[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:
>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
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
* During the ensuing couple of years, as all PCs shipped had W 3.0, users
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).
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.