Jack Stein,

04-Oct-99 08:22:33, Jack Stein wrote to Andy Roberts
 JS> Andy Roberts wrote in a message to Jack Stein:
          Subject: OS/2 Support

 AR>> Personally I think IBM made a very bad call to give up on the end
 AR>> user SOHO user market regardless of how much more Microsoft was
 AR>> going to charge them or even if Microsoft didn't let IBM bundle
 AR>> Microsoft software to IBM clients.  For the money IBM charges
 AR>> those big business clients IBM could send someone down to the
 AR>> local shop to buy WinXX retail, and still make a profit.  IMO
 AR>> someone at IBM completely under-estimated the effect of what
 AR>> software a user has at home has on what software will be chosen
 AR>> for big business later.  IMO IBM falsely assumed that Microsoft
 AR>> home users would suddenly switch to OS/2 at work because of
 AR>> reliability.  Thus IBM falsely assumed that they could still hold
 AR>> onto the big business market even if they let loose of the end
 AR>> users.  By the time IBM figured out that isn't the way businesses
 AR>> grow, it was too late.

 JS> So, you think IBM is stupid.  I don't, no one is that stupid.

No I don't think IBM is stupid.  That scenario was long past.  That's what I
meant by 20-20 hind sight not being worth much.

From today's perspective it is easy to see the problems that were caused and
will be caused by a competitor with 90% of the market share.  At the time IBM
made the "very bad call" Microsoft had only a few % of the market share.  IMO
IBM failed to be able to see what the then future (now present) effects of
home use would have on the big business trends.

Let me make an analogy:  It was like getting shot at by someone who is very
far away.  By the time you hear the sound and can react to that, the bullet
has already reached it's target.  The first shot misses.  Win3.1 did very
little damage and was included in Warp.  At this point IBM may consider that
any following shots will probably also miss the target because of the distance
and the inaccuracy of the shooter.  IBM stops trying to patch Win32s and makes
no effort to run Win95 apps, since it is only then being released (WinNT
doesn't exist yet) at that time.  That's when IBM made the "very bad call"
that conceded the home user and SOHO market to Microsoft.  IMO IBM at that
time had no idea that later "Cut Throat Contracts" would eventually be like
getting hit by a bullet right in the head.  IMO IBM at that time had no idea
that the former game platform Win3.1 would evolve into anything that business
users would want.

 AR>> So now IBM is trying to make the best of a bad situation and make
 AR>> their profit as a "Service" company.  No doubt Microsoft software
 AR>> needs a lot more service than OS/2.  That means more money to
 AR>> IBM.

 JS> IBM though is a hardware company first, always has been.  They are
 JS> so big, they make a ton selling software and service along with
 JS> their products

That WAS the situation long ago.  The PC clone makers stomped all over IBM's
hardware company.  And it WAS those PC clone retailers that were first to sign
the Microsoft "Cut Throat Contracts."  And because they had such a large
portion of the market share, the programmers were second to sign the Microsoft
"Cut Throat Contracts."  Now we have prgms that some users think *MUST* be run
on a WinNT Server for the WinNT clients to be able to use.  And PCs have taken
over a lot of the work the IBM Main Frames used to do.  So IBM hardware is not
in demand like it WAS.  And Lotus is a good example of the IBM software being
sold, which is now mostly for Microsoft.  So that leaves IBM with "Service".

 AR>> There is an irony in that.  It isn't that OS/2 is not good enough,
 AR>> rather it is that OS/2 is too good.  Microsoft doesn't care if some
 AR>> other OS like Apple or OS/2 is better.  Microsoft wants to be the "only"
 AR>> OS.  That made OS/2 a target just like Apple was a target.  IBM doesn't
 AR>> care which OS it's paying clients want support for.  IBM will even
 AR>> support Linux "if it pays."

 JS> Yes, I understand all that.  IBM is a very smart company.  They
 JS> make good business decisions, I don't doubt that.

I don't think every business decision IBM made was good in the long run, even
if it may have seemed good at that time.

Technical merits, performance and money for DOS or OS/2 are no match for
Microsoft's unscrupulous marketing tactics.

 JS> I appreciate your time and thoughts as always Andy, and yes, you make a
 JS> lot of sense on this, even though I may argue with some, I'm listening

There is plenty of room to argue with some of those reasons.  I just tried to
present the situation from a rational perspective based on fragments of
facts.  There is something else that I deliberately left out of that
presentation, since I have no proof whatsoever for it.  Part of me still
thinks Bill Gates might have used some form of subliminal suggestion or
hypnosis on someone or many inside IBM to tip the balance.  In fact I know of
an author who was so convinced of that possibility, that he wrote some code
into his otherwise irrelevant prgm, just to prove how it could have been done
technically, by flashing some info on the screen that came and went too fast
for most users to recognize it consciously, even if they knew exactly where
and when to look.  In spite of all the physical reasons which I and many
others have presented to justify or rationalize IBM's actions, I just can't
believe that was enough or all that was involved.  IMO Microsoft had to have
an ace under the table that their victims didn't now about, during several of
the IBM (less than reasonable) decisions.

     Thanks and Good Luck,        Andy Roberts
                                  andy@shentel.net
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro*at