[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Microsoft Beat Lotus: An Answer

  Here's Mr. Kelly's reponse with my comments:
  At 03:25 PM 11/4/1997 -0500, you wrote:
  >Hey Jeffrey--
  >You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint. I would not presuppose any
  >differently. However, I am glad that you are in the biz and not a historian. 
  >I'd be interested if indeed any one can factually confirm your account. Not
  >with an unsupported anecdote, as you did, but with hard facts. 
  Here's some facts:
  * When Win 3.0 came out in 1990 it was immediately bundled
  on most major brnads of PCs. That was not the case with the non-graphical
  Windows 286/386,
  which I used in 1987-1989 in order to run version 1 of PageMaker for Windows).
  In fact, Microsoft had to bundle a runtime version of earlier Windows for free
  with Aldus' PC PageMaker to get people to take it.
  * After Win 3.0 came out, there was media hoopla about how its graphical
  interface was like
  the Mac's (a great exaggeration I had trouble believing when I got my copy
  of W 3.0). 
  * About the same time W 3.0 came out, there were versions of Word and Excel
  while there were no versions of 1-2-3 or WordPerfect (or just about any
  other title
  except PageMaker).
  * During the ensuing couple of years, as all PCs shipped had W 3.0, users
  flocked to
  Word and Excel, giving them dominant market share in their categories. While
  and WordPerfect were figuring out how to port their flagship products to W 3.0,
  they saw their market shares evaporate.
  * It took Lotus and WordPerfect some time to port. I think WordPerfect
  didn't get a W 3.0
  version out till 1993. Microsoft's applications division, of course, had
  great advantages over
  competitiors in port to W 3.0. they simply had to ask their in-house
  colleagues for help.
  By Gates' simultanously releasing his two major apps with the release of W 3.0,
  he essentially destroyed his competitiors in a way he had not
  been able to under DOS.
  >Its no secret that Microsoft wanted OS/2PM to be its operating system of
  >the future. Their split with IBM was over the future direction and
  >ownership of OS/2PM. When they walked away they had to start Windows NT
  >from scratch placing them way behind in the eventual OS/2 vs. Windows NT
  >battle in the marketplace.
  We're not talking about Windows NT here, We're talking about Windows 3.0
   The NT product didn't come till later and it has never been
  a mainstream desktop product. It's a server product.
  >How would you postulate that NT defeated OS/2 in the marketplace? How did
  >they cheat to defeat a technically superior product? (OS/2 being a superior
  >product, then and now, as I said in my original post).
  Dear Charles,
  Here's how Windows 3.0 [NOT NT!] defeated a superior OS/2 in the
  marketplace: Microsoft structured MS-DOS
  licensing fees with manufacturers so that they could not afford NOT to
  bundle Windows 3.0
  This was part of the Justice Department's 1995 case against MS.
  Since IBM had no clout with those manufacturers, and was in fact their
  competitor in hardware,
  IBM had no such chance to impose OS/2 on them. It had to depend entirely on
  users buying it on their own. That's a weaker marketing strategy.
  It was quite simple: He who owned the gold made the rules.