From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: SPA Data, was Gates Interview
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:43:49 GMT

In article <hatton.724382285@cgl.ucsf.edu> hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) writes:
>jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.085137.2160@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>>>I saw Will Zachmann speak last week in Houston. After is presentation, he
>...[edited]
>>>	Basically if XYZ corp reports to the SPA that they shipped/sold 10
>>>million units of Widgets++, then ABC corp, PDQ corp, and Ziff Davis are told
>>>that XYZ corp shipped 10 million copies of Widgets++.
>>>There is no verification of sales data from companies that report figures to
>>>the SPA. SPA data is only as accurate as the reporting company is honest. I
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>don't think I need to say any more about the integrity of corporations under
>>>FTC investigation.
>
>>Okay, the SPA must have been assimilated by MicroBorgSoft.  I'm noting
>>this piece of idiocy from Willi Z. so that when someone tries to claim
>>at some point that OS/2 software sales are strong or growing and uses
>>the SPA's figures we call all point out that the SPA issues only
>>unreliable data.  And all corporations whose initials are IBM lie all
>>the time, I guess. (BTW, do you trust *anybody* in business to tell the
>>absolute truth all the time?) 
>
>>Zachmania: (noun) the inability to think straight about anything having 
>>to do with OS's; to go off the deep end; to lose all credibility.
>
>Well, to give you the benefit of the doubt, you may have misinterpreted
>this line (flagged above) to mean that SPA is somehow "issuing unreliable
>data", although obviously the originating company would be issuing,
>SPA would merely be re-distributing, and not responsible for the
>data. Hence the snide point about assimilation goes out the window;
>he only implied that MS was supplying fudged data, which doesn't 
>mean that IBM-supplied data would necessarily be fudged; indeed
>many of us might choose to believe exactly the opposite. And it also
>has nothing to do with telling the absolute truth all the time, but
>thanks for bringing in another irrelevancy, it brightens the day.
> 
>Malloying: (aj) responding in a knee-jerk fashion to anything
>remotely anti-Microsoft. (See Sturgilling).
>
>-- 
>Tom Hatton
>hatton@cgl.ucsf.edu
>(415)-476-7986

No, no, no.  You miss the point.  (The Borg comment was a sarcastic jibe
at the image MS has around here; and there was a typo in the line about
IBM: is it the only that doesn't lie about sales date; that's what I
meant to type).

The question is this: if the SPA merelyissues numbers that it receives, and,
if, as Willi Z. asserts, such data is unreliable since SPA members just
report them, then whay on earth would anybody and any time or any place
ever bother with SPA figures?  I have no love of corporations large or
small; I have no doubt that, when it comes to honesty, all corporations
first filter 'reality' though PR machines before releasing data.  So, if
SPA numbers are so easily fudged, why would anyone bother using them?

By the way, by poking fun at Zachmann with the tag line about Zachmania,
I was poking fun at a public figure and its public persona.  It was not
personal, as your comment about 'Malloying' (which is quite modest by
Usenet flame standards, I agree) was.  I could define 'Hatton
(intransitive verb): 1) to miss the actual question and answer one of 
one's own making; or 2) to imitate someone else's jibes", but I won't.

jmalloy@hamilton.edu