they are a convicted monopolist!”
“XBox Live is the only really gaming network solution that works!”
“No, it can’t be – they are a convicted monopolist!”
“Exchange is one of the most – if not the most – powerful mail management systems in the world”.
“No, it can’t be – they are a convicted monopolist!”
“Microsoft encourages blogging, which is a good thing and encourages openness”
“No, it can’t be – they are a convicted monopolist!”
I’d take exception with the Exchange comment. It’s possibly the most powerful groupware solution out there, but in terms of mail management it’s like keeping your letters in a shoebox with “letters” on the front. (and yes, I’m using Outlook on Exchange every day at the moment…)
Have a thought to the context. Microsoft makes some good products, but they also make some absolute dogs. This is over and above their breaking of the law.
They are throwing money at their XBox franchise in order to force it into being a success. This has nothing to do with their lawbreaking. But it is funny when they are handed their ass by Nintendo anyway….
Office 2008 is Office 2008. I’ll reserve judgement til I’ve used it in anger.
You brought up the idea that blogging is good and therefore Microsoft is less evil than Apple. To my mind, evil actions include cheating or lying. Microsoft did both of these. And yes, all companies probably do but it’s a bit cheap to make a comparison to a convicted monopolist, done for cheating and lying, who got out of serious punitive changes by bribing the Republican government and then claim they are ‘less evil’ than Apple.
I understand you’re into Microsoft in a big way. That’s okay, it doesn’t make you a bad person.