🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jjvohINN87h@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> oly@emerson.physics.ubc.ca writes:
>In article <MS-C.727314477.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> Mark  
>Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:
>> Anyone read the Business Week article about NeXT yet?  Looks grim.

BW did so much spinning on this article, its slanderous.   
Compare the NeXT article to the Borland article on the facing page:

THE FACTS:
NeXT posts its first profit, has big sales of its hot new NeXTSTEP 486 
product which is two years ahead of the competitors and has a 1992 growth
that outpaced the workstation market growth.

Borland is loosing market share and revenues, announces a 11 million 
dollar operating loss. is beat to the market by Microsoft and its stock 
is at a 52 week low.

THE PICTURE:
BW presents an unflattering, candid, off-center, mainly unfocused picture
of Jobs.

Kahn carefully poses, with an artificial smile, for a great publicity shot.

THE TITLE:
"NeXTs BLACk BOX MAY BE THE NEXT TO GO"
  (A RUMOR denied by Jobs!!!  This title can easily be misunderstood as
meaning that NeXT is next to go.)
  
"A BRUISED BORLAND IS UP AND SWINGING"
  (Another rumor, creating quite a different perception.)


I think the real problem is, as BW points out, that NeXT doesn't buy ads 
in BW, while its competitors certainly do.  To present a positive article
about NeXT could potentially result in some of those competitors pulling
ads from BW.

I'm pissed and I'm writing a letter to BW.  Maybe if they receive enough
letters they will publish one in the Reader's report.

Don
Hypersight Inc.