From: "joe kovacs" <joe.kovacs@canrem.com>
Subject: un: nt, os/2, and marketi
Reply-To: "joe kovacs" <joe.kovacs@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 14 Dec 92 08:45:30 EST

(Deletia...)
 HW> (Deryk Barker) writes: >: >hwhalen@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Hugh Whalen)
 HW> writes: >joe.kovacs@Canrem.Com (Joe Kovacs) writes:  >[.....]

 >: Well, I never thought that I'd be an apologist for IBM ;) ;) but I
 >: believe that IBM was better in the sense that they provided better
 >: support, there were more apps for their platforms (which made them better
 >: for users) etc. While marketing certainly played a part the fact that
 >: they were better (not technically better, but better in the broadest
 >: sense) was probably more important.
 >
 >This was certainly *not* true in the old days - in fact it's only
 >within the last few years that IBM has admitted - internally - that
 >they have to respond to customer needs. I used to work for Honeywell
 >(when they still built computers) and the support customers got from
 >us was far in advance of what a similarly-sized IBM customer would
 >get.
(Deletia....)
 HW> books. Perhaps, I will change my mind .... until that time you have
 HW> given me something to think about. Would anyone else care to comment
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 HW> whether or not IBM support was better in the 60's and 70's and the
 HW> number, and quality of apps for IBM vs. the other computer
 >
 >: >As for quality, well that doesn't always win out eventually either, if
 >: >it did then GE would still be in the computer business, there would be
 >: >thousands of computers out there running Multics (RIP), and IBM and
 >: >Microsoft would both be mere players in the game, rather than rule-setters.

IBM's support in the 60's and 70's was excellent, thus:

IBM has always understood (and no one else has) that they do not sell
computers, they "provide service" to their customers. They have always
had greater regard for the provisions of the service contract than the
machinery that they installed. The machinery was simply a part of the
service.

When you bought a system from IBM (they wouldn't sell you a bare
machine) they made sure you got a service contract with detailed clauses
like, "If the equipment breaks, IBM will be on site within 20 minutes,
have it fixed within 1 hour, or replaced within 1 day....etc." And that
was the crux of the whole thing.  When you bought that system with that
contract, you didn't have to think about the computer stuff anymore.
IBM made sure it ran smoothly, and that you knew it would. You could
concentrate more on polishing up the payroll data entry, the inventory
and so on. What IBM sold you was strictly that active complacency,
insofar as your computer was concerned. They were geared towards
providing that. And *that's* what you paid for.

There was a lot *to* providing that service. IBM manufactured almost
all of the equipment it supplied, to high standards, with the ultimate
goal of service in mind. The technicians were well-trained. They
maintained a heckuva inventory near your plant.

By contrast, when you bought a computer from someone else, they sold you
a bunch of machines and also a service contract. Granted, they were
quite competent. You'd look forward to this, that when your machine
broke down, they hotfooted it right over, PDQ, by gum, again....

IBM's understanding of their role (service) and their application of
that understanding made them grow at the rate they did, as well they
should have.

I can't comment on IBM's software in these terms.

(No flames here. IBM says they provide service, not computers. I figure
I understand that, and responded to your request for a comment).

Incidentally, that very competent concept of service is one of the major
reasons why IBM did not take over the complete PC market, and only has a
fraction of it today. They always sold their PC's under the same
concept. When you bought an IBM PC, you bought peace of mind and
reliability, not a machine. You'd pay twice the price of the bare
machine and it was excellent value. Accordingly, IBM took over the
corporate market for PC's, because that's what those people wanted and
needed, reliable systems to turn out letters, payroll, inventory and so
on. Their objective was to write letters, pay people, etc., you see.

But not the home users. IBM could never particularly sell PC's to home
users. That's because every IBM PC (home) user's objective is "to
putter" with his machine. They do no applications (If they did, "there
would be lots of home user applications out there, for starters, and
there are none.." as someone said).

Consequently, home users don't want what IBM has to sell. They don't
understand what IBM has to sell, and they're not about to pay for
something like that. They want to buy a bare machine. When that
machine breaks down, they want to fix it. They *live* for fixing
their machines. They love it. They have no use for what IBM has to
sell.

That's why IBM has had to rethink its policy to respond to its
customers' needs. Major revision.

     Joe Kovacs               Internet/Usenet: joe.kovacs@canrem.com
     Guelph  ON                          FIDO: 1:229/15

... "Yield to temptation, it may not pass your way again." - L. Long
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044