[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: How Microsoft Beat WordPerfect/The Evidence
Yes, Charles. That's evidence. Included in the calculations
you refer to was the fact that Windows would come pre-installed
on many machines.
Charles Kelly, NT*Pro wrote:
> You call that evidence?
> Microsoft, if they had any leg up, had their experience developing these
> same desktop apps for the Macintosh. They were, and still are, a top
> deleloper/seller of Macintosh applications.
> WordPerfect, Lotus, and the others knew about windows (this was version 3.0
> remember). They kept advertising how their DOS apps would run under
> windows, placing their bet on that strategy. They owned the market in
> desktop productivity apps. They had the "monoply" in those days, remember?
> Those DOS apps were cash cows for them. They wanted to keep that revenue
> flowing in. They also wanted windows to fail--they felt that by not
> immediately releasing windows versions of their products that Windows would
> fail. And they were almost right.
> They made calculated business decisions. These were bright calculating
> people. To presuppose any differently is to do them a huge injustice.
> Having said that, let me share with the list my view of how Sun, Netscape,
> Novell and the others who feel wronged in the marketplace can (and should)
> compete in the marketplace.
> Sun has a good idea with the Network Computer. It could conceivebly save
> businesses money. It would, of course, force customers to purchase Sun
> servers at their prevailing top-of-the-market price. Because this would be
> a net benefit for the customer, they wouldn't mind being forced to buy the
> Sun hardware. Customers have free choice to buy or not to buy... Of course
> bandwidth is still a real unresolved problem (but this isn't a technical
> discussion, is it?) but I'm sure they could solve it with their technology.
> Sun could also make enhancements in their Solaris operating system that
> wold get it closer to the unreachable network nirvana. It presently is a
> good OS, by most anyone's accounts, but every operating system could use
> improvements, right? They don't have to bundle their hardware/software do
> they? Distributors must have one to sell the other...
> Netscape could go back to their initial model and give their browser away.
> The real money is in the server products anyway, right? They give their
> browser away (after making it bit-by-bit compatible with MS IE -- hey they
> could do this, they are capable of producing a browser for most every OS
> known to mankind...). They could also pledge theirself to supporting only
> W3C apporved conventions (making compatibility issues for webmasters go
> away--am I dreaming?).
> Netscape could develop a broader product line so that all their eggs aren't
> in one basket. Hey, your stockbroker gives you the same advice--diversify
> and minimize your risks. They seem to have caught on a little bit by
> unbundling the browser from a whole buch of other stuff. (I understand this
> was mostly in response to Lotus rather that to customer demands). Hmmm,
> sounds familiar adding the browser to other applications/OS and maing the
> customer buy them all.
> -- or --
> They could both team up and "buy" (or fund if you will) a grass roots
> effort to embarrass and harrass the company whom they see as their main
> competitor.... Maybe the Java Forum in the UK? or maybe a leading consumer
> -- or --
> They could spend a lot of money and effort lobbying Congress to enact laws
> that would restrict the right for a public or private company to do
> business as they wished...
> These are merely unsupported suppositions on my part. I make no effort to
> defend them or to force you to believe or appreciate them.
> Wonder what they will really do?
> Charles Kelly
> At 10:59 AM 11/8/97 -0500, Jeffrey Fox wrote:
> >In reponse to my earlier post about how Microsoft unfairly pulled the rug
> >from under
> >Lotus, WordPerfect, etc., it's been claimed that Microsoft merely
> outlasted and
> >outprogrammed the others. I think not.
> >Here's the first piece of "hard facts"
> >I clipped an ad from the 12/11/90 issue of PC Magazine .This is just a few
> >months after
> >Windows 3.0 came out, a time when supposedly WordPerfect and Lotus were
> >with Microsft Word and Excel. Keep in mind that by this time, most new PCs
> >came with Win 3 pre-installed
> >and that was due to Microsoft using MS-DOS licenses to strongarm the
> >computer mfrs...as shown by the Justice Department in 1995.
> >The full-page ad is for a mail order company called Telemart. There was so
> >little Windows software available then
> >that they listed in a separate section entitled, "Do a Little Windows
> >Shopping with Telemart" Heres' what Microsoft had for sale in this list:
> >MS Excel for Windows $299
> >MS Powerpoint for Windows $305
> >MS Project for Windows $425
> >MS Word for Windows $305
> >(In my judgment, this demonstrates that when Windows 3.0 arrived and took
> >over, Microsoft came with an
> >array of high-powered applications that they could market immediately).
> >Here's what competitors to the above products had for sale in 12/90:
> >Ami Professional $289 (Windows)
> >Lotus 1-2-3 ver 2.2 and ver 3.1 ($335 and $410, non Windows)
> >Quattro Pro $310 (non Windows)
> >Supercalc 5 $290 (non Windows)
> >WordPerfect (non Windows)
> >WordStar (non Windows)
> >Only Ami Pro, a product from a small company, was competing in the Windows
> >word processor market.
> >No one serious in the spreadsheet market. Ami Pro was eventually acquired by
> >Lotus because Lotus could
> >never hope to catch up to MS themselves.
> >My contention, which I stand behind, is that MS planned to have all their
> >industrial strength apps ready when they forcefed Win 3.0 on everyone, full
> >knowing that their major competitors had invested millions in developing
> >their won apps for IBM's OS/2-presentation manager....an operating system
> >Microsoft had only recently been convincing them all to develop for.
> >Now you can say it was their own fault for developing for the wrong OS, but
> >even in those days developers had to follow Microsoft's lead (they DID own
> >MS-DOS). And none of them had any way of knowing that MS was secretly
> >planning to come out with a full array of Windows apps and blow them to bits.
> >A brilliant strategy, but patently unfair. And an example of how a company
> >can manipulate a market, destroy competitors, while not price-fixing in the
> >traditional sense of a monopoly.