From: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM (Gess Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did Microsoft abandon OS2?
Date: 15 Jul 92 19:53:51 GMT
Organization: Knowledge Exchange, GA, US of A

mg@elan (Michael Golan) writes:

> dans@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Daniel L. Schneider) writes:
> 
> >What is the official Microsoft line on the abandonment of OS/2?  What
> >was their rationale?  
> 
> [***Please - lets keep these thread w/o MS/IBM devils stuff ***]
> 
> Thats a good question ... It seems that IBM's way of doing things wasnt
> they way MS wanted to do things, and that MS thought it is large enough
> to be on its own, as well as that IBM isnt a threat.
> 
> Now I wonder:
> 1) Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM, you know... It seems to me
>    a huge risk to leave a partnership with IBM and compete with them.
>    You loose a lot of 'fortune 500' biz this way.

Microsoft might have figured that the applications will drive the market,
not the O/S per se. Also there has been serious erosion of IBM influence
in the Fortune 500 market place - especially in the PC arena. Many corps.
now routines buy from direct sources, cloners and other brand names like
compaq, AST, Dell etc. Most of these OEMs have to depend on Microsoft and
Microsoft 'knows' this. Just as App vendors have to be wary of Microsoft,
cloners have to be wary of IBM selling them operating software and competing
with them on the hardware front.

> 2) IBM is know to 'keep their promises' even if very very late. So
>    MS must have known that OS/2 will be delivered and will contain the
>    features promised.

Microsoft probably figured that they could 'market' better in the retail
environment than IBM ever can. Also they had good locks on OEMs to keep
them on their side. They also knew that DOS was not going to go away and
probably felt that they could take on any possible competition from IBM.

> 3) One thing that's clear is that MS was certain IBM can't/won't put
>    Windows in OS/2, especially not seemless. Underestimate of IBM's people?
> 
A distinct possibility. Internal IBM development culture, reliance hitherto
on an internal systems development language (and perhaps no established 'c'
resource pool) might have led them to believe that IBM might screw up and
they whole thing could blow up in their face.
> 4) Is it possible that MS never wanted the split, that IBM forced it?!
> 
> With OS/2 success and IBM's backing, it seems that MS will soon be by the
> wall:
> 1) Large companies will prefer OS/2 over NT, because its from IBM, if 
>    the differences otherwise are small

Not sure about this. Corporations developing critical applications may
in deed prefer OS/2, but where large number of users are involved and use
of shrink-wrap applications are used, such preference is not a given.

> 2) Lots of companies promise OS/2 stuff now, so OS/2 will have some
>    serious market share. Again, IBM's backing can increase this marketshare.

This may be crucial for OS/2 and for application developers. If Microsoft
is able to release a slew of applications which are NT ready, while
competitors have to play 'catch-up', it seems to me that for developers it
is imperative to develop for OS/2 and make it a viable market place for them.
Applications will drive the market and appearance of slick OS/2 capable ones
will make a difference in the market place.


> 3) IBM is now in the position it always wanted: Total control over the
>    OS promises control over new Hardware & Standards. MS, on the other
>    hand, can't make new hardware.
> 
This has been the strength of Microsoft from clone makers' view-point.
If IBM uses this 'total control over OS' to exert control over hardware,
Microsoft will come out smelling like roses. This has been the fear of many
PC makers in embracing OS/2 and bundling OS/2 and so on.

> Seems like MS had a lot to loose from the break up, and IBM had some to 
> gain. Why did MS did it? Why didnt they 'came back' to IBM, when they
> realized the Risks involvoed (once OS/2 w/windwos support beta was shown)?
> Not smart enough? Smarter than us? Too much humiliation?
> 
> 
Whether IBM has anything to gain remains to be seen. So far, OS/2 efforts
must be awash in red ink. It still has a bunch of problems on clones and
installation troubles are plenty. No serious retail presence. If OS/2
becomes a great success story, Microsoft can always re-enter the OS/2
application market (they may already be doing this, as insurance policy).
MS felt that they were large enough to be independent of IBM and seek
more amenable and needy partners such as DEC, MIPS etc.

No, I am not privy to Microsoft board of directors' minutes of meetings.
Just some guess work based on the realities of the market place.

GeSS
--
Gess Shankar      |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM                |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy