Great to hear!

Simon,

Absolutely!

Absolutely, I think you make some very good points about marketing, and like Jeroen mentioned above, people expect more company honesty now – at least online.

Also, I’m very sorry about your problems. You always know where to find me.

But no, not for Microsoft. OK will shut up now.

BTW Robert, my blog and sites are closing this morning due to some death threats and a stalking issue. Thought I’d mention it. I’ll have to find a new online identity I guess.

Anyway, my point being that unless Microsoft PR campaigns convert to return on investment in dollars then they fail. All marketing plans need to fit with the organisational goals of the company – thus making a profit.

So I really fail to see how mentioning Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft is going to summon the devil incarnate. It’s almost voodoo marketing at that point.

Were all those browser bugs in IE good PR for IE or Microsoft? Hey we talked about them a lot… but I doubt it increased their market share. If anything, our conversations detracted and inspired people to try another better browser.

Its a little naive from a marketing perspective nowdays to assume that all conversation about you is beneficial. Customers talk between themselves, it’s no longer a simple one way advertising model like the television. Your brand is whatever we, the consumer, believes it to be – not what the company believes it to be. If we believe the product is crap then in our world it’s crap.

How many people are talking about the product isn’t the issue. Its bums on seats – how many people are converting, buying-into, adding to your revenue stream? The simple fact is that bad word of mouth is never going to help microsoft make money.

I know, I know – I’m sorry, I’m just a bit worked up about this…

And while I don’t really agree that this much bad PR is good for Microsoft, I admit that is better to spread knowledge and awareness of better products instead.

Let’s focus on the open web instead!

Ugh — I’m not mentioning IE8 again for a while. Like Carl Camera says, this is all just playing in Microsoft’s hands.

Yes, well, some people believe that all PR is good PR. Personally, I don’t. Marketing is naturally about getting a buzz around the product, but seeing that they changed the content in both cases, is to me an admittance that they were incorrect and out of line.

I doubt that getting a good amount of attention, like Microsoft have now, for how incorrect and appalling the marketing is, is exclusively a good thing.

And how did it work out with the Seinfeld ads? Not so good, did it? But still, lots of attention…

Regarding the Safari article: if you read the article, you can see that it is stated that both Safari 4 and upgraded versions of Internet Explorer can be uninstalled in Windows.

Doesn’t really make sense in the title itself, does it? But as opposed to the Microsoft marketing campaign, the facts were in the actual content.

Regarding Windows 7, which is just as irrelevant as Mac OS X Snow Leopard before it is officially released, it will offer you to uninstall IE (or come without it to begin with), but the dreaded IE rendering engine is still always present. Just as is WebKit with Mac OS X.

My belief is that any web browser should come with the rendering engine separately bundled, to seamlessly offer multiple versions and uninstalling.

Ida,

That is truly dreadful! “Thanks” for sharing.

O.M.G.I.G.P. – Internet Explorer 8

And Robert, if you are against being plainly incorrect, shouldn’t you change the title of your Safari article or at least update it to state that Windows 7 allows users to uninstall IE?

I completely agree. Anything incorrect will be called out right away, and by offering something good, you will earn credibility.

kimblim,

For me, it’s not about regular marketing-style, it’s about things being plainly incorrect; and, I find the last one outright offensive. And when it comes to Apple, at least I try to treat them just the same. Last example: Impossible to uninstall Safari 4 in Mac OS X – Apple pretty much follows suit with Microsoft.

mdmadph,

When it comes to Firefox and developer tools, any decent developer knows that Firebug is the best option out there. To me it’s not about what’s native (i.e. usually bulking up the web browser), it’s what’s easily available.

Besides, Firebug is the only extensible developer tool as well, which has led to some fantastic things like YSlow.

With Chrome: yeah, I don’t know about that customization part either.

And they’re still getting it wrong — I wouldn’t give Firefox a checkmark for developer tools (since you largely have to install them separately) and I would give a checkmark to Chrome (since it has the webkit inspector).

Also, I wouldn’t give Chrome a checkmark for “customization” — what can you customize in Chrome?

First, make a good product. Second, be passionate and honest about it. No need to attack your competitors. Just make a better product.