The only "attack" was based on the fact you are a principle of a company that sells a product which is totally non transparent to the readers here. It would be prudent to at least put a signature on your posts or in your user info letting people know this.
Oh stop it. Now we're going in a completely other direction aren't we. First it was misinterpreting the intent of my post completely and now we're back to the old saw about being a sales guy for some product. Every time you get pinned in a corner you pull that one out. Lets cut the bull ok. For once just admit you misread it.
If people don't know by now that I represent Coloreyes they are sleeping. Because it has been clear and transparent for a very long time, nor do I deny, obfuscate or disguise it in any way, and you make it a point, to make it a justification for dismissing any point I choose to make. Particularly if it allows you, in your own mind, to avoid facing a mistake you might have made.
Perhaps it's time you disclosed who pays you. There is no indication whether your sudden endorsement of "smart monitors" is because NEC pays you or you just get a warm glow from being a buddy of one of the monitor geniuses on the planet. Eizo had been making "smart monitors" for a very long time before NEC. But we suffered through years of 8 bits in 8 bits out until NEC. Suddenly high bit internal monitor luts work! They are not doing anything unique here so clearly you have a bias for some reason. Please disclose that here.
"Or does the software you come here to hock have a brain probe that reads the users mind about the luminance of both areas and can control the lighting of the viewing conditions on its own? Or you just want to go along with the rest of the lame color management vendors who suggest some arbitrary cd/m2 value they pull out of their butts, with no regard to viewing of the nearby print, causing so many to wonder WHY the print and display don't match?"
Why do you bother to make this stuff up. We have vehemently and repeatedly stated that we don't believe in a luminance target standard or a color temp standard. This mindset is rampant here and I consistently disagree. Check the record. And while your at it before you call us a "lame color management company" you should perhaps recall that we work with one of the world's monitor geniuses too and have a product that has shown consistent growth and gets it's share of rave reviews from not just the public but many consultants and large commercial printers who have committed to the product. You have not used it, you have not read the documentation that comes in the product, therefore you don't have a freakin clue what we recommend.
All of you reading this post should take note that very few manufacturers choose to participate in this forum and many others exactly because of this kind of behavior. I don't know about all of you but I appreciate a manufacture's perspective frequently and have found consultants to be just as mistaken as the rest of the world regardless of the product we are talking about. Using the fact that I represent a product as a means to discredit a post is a cheap shot and too often employed by Andrew. Now if he could show you examples of where I might have misled you just for the purpose of selling you something, that would be a different. But he can't.
Now if you don't care about manufacturers participating in forums like these let the Andrews of the world continue to take cheap shots.