This really is more of a cultural misunderstanding than a brain burp and nobody was sucky, so it seems to fit in here:
One of the functions of our software is to drive a specific type of hardware device. We don't make any hardware or even sell it, but there are a dozen or so other companies which do make these devices.
We always let manufacturers have a free test license of our product and access to autobuilds (which are precursors to beta versions) so they have an opportunity to make sure that their things work with our stuff. Some care enough to take the time to test, others prefer not testing and blaming us if an issue comes up.
A few years ago, we were approached by a Japanese company who were were getting into the business. They had a prototype device which had a very nifty extra feature and were hoping our software would drive it and support the feature.
No problem. We gave them their free license. They loaned us a prototype. It was quite complicated but between them and us, we managed to get the everything working happily. They were going to unveil their device at a trade show in the US and asked us to review their English marketing materials. The first thing we noticed was that they had given the device a model name: the Dog.
So Mark got back to them and let them know that calling a mechanical device a "dog" doesn't really make it sound very reliable. Just like one wouldn't name a car model the the Lemon.
The device makers seemed incredulous, "But we thought Americans LIKE dogs! Because they are loyal and reliable. That doesn't make sense."
Mark had to concede that they were absolutely correct on all points, but for whatever reason, calling a machine a "dog" wasn't complimentary. He showed them the entry on the online dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dog
Luckily they chose to believe him and they had plenty of time to change the model name to something else before they unveiled it.
But, you know, they were right. Why the heck DO we use the word "dog" to describe an unreliable machine? It really doesn't make any sense.
One of the functions of our software is to drive a specific type of hardware device. We don't make any hardware or even sell it, but there are a dozen or so other companies which do make these devices.
We always let manufacturers have a free test license of our product and access to autobuilds (which are precursors to beta versions) so they have an opportunity to make sure that their things work with our stuff. Some care enough to take the time to test, others prefer not testing and blaming us if an issue comes up.
A few years ago, we were approached by a Japanese company who were were getting into the business. They had a prototype device which had a very nifty extra feature and were hoping our software would drive it and support the feature.
No problem. We gave them their free license. They loaned us a prototype. It was quite complicated but between them and us, we managed to get the everything working happily. They were going to unveil their device at a trade show in the US and asked us to review their English marketing materials. The first thing we noticed was that they had given the device a model name: the Dog.
So Mark got back to them and let them know that calling a mechanical device a "dog" doesn't really make it sound very reliable. Just like one wouldn't name a car model the the Lemon.
The device makers seemed incredulous, "But we thought Americans LIKE dogs! Because they are loyal and reliable. That doesn't make sense."
Mark had to concede that they were absolutely correct on all points, but for whatever reason, calling a machine a "dog" wasn't complimentary. He showed them the entry on the online dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dog
Luckily they chose to believe him and they had plenty of time to change the model name to something else before they unveiled it.
But, you know, they were right. Why the heck DO we use the word "dog" to describe an unreliable machine? It really doesn't make any sense.
Comment