WE last summarised the mischiefs of Waggener Edstrom (Microsoft marketing front) in this post and we also explained why the Gartner Group is a fraud (not in the literal sense). One of our readers has unearthed the following E-mail which shows Microsoft, Gartner and Waggener Edstrom coordinating and managing the perceptions and publications that come out of Gartner.
From page 34 of this set of evidence[PDF] (which comes from the Vista collusion trial [1, 2, 3]), here is an E-mail that Jamin Spilzer, Group Manager at Microsoft, sent to Brad Goldberg, a General Manager[DOC] at Microsoft. Waggener Edstrom was sent a copy.
From: Jamin Spilzer
sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:30 PM
to: Brad Goldberg
CC: Martha Sherman; Lisa Worthington; Laura Dodd (Waggener Edstrom)
Subject: Steveb recap Draft
[...]
David Smith commented that Gartner will not bash MS if MS chooses to slip Vista. Steve gave the analysts an explanation of how MS will Measure Vista success. First is market measures such as absolute units (should be bigger), percentage of Install base (small percentage, regardless of 'success'). Second Steve keyed three audiences he wasts to see adopt Vista: developers, enterprises and consumer word of mouth (a "je ne sais qua") that reaffirms Windows at the center of computing....
David Smith is one of the participants from Gartner. He is just one among four. They personally met Jamin Spilzer, Brad Goldberg, and Steve Ballmer (all from Microsoft). They agreed not to criticise Windows Vista under the condition named above. Also in attendance was Neil MacDonald (of Gartner), who you can see 'flirting' with Steve Ballmer in this recent video. ⬆
"Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage."
Yes, the same EPO that routinely uses "data protection" and "GDPR" as a pretext for hiding or covering up its corruption and white-collar crimes (it even uses that as an excuse for refusing to obey courts' orders)
Comments
AlexH
2008-12-10 20:39:44
That made my day :D