Mai Excited about Validation!

[Madgun68]

"Maybe this is what Bill was referring to all along?"

MAYBE? Consumers shouldn't have to guess or search for insight in to the statements companies release.

[Madgun68]

You mean the same way you saw the future of gfx
chips when you spoke about Parhelia?

PS: It seems you saw the "future" quite late
compared to other ibm partners.

Don't forget to wash all that mud off your hands when you're done.

[Madgun68]

I guess I'm not the only one who wondered what the point to the article was, other than bringing out something that should be obvious to everyone living on this planet: PR statements are meant to put a positive light on a company or their products.

It might have proved to be a little more insightful had someone bothered to take the time to ask IBM themselves about their own program rather than contacting a software company (when the article is talking about what the program means to a HARDWARE developer.)

[Madgun68]

To me, it seemed that all the article was trying to do was slag off MAI and partners and make them look bad. The thing is, it is only validation, it said that in the annoucement. To me that says just exactly what your conclusion was. I dont see any missleading here, unless you at first interprtured the article incorrectly.

I can pretty much guess what brought this all about too:
Comment posted by Ben H. on Ann

[Madgun68]

I'm with redluma here, you are behaving very inappropriately considering that Targhan did his research and backed it up. He drew a conclusion, based on the evidence he uncovered, and delivered it in a concise and proper reporting method.

Wasabi was quoted as saying "companies need to prove that their technology is validated"

and

"This validation generally occurs as part of a side transaction between IBM and third-party vender"

What kind of proof? What occurs during this "side transaction?" Without knowing the details of either, how can one conclude that Mai's "..statements they make in their press release is more of spin.."

"may have just been a requirement for them to supply some of their chips to IBM"

MAY HAVE? I don't think anything more needs to be said after that.