Re: Intuit's CEO calls for 'OS neutrality

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 05:47 AM 12/31/98 -0600, Steve Cohen wrote:
 
>Couldn't these same arguments have been made by Borland to justify its
>jettisoning of all non-windows related product?  Probably they were.  I'm not
>saying Harris is wrong (my employer has made a similar decision with its
>shrink-wrapped product) but I am a little curious why you were arguing that
>Borland should have gone ahead anyway but not Intuit.  

I'm not saying that Intuit SHOULD have dropped other platforms; I'm merely
stating their argument. From their point of view, once the snowball got
rolling, it was pointless to resist. To their credit, they at least
waited until the snowball had lots of momentum. But their argument still
rings hollow in that some smaller platforms have as many users as the
IBM PC once did. Folks made money then; why not now?

Borland's case is more serious, though. Borland is a tool vendor, and tools
are often what makes or breaks a platform. By refusing to create tools 
for non-Windows platforms, Borland in effect sabotaged those platforms 
by denying them the tools that could have made ALL development efforts 
easier. They therefore did much more damage than Intuit, whose products
don't affect other application categories. To my mind, it was Borland's
knuckling under to Microsoft that most hastened the creation of the
Windows monopoly.

>Both cases seem to be
>an illustration of valuing short-term survival over long-term.  Or do you
>think that Borland was in a more of a position to "make" the market than Inuit
>is?

Absolutely. Any new platform with Borland compilers could not help but
command respect from developers.

--Brett