Re: How Microsoft Beat WordPerfect/The Evidence

[Tod Landis <landis@cruzio.com>]

  Yes, Charles.  That's evidence.  Included in the calculations
  you refer to was the fact that Windows would come pre-installed
  on many machines.
  
  Tod
  
  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
  > activist?
  >
  > -- 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
  > >"competing"
  > >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.
  > >-Jeff
  > .-