Summary: A theoretic look into the minds of people who promote Microsoft and Apple (not as a job)

THERE is something rather astounding about what Murdoch and Koch have managed to do with their billions of dollars. By using PR tactics they managed to rally millions of gullible people (e.g. Tea Party) who now do their bidding and further promote their causes -- causes which are of course harmful to those who promote them. We wrote about this a couple of hours ago, also in relation to the Gates Foundation -- that which has got the people cheering for an operation that robs them; it even prevents Bill and Warren from having to pay tax.

"The PR industry seems to have mastered some skills which are required for putting the abused over at the abuser's side."In a similar vein, there are many people out there who associate their character with some brand name/s such as Facebook, Apple, or NASCAR. For Microsoft, there is this competitive thing called the MVP programme, which is just exploiting people and not giving them anything of value in return (says a Microsoft MVP this year). The PR industry seems to have mastered some skills which are required for putting the abused over at the abuser's side. It's really disturbing to see this.

As new examples of this, consider the sad reality behind Vista 7 and watch how a Microsoft booster that the company compensates in all sorts of ways (the gentle bribes) spins product defects and even helps Microsoft guard its image:

As I mentioned last week, Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 is in the midst of full public release.

The reader who mailed us this pointer added: "Service Pack 1 released with defects. This show that there must be public testing 100%." Why would anyone voluntarily test Vista 7 SP1, which only Microsoft executives will benefit from financially?

Similarly, amid the push for Apple antitrust we keep seeing that a lot of Apple customers are scrambling to defend the company. We are talking about Apple apologists like Daniel Eran Dilger and MG Siegler, who find ways to spin an abuse as benefit to the market and not just to Apple's bottom line. CNN gives that coverage too (CNN loves promoting big American brands, just like itself). To quote part of the spin:

These new rules will put many developers between a rock and a hard place. So why is Apple doing this? There are three reasons, all related.

The reasoning is so weak that one may easily assume that it's repetition of Apple's PR staff. Talking points. Why are people promoting abusive companies? Are they basing their own image on the image of those whom they buy from? Affiliating oneself with ideas (or even a political party) would make far more sense, although both political parties and corporations now use the same tactics and often the very same PR agencies. They turn companies into some kind of sects or sets of ideology, at least perceptually, adding concepts like "loyalty" (to a brand, not a person), "love" (e.g. T-shirts with the trademarks alongside hearts in them), and social status (see Apple's advertisements). ⬆