Linked by David Adams on Sun 24th Oct 2010 23:06 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Permalink for comment 446937
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-26
I guess this doesn't surprise me. I suppose if I owned Heinz Catsup, I wouldn't allow Hunts Catsup to be in my house.
I would. I know I am odd in that sense, but if my children like a competitor's product better then I wouldn't mind them using such. After all, their happiness is more important than some unhealthy pride.
Besides, I'd just use the opportunity to ask them why they prefer the competitor: is it looks or such that is only a matter of taste, or is it functionality that's better somehow or lacking.
It's pointless to deny things out of pride.
Sadly I don't think a damaged pride is the only potential victim here.
If a photographer caught one of Bill Gate's kids with, for example, a MacBook Pro or iPhone instead of a Win7 HP netbook or Windows Phone 7, then that could potentially be a PR disaster: "Even the Gates doesn't use Microsoft products"
They say you shouldn't by drugs off someone who isn't mashed themselves; it rather crude saying I know, but it illustrated this point perfectly. Why should consumers buy into the Microsoft brand if the heads of Microsoft don't themselves?
So yes, there will be a huge element of pride at play here. But they're also not looking to hand their competitors some easy promotion.