You speak of me being "oblivoius" - oblivoius to what? The intense popularity of Jay-Z and Beyoncé?
The original comparisons the Lone Deranger was making. He cites a few fairly famous examples of products and rather than reply to the actual comparisons he made, you changed the topic of each and laughed them off. He mentions the popularity of Microsoft products (referring to their quality verses Apple's), and you bring up Microsoft vs. Commodore.
As opposed to Commodore products? Me defending Microsoft... this is a rare occasion.
Commodore wasn't the topic of the comparison, but changing means you can dodge replying to the point.
Then again when Deranger mentioned VHS...
Should we have stuck with the home film projector? And since when is VHS popular anymore anyway?
It was fairly obvious Deranger was referring to
VHS vs. Betamax, as it's a marketing example cited on these forums often. Yet, why did you bring up film projectors? To distract us. Then you mention DVD having supplanted VHS at this point in time. Once again -- not relevant to the conversation.
How does this muddy the conversation?
It takes the thread into a tangent rather than focusing on his point?
People are free to choose whatever music they want - in this case, lots of people choose Jay-Z and Beyoncé.
Yes, and they might have chosen a different hip-hop/R&B artist had they not been lost in the flood of hype surrounding those two. You missing my point, consumer choice is directly influenced by consumer information, in the absence of knowledge, and public will choose from what they believe there is.
Oh give me a break. I live in Chicago, where there is surely lots of hip-hop and rap, but its because thats what the public wants. And it isn't hard to find other choices. We have dozens and dozens of radio stations to choose from, covering all genres pretty darn well. Nobody is forced to listen to any particular artist, and new alternative radio stations often fail here. But not by their own choosing. You're complaining that your faovirte artist doesn't get equal air-time to Beyoncé in Chicago.
Uh, do you have anything to back up this statement, cause you don't know where I am or what music I listen to. I have yet to state an opinion on this type of music in this thread.
So are you saying you want regulated equal air time to every artist, even if the public doesn't want that?
No, I have not stated any wishes in this regard, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
You're not going to change the African-American community's mind because you force them to listen to Garth Brooks. They'll just turn the radio off, and not buy advertiser's products.
Wow, more gross generalization about me. Hope you're not a fortune teller for your day job.
This is just your opinion of what is good or bad.
You posted this in reply to this passage of my post.
SeaFox said:
"The Radio has to offer" is the operative phrase here. If a good band can't get on the radio (due to lack of a major label contract and payola) people most often will not even know they exist, and therefore will choose another band of possible lesser talent instead.
Since I don't state an opinion in this passage, I'm not sure how you can relate this to my musical taste.
What would be the alternative here - all the major stations of Chicago switching to whatever genre of music you prefer?
No, I suggest the stations play a wide range of music that their listeners want, have people bring in CD's and play something no ones ever heard before, perhaps guest DJ's, ect. Rather than stick to a corporate and soft-money fueled playlist that limits public exposure to an anointed few.
This is how many college stations operate.
In the case of IE vs Netscape... well, people chose to use evil Microsoft software, what else did they expect? And the ability to install Netscape as an alternative was always there anyway.
You were oblivious.
People chose IE because it was already there. It shipped on their PC. Had they needed to get a web browser first thing, many would have made a different choice. At the time when IE started shipping with Windows, Netscape was the market leading browser. Why did IE suddenly start to gain marketshare? It was already there. People were new to the internet, didn't know what choices they had. Hey, IE is here and it works well enough, let's just use this.
Also, note that Netscape was not free. You had to pay for it. Microsoft's response to this threat of another company was to ship a competitor to their product for free. It doesn't matter if Microsoft loses money on a web browser they're developing but have no revenue from if they have dollars pouring in from the Windows/Office juggernaut. But Netscape only had a couple products, Navigator not getting sales put them out of business. And once Netscape was gone, Microsoft stopped developing IE. They didn't need to. The dragon was dead: England prevails. Note: when a company does what Microsoft did with actual products (as opposed to software) it's called
dumping, and it's illegal.
The market chose VHS... they had more options with VHS, cheaper players, better porn, and eventually equal or superior quality (and longer movie lengths). If there was absolutely no reason for the market to choose VHS, they wouldn't have.
I never said the was "no reason" to choose VHS. The fact that VHS one is more than the "quality" of the product was Lone Deranger's point.
I've had to go all the way back to the beginning of this thread of conversation to get back on track now that you've taken us so far off with your baseless attacks.
If their music is so terrible, why are they so popular. It's not like their songs are cheaper than anyone elses.
Popularity does not always equal quality or means is the right thing to do. MicroSoft products, VHS, cigarettes...... you get the idea.
The Lone Deranger was pointing our a fallacy in your logic. You have equated popularity with the quality of the musical group. You completely ignore all fundamentals of marketing. He then illustrates it with several examples of products that were popular despite poor quality and/or better alternatives being available.
- People choose Microsoft, that doesn't mean Windows is a quality product.
- People chose VHS, despite a better format being available.
- People choose to smoke, and spend a lot of money doing so on a product that probably costs manufacturers pennies to produce. (This was a bad example because people don't purchase cigarettes because of a value intrinsic to the tangible product. It's the psychological value, the chemical dependency that gives cigarettes their worth.)
- People build houses with nails generally, but using screws will create a house that is much more resilient to severe weather.
[*]People will buy music that is poor quality, rather than buy none at all.
