From: shurr@cbnews.cb.att.com (larry.a.shurr)
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1? (Why it may cost) READ THIS!!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OH
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:40:56 GMT

In article <OLAVT.92Dec15012734@ulrik.uio.no> olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.175627.4452@unixland.natick.ma.us> bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser) writes:
>   olavt@ulrik.uio.no (Olav Torvund) writes:
>   >[Proposed making Windows 3.1 support optional.  Envisions adequate
>   >user base to support sales of OS/2 native software and no need for
>   >piggy-backing Windows after 1993].

>   [Wonders if this is true.  Suggests that OS/2 is an interesting
>   diversion until NT becomes available].

>[Believes OS/2 user base is beyond critical mass, having sold 2Meg in the 
>first 8 months and now gets good press.  Proposes that OS/2 must have 
>adequate user and applications base by EOY 1993 or it will have failed].

>And I do not think that many users are really waiting for NT. They are
>curious, but that does not mean that they will buy it. And for us OS/2
>users, OS/2 is definitly not an in-between OS on our way to NT.

We're building up quite a tower of speculation based on a modicum of
fact, but that's OK, it helps make life interesting.  I hope we can
look forward to competition between OS/2 and NT based on merit.  Of
course there are other potential players: Unix Sys V Rel4.2, Solaris,
NextStep.  This could make things more interesting... or more confusing.

As I recall, this thread got started based on an assertion that OS/2
V2.1 is hung up in a dispute with Microsoft regarding royalty payments
for Windows 3.1.  I do not know if Bill Gates and Microsoft are really
"competing" via other means than merit and market, but I don't trust 
them to "do the right thing" -- "right" by my values anyway.  If so,
it's a good think that the other party in such a duel is IBM rather
than Ma & Pa Software, Inc.

I read in InfoWorld that Gates alledgedly said that the royalty pay-
ments on sales of OS/2 units are more profitable than Windows royal-
ties so how could he possibly be trying to impeded its sales?  Pretty
disengenous, I'd say.  Supposedly, sales of Windows have far exceeded
those of OS/2 -- though a lot (how many?) of those sales represent 
bundled system packages and may not actually be in use.  So, for this
and other reasons, Windows sales numbers may not accurately represent
the available market.  

Now, as far as I know, the sales of OS/2 represent a large percentage 
of people who deliberately acquired it rather than finding it thrown
into the deal whether they wanted it not.  If a large percentage of 2
million sales are "deliberate," this represents the beginnings of a
quite a nice market.  Would Bill Gates be willing "engage in anti-
competitive actions" in order to impede sales in that market?  He
might.  The SEC is investigating whether or not Microsoft has engaged
in illegal anti-competitive actions (some behaviors, depending on
your values, might be construed to be anti-competitive, but are not 
illegal: e.g., I've heard that Microsoft Press will not fill orders
for their OS/2 titles; if true, it impedes the usefullness of OS/2 in
the short run and looks anti-competitive to me, but it's not illegal
if you just say that they're on backorder... eventually demand will
melt away).

Man, if I keep up this kind of speculation, I'll have to become a
know-it-all industry columnist.  I think I'll stop and just be a
programmer instead :-).

Larry
-- 
Larry A. Shurr (las@cbnmva.att.com) speaking only for myself.
Norman, listen carefully.  I am lying.  Are you sure your circuits are
registering?  Your ears are green.  Logic is a little bird singing in a
meadow.  Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad! - Mr. Spock
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc