CompuServe Thread

Some questions for the reader: —————————— Should a consumer accept a performance evaluation story from people who repeatedly fail to paint an accurate image of issues in question? Look at what ASDG has done recently: * Placed ads containing outright lies and/or claims based upon incomplete comparisons, completely misleading in content. * Released datasheets containing completely absurd attributions of no capability at all to competitors, using a technique of not mentioning any features that are specific or unique to other products but rather tilting the comparison towards the specific methodology Morph Plus uses. The problem here is that it is made to look like the other methods are not useful or competitive, when in fact they are quite competitive and in some cases actually outperform Morph Plus. * Posted a "Fair compare" animation where a poorly done morph from a competitor's product was contrasted with a most carefully done reprise and presented as supposedly reasonable and representative examples of likely end-results of the two products, when in fact that was not even remotely the case. Do you object if companies defend themselves when unjustly accused of poor performance? * GVP was rated as having no capabilities in ASDG's sheets. They responded and at least one network user complained about the whole event. We agree it's not very nice 'round here right now, but point out that GVP didn't start this up. You should be complaining directly to ASDG, if you have complaints to make. It's not fair to turn to someone who has just been punched in the nose and critisize them for punching back, at least in our view it's not. * GVP was the victim of the "Fair Compare" animation atrocity perpetrated by Perry Kivolowitz of ASDG, a totally biased and unfair exercise in ethics-free marketing. * Black Belt was represented as missing many capabilities that we do indeed have in ASDG's sheets. * Both Black Belt and GVP were maligned by the untruths in the ASDG Morph <continued>