From: 177wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is OS/2 a dead end? NO
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:46:25 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1993Jan27.053844.6159@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>> The Amiga's rate of sales increased over time; OS/2's is decreasing.
>>
>>	Where did you get this statistic?  OS/2 sales at retail are
>>decreasing, OS/2 shipments via OEM are increasing.  Overall OS/2
>>shipments are increasing.  The Amiga is not a market that is increasing.
>>This year will probably see an increase in Amiga sales but 1985 to 1992
>>saw the Amiga losing ground not gaining ground.
> 
> Were did you get your statistic?  Sorry, but IBM's numbers do not show
> OS/2 sales rates as increasing.
> 
> 	Sales Rate:
> 	Apr-Jul:	1 million / 4 = 250,000 per month
> 	Aug-Oct:	.5 million / 3 = 167,000 per month
> 	Nov-Dec:	.5 / 2 = 250,000 per month.
> 
> If you consider that the later you get in the year, the more of OS/2 sales
> would be from bundling, then it's not totally unreasonable to say that
> it is decreasing, but I think the fairest classification is that the
> sales rate is flat.


	Again, as was mentioned by someone else, your statistic is misleading
(and so is IBM's).  When OS/2 was released, they had over 250,000 backorders
for it (remember the electronic distribution on March 31?).  That cuts that
statistic off right there.  But for the sake of argument, I will agree that 
OS/2 sales overall have reached a plateau.  But my main argument was that
someone said that Amiga sales were increasing.  This is WAAAAY off.

>>>>How long did it take to get native Windows apps from anyone except MicroSoft?
>>> 
>>> Much less than nine months. And We are still building on those nine months.
>>> Lots of vendors were behind Windows before it came out, and soon after, they
>>> were flocking to it in large numbers.
>>> OS/2, by contrast, has nothing but shareware utilities going for it.
>>> 
>>
>>	I don't think you used Windows in the "early" days of 3.0.  
>>I had no specific 3.0 apps available to me until spring of 1991, a year
>>after Windows 3.0 was released.  You can't count the 2.11 apps of Windows
>>for Windows 3.0 since no one lets OS/2 advocates claim OS/2 1.x apps.
>>The apps really started to roll out in 1992.  Word Perfect, Lotus,
>>Ami Pro, etc.  All came to their prime in 1992 -- 2 years after Windows
>>3.0 was released.  There is still no real datebase for Windows (access
>>maybe which was just released).  
> 
> From a post I made some months ago detailing the history of the
> MS-IBM split.
> 	[Byte; October 1990; all]
> 	This issue is filled with ads for Windows products.  I
> 	had gotten the impression from c.o.o.a that Windows did
> 	not have a big app base at first, but this is clearly
> 	not the case, a quick skim revealed at least a dozen
> 	so I'm sure a thorough search would find at least two dozen.
> 	Considering that ads probably have a two months lead time
> 	to get in Byte, this is an impressive number.
> 
> Windows 3.0 shipped in June of 1990.  Bytes following this one have ever
> increasing numbers of Windows apps, so I cannot agree with you that Windows
> 3.0 apps did not exist from the start.  In fact, within 6 months of its
> release I would even call the app selection good.

	I have that issue of Byte you are talking about.  I was a Windows 3.0
fanatic at the time.  But if you remember, most of those apps were 2.11 apps
that were tweaked to work with 3.0 (Word for Windows 1.1 for instance, Page
Maker 3.1, etc.)  The specific Windows 3.0 apps were severely lacking for quite
some time.  Key thing inthat issue and in the Pc World issue that same month
which also has a lot of Windows stuff is that those apps were 2.11 apps
tweaked.

> 
>>
>>>>:  o IBM has never had a successful PC software product
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What? OS/2 is probably the biggest bust of all time in the computer industry,
>>> or at least the OS industry. Remember that CP/M is only dead today. OS/2 never
>>> got anywhere from the very beginning.)
>>> IBM will never make a net profit on OS/2, unless it somehow replaces DOS.
>>> (100 million users? I really doubt it).
>>
>>	That is quite an exageration.  Office Vision certainly comes
>>to mind as one of the biggest busts.  How can you claim an OS that
>>ships 2 million in 9 months a bust?  That is simply ridiculous.  I am
>>not speaking as some idle advocate, our computer systems ship out with
>>OS/2 now primarily because it is a LOT easier to use.  When 2.1 comes out
>>we will be putting OS/2 on virtually all our systems (only a third go out
>>with OS/2 now).  I won't argue the ease of use debate, facts speak for
>>themselves and unless any of you deal with a computer company's tech
>>support stats then don't even bother to speak about it.  We get less
>>calls about OS/2 than we do about Windows and we push OS/2 to novice users
>>(granted, we install it for them).
> 
> I'll agree with you on OS/2 not being a bust, Windows 3.0 shipped over
> 3 million copies it's first year.  If OS/2 sales continue to be flat,
> then it should sell about 2.75  million copies in its first year.
> Though in truth the industry has changed considerably since 1990 (the
> user base is larger and Windows had no real PC-based competition), so I
> think OS/2 would need to sell 4-5 million to be in the same category of
> success as what Windows 3.0 was.  Nonetheless it clearly rates as very
> good in terms of sales.  Unfortunately it must acquire an app base
> before that success can be considered long term.  Microsoft had done
> their advance work well and had the ISV's lined up to deliver the apps
> for Windows 3.0.  IBM seems not to have done any advance work for OS/2
> 2.0, and now with near perfect Windows 3.1 (if not better than 3.1)
> support on the horizon, I'm not really convinced it will ever get an
> app base.  (A lot will depend on whether or not it really takes 12-18
> months for Microsoft to release Chicago.)
> 

	Agreed.  IBM really should have had  the ISV support there.  But keep
in mind, Microsoft dumped OS/2 in their laps.  IBM had expected Microsoft to
write apps to OS/2 until the last minute when MS out of the blue (from our
point of view at least) dumped OS/2 in favor of their WIndows 32 solution.  I
also would consider the statistics the opposite way you do.  Windows 3.0 had no
competition so its sales should have been higher than OS/2's by a long shot. 
Wherease OS/2 has to compete with Windows 3.1, DVx, etc.  

>>>>I'll take a piece of the OS/2 niche!
>>> 
>>> The point is that not many people will.
>>
>>	Again, I was a niche user when I first went to Windows 3.0.  
>>I was really a niche user when I used Windows 2.11 for quite a few things.
>>Yet, we all agree that Windows is a mainstream environment now.  What
>>is there to stop OS/2 from eventually replace Windows?  NT?  Not likely.
>>Windows 4.0 (in my opinion) is going to have to be BETTER than OS/2 if
>>Windows/DOs is going to continue to be the primary GUI environment.
> 
> What makes you think OS/2 can compete with Windows 3.1, let alone
> Windows 3.1/Windows for Workgroups/Windows NT/Chicago (Windows 4.0)?
> The app base and public perception are clearly with the Windows camp.
> You've got IBM marketing competing with Microsoft !!!___MARKETING___!!!!
> Microsoft products are quite popular and not available under OS/2.
> 

 That is true presently.  And MS is great with marketing no doubt about it. 
But at one time, most users laughed at Windows for being too slow, no apps for
it, a toy for morons, etc.  I was called a "closet mac lover" because I liked
WIndows but I knew DOS well but simply liked the GUI and the multitasking of
Windows.  Many companies don't enjoy having to sift through half a dozen
products to figure out which one to go with for a particular setup.  A year
from now the much laughed at OS/2 as server and client model might be quite
nice for companies who want a simple and useful solution.


> I can see a possible argument that OS/2 might acquire and hold a significant
> market share, but what possible reason do you have to believe that OS/2
> will become dominant?
> 
	I see Windows 4.0 becoming the dominate environment (assuming here that
DOS fades as fast as you and I seem to agree on).  But I consider OS/2 to be
the high end dominate platform, not NT or Windows for workgroups.  I think
NOvell will eventually move into the IBM camp once their Unix strategy dries
up.


> You see I think you miss an important point.  When IBM and Microsoft
> split, Microsoft was stuck without the middle piece of their OS plan
> (that was going to be OS/2 2.0).  Likewise IBM was left without a
> high-end portable OS (that was going to be OS/2 3.0 -- now know as
> Windows NT).  Given the success that Microsoft has had in getting ISVs
> to commit to NT, IBM is incredibly lucky that Microsoft does not have that
> middle piece or OS/2 2.0 would have been blown away.
> As it stands, Chicago gets closer everyday, OS/2's desktop app base however
> remains small, and there are few signs of significant growth in the near term.
> If the OS doesn't have native apps, then the users aren't locked in.
> Microsoft has a huge piece of the low-end and shows every sign of walking
> away with a big piece of the high-end, thus I don't see Microsoft
> leaving the OS realm anytime soon. Further the set of users that fall
> in the hole between 3.1 and NT is really not all that big.
> 
	Agreed, but in terms of this speculation, all I can say is that I am
assuming that the app base for OS/2 will grow.  I can't fill in the missing
pieces until NT is released and see how well it is received.


> The question is can IBM lock-in the middle before Microsoft takes it
> for themselves. Even if IBM does accomplish this, they are far from dominance.
> 
> In the end I have to agree with the original poster that OS/2 2.0 is likely
> to end up a niche OS.
> 

 I guess the key here is that I think of niches as OS's like Next which don't
really run other OS/Environment's software.  Even if OS/2 doesn't take off in
terms of an app base I can still run Windows and DOS apps.  Hardly stuck in a
niche there.
	Moreover, most people, including myself, thought OS/2 would be a flop
and gave little development time to learning it and developing for it. Now that
it obviously is successful, the ISV's are moving to develop for it.  The
problems in IBM's count (only some of them) in this area is not that ISV's
DON'T want to write for OS/2 but that they lack the proper compilers (C/set 2
is pretty cruddy I think), and that IBM has not standardized some of the
components for it.  2.1 should change the latter part of that statement though.


>>Brad Wardell
> 
> Brian
> -- 
> C. Brian Sturgill                  Windows, WfW, Windows NT and some OS/2 2.0
> University of Utah                 information available via anonymous ftp to
> Center for Software Science        easy.cs.utah.edu. Also all my Tidbits posts.
> brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373     Windows NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679

Good discussion, Brian.

						-Brad



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy