From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Upset about IBM misinformation.
Date: 25 Jan 93 07:44:48 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1993Jan25.061251.3520@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>IBM has has been behaving quite badly w.r.t to telling the
>truth about things.  Only in one case do I believe they've
>told outright lies, but they have definitely been misrepresenting
>things other times.
>Below are three important examples:
>-----------
>NUMBER OF OS/2 2.0 APPS
>IBM has in the DAP section of the OS2 Developer Forum 2
>a list of OS/2 apps. (It is also in the user forums, use keyword "list".)
>It says it contains all known OS/2 2.0 specific apps as of 12/14/92.
>There were (by IBM's count) 818.
>IBM has recently announced that by January 1, 1993 there were 1,100 such
>apps available.  Thus it was a very busy 16 days (through Christmas no
>less!) in which ISVs informed IBM of 282 additional apps (25% of the list).
>The list was mainly of vertical apps/developer/device or network drivers.
>55 of the app entries were from IBM.
>I went through the entire list, classifying each app as to whether or not
>it was something that MicroWarehouse might sell.  If I could not decide,
>then I counted it in OS/2's favor. (I.E. if I could not tell from the
>name, then I said it was NOT vertical.)  Even using this hideously
>favorable counting method, I could only classify 68 of the apps as
>being for the mass market.  (A more reasonable count would have probably
>been 40.)  Basically this means that 90-95% of the 1,100 OS/2 apps IBM
>is touting are for the vertical market.
>Worse, of the optimistic 50 mass-market apps available for OS/2 2.0,
>only 5-10 or so would meet most peoples expectations in terms of what
>a commercial app should be.  If you want to know what those 5-10 or so are,
>just look through the most recent MicroWarehouse catalog.
>(I.E. MicroWarehouse and friends appear to be carrying nearly all the
>available ones of any real commercial significance.)
>Why did ISVs wait till the week before/after Christmas to
>notify IBM that they were developing 282 apps? (Over 25% of the final total!!!)

The applications did not necessarily ship in precisely those two weeks
(although many did).  IBM's list grew by that amount over those weeks.
The two are not equivalent -- no one is claiming that.

>Can an operating system that has only 5-10 or so mass market apps 9 months
>after it is released, really be the desktop OS of the future?
>(Yeah I know, Lotus, CA, and WordPerfect will have out apps soon... whoopie!!!
>the number might hit 20!)

Yes, in a word.  If you also happen to be the best DOS multitasker on
the market, and truly a "better Windows than Windows" (I think 2.1
will qualify), you bet.

(You aren't counting the 16-bit OS/2 applications, by the way, which
have to be worth something.)

Of course native applications are important.  Of course the numbers
won't be in the hundreds nine months after OS/2 2.0's release.  How
long did it take for Windows to reach critical mass?  At least five
years.  How long for OS/2?  Probably about the same.  Markets don't
change overnight.

PC Week's figures show OS/2 growing faster than Windows since OS/2
2.0's introduction, percentage-wise.  They also point out that this
has occurred despite Windows bundling with virtually every machine in
the land.  The figures I saw indicated that OS/2 usership was almost
1/6th that of Windows usership, and climbing.  (I'm not sure of the
date of that estimate.)

>The abstract for the file was:
>"The list of applications for OS/2 2.0 keeps on growing and growing and
>growing!  Just take a look at how many applications for OS/2 2.0 are
>shipping as of 12/14/92."
>IBM is clearly mis-informing people here.  OS/2 has always had a
>large number of vertical market apps.  IBM keeps touting the
>quantity, but alas for the desktop user, there just isn't anything
>for them.  Worse, it's clear they made a huge last minute effort to
>pad the list so that they will have met their quota.  I imagine
>they do have 1,100 entries, but some of the 818 were already fairly
>amusing; I'm sure many of the 282 last-minute additions will be quite humerous.

Vertical market applications are vitally important to the people using
them, obviously.  (One might argue that the whole market consists of
thousands of unrelated vertical market applications.  :-))  Why
shouldn't IBM count them?  They aren't hiding the list from anyone,
and they fully expect you to form whatever opinions you like based on
the titles they provide.

IBM likes to cite the "dollars invested in software" figure for OS/2.
It is, as you might expect, extremely high: in the billions of
dollars.  I think the figure is at least somewhat relevant.

>If you want to check out the list for yourself, I've made it available
>via anonymous ftp, see my .signature for details. (It is in the pub/info
>directory).
>-----------
>NUMBER OF OS/2 2.0 SALES
>From the document, "Why OS/2 2.0", October 1992, IBM Personal Systems:
>	... there have been over 1 million copies of OS/2
>	2.0 shipped in the first 120 days of availability.
>At the October Developers Conference, we were told that IBM had shipped
>at that time, between 1.4 and 1.5 million copies.
>IBM, in about the same time frame, estimated that OS/2 2.0 would sell 2 million
>copies by the end of the year.  (They have likely missed doing so, or we
>would have heard the news by now.)

They met that target in November, I seem to recall.

>How many times have you heard IBM telling us that rate of OS/2 sales is
>growing fast?  I can think of at least a dozen times they've said it to me.
>Until I looked at the numbers I had more or less believed them.

They are correct in that assertion.  PC Week backs them up, too.

>Let's take a look at the facts:
>From the first quote, we have 1 million sales in 4 months.
>From the second source, we have ~.5 million more in next 3 months,
>leaving 2 months in 1992 where they had hoped for .5 million more sales.
>At the October conference they were saying that OS/2 sales numbers were
>increasing dramatically, but look:
>Sales Rate:
>Apr-Jul:	1 million / 4 = 250,000 per month
>Aug-Oct:	.5 million / 3 = 167,000 per month
>And then they projected:
>Nov-Dec:	.5 / 2 = 250,000 per month.
>This projection was likely ill-founded, and certainly I don't see
>a basis for IBM to say in October that OS/2 sales had been increasing
>dramatically.  Their own projections show they didn't really believe
>it either.

Your time scale is off in the first period -- orders for OS/2 2.0 were
permitted at least as early as January, 1992.  Initial shipments
satisfied a large backlog of orders over at least three months.

Also, if I recall correctly, the 2 million mark was reached in
November.

>Also remember that early on they were not bundling OS/2 with PS/2's,
>so the numbers from June or so would have a significant boost,
>which is odd, as the rate of units shipped went down, despite this
>boost.  To me it shows a pattern many have long suspected, lots of
>curious people at first, corporate types afterwards.
>Has anybody seen a usage survey of OS/2?

Only PC Week's estimates, which seem to agree with IBM's figures.

>Anyway, IBM is not being up front about OS/2 sales.

No, I think your accounting is a bit faulty.  (The first day of GA
should be treated a bit differently; if you take that day alone, OS/2
2.0 sales rose infinitely -- the product didn't exist the day before.
:-)) If you remove the advance orders (or calculate them over the
proper time frame), and you place the two million mark in the correct
place, you will find that IBM is correct in its claim that OS/2 sales
are accelerating.

There's also the distinction between shipments and sales.  IBM usually
quotes shipments.  Those lead sales by a relatively small amount
during most periods, but not during a product rollout -- that's why
IBM was so busy churning out copies, to satisfy not only new demand
but also accumulated demand from many months of order taking.

>----------
>OS/2 2.1 SHIP DATE
>Quote from InfoWorld: December 28, 1992/January 4, 1993; Page 9
>	Sticking to its philosophy of not delivering any version of
>	OS/2 before its time, IBM extended the beta program
>	for OS/2 2.1, which could push back delivery of the
>	product to March.
>	Most users and develoeprs expected the product, which
>	includes support for XGA an Super VGA graphics
>	support and CD ROM drives, to be avaliable in late
>	December or early January. IBM officials said they
>	only promised to complete work on the beta by year
>	end.
>Reread that last sentence!
>That's odd, I am certain IBM promised that OS/2 2.1 would ship this
>year.  Let's check the set of files I keep for just such emergencies
>and see what they say:

December, when the beta was released, was the first I heard about the
new version number, it should be noted.

>Here is an excerpt from "ibmplans.txt" on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  It
>is a part of an IBM document detailing IBMs near-future plans for OS/2
>(and a little MS bashing as well).
>     1992 OS/2 PRODUCT PLANS
>	There will be a lot happening in the OS/2 product line through
>     the remainder of 1992.
>     ENHANCEMENTS TO THE BASE PRODUCT
>          In the fall:   32-bit graphics engine; Windows 3.1; device
>     drivers to support XGA, SVGA, and 8514 displays in seamless mode.
>     ...

They clearly did not make 8514/A in seamless mode -- that's looking
like April now.  They did make the 32-bit graphics engine, XGA, and
SVGA seamless well before the "deadline."  Win-OS/2 3.1 is debateable:
it was available in beta form long before the "deadline," and in
stable, "wide beta" just before Christmas (I had a look at it on
December 18).

>Also here's a report from OS/2 FAQ list maintainer, Tim Sipples:

I do not speak for IBM, and anything I say is not official.  Let me
make that clear at the outset.  In the example you cite, however, I am
paraphrasing IBMers.

>** Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy
>** From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
>** Subject: OS/2 Future Trends and Directions
>** Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 01:28:11 GMT
>** Today IBM Chicago held its monthly OS/2 User's Group meeting.  This
>** month's meeting was devoted, in large part, to a presentation by two
>** OS/2 experts from Austin (mainly delivered by Don Crabtree).
>** Now, where is OS/2 headed?
>** By year end the following enhancements will be in place [meaning some
>** will obviously be delivered well before December 31]:
>** ** LAN Server 3.0.  It will contain multiprocessing (asymmetric) and
>** peer-to-peer features, among other things.

Shipped in November.

>** ** 32-bit graphics engine. (*)

Shipped with the Service Pak (October, I think).

>** ** SuperVGA drivers ("...representing 80 to 90 percent of the
>** marketplace...") (*)

Tseng 4000 shipped with the Service Pak, and the remainder were
"leaked" well before the deadline.

>** ** Reduced memory requirements.  A standalone OS/2 2.0 station which
>** now requires 4.5 MB will be trimmed by one megabyte to 3.5 MB, i.e.
>** OS/2 2.0 will really fit in 4 MB. (*)

Debateable, if you count the "wide beta" for anything.

>** ** Improved performance (in addition to the RAM diet). (*)

Probably made the deadline here.

>** ** Windows enhancements (i.e. Win-OS/2 3.1 with TrueType, multimedia
>** extensions, bitmaps, and applets). (*)

Debateable.

>And if that is not enough how about this quote from a slide shown at
>the October OS/2 developer conference.
>	OS/2: 1992 ENHANCEMENTS
>	* 32 bit multimedia extensions

This one they did make, with no debate -- the MMPM/2 delivered with
the "wide beta" is release level code.

>	* Improved performance
>	* 32-Bit Graphics Engine
>	* 32-Bit Seamless Hi-Res Display Drivers
>	* Windows 3.1 Support
>	* Additional Printer Support
>	* Laptop/Notebook Support
>	* Service

I'm not sure what the last one means -- did they elaborate?

>Anyway you look at it IBM promised that OS/2 2.1 would be out in 1992.
>Yet (provided InfoWorld got the quote right) they are _blatantly_ denying it.

What they did is almost exactly the same as the "Limited Availability"
release of OS/2 2.0 in December, 1991.  They released a stable, wide
"beta" which is darn close to finished.  Did they make the deadline?
Probably not.  Do release dates slip?  Of course.  Are they trying?  I
think so.  Did they purposely keep advancing a date they knew they
couldn't make?  Probably not.  Is code stability ultimately more
important?  I think so.  Are we talking a roughly two year delay which
another company is famous for?  No.

>(BTW, I'm not criticizing IBM for delaying the shipment of 2.1... it looks
>like they've finally learned their lesson and are waiting till the bugs
>are more or less out. I am criticizing them for lying about having 
>said that they would deliver Windows 3.1 support in 1992.)

Well, let's be careful.  I do criticize them for not saying, "Sorry,
folks, this is going to take us about 90 days longer than we thought."
(My estimate.)  I don't have any evidence that they intentionally
advanced a date that they knew they couldn't meet.  The two are very
different.

>--------
>Now to all those OS/2 fans out there -- how is that IBM is more honest/ethical
>than Microsoft?  I know I've heard you make the argument, but I just
>can't get the facts to add up that way.  For that matter, how about an
>explaination from IBM?

How is IBM more honest/ethical than Microsoft?

Interesting question.  Let me advance two possibilities:

(1) They are approximately 21 months, on average, more honest/ethical
than Microsoft.  :-)

In other words, if software is delayed, don't you win points if your
delay is shorter than the other vendor's delay, if you are both
otherwise acting in the same fashion?

(2) When they make advance and continuing announcements about
strategic direction, announcements which their customers use in
planning their own strategies, they stick to them, protecting that
customer's large investment in hardware, software, and training.

What Microsoft did hurt a lot of developers and customers, many of
whom are reluctant to trust that company again.  I think what hurt the
most is that Microsoft's departure from their stated strategies was so
dramatic and wrenching -- they made little or no attempt to make any
transition "back into the fold" smoother.  For that reason it was also
puzzling.  (And if anyone can rationalize LAN Manager or SQL Server,
be my guest.)

Occasionally a company does have to say, "Go to hell" to a group of
customers.  Even a large group of customers.  But it had better
understand the ramifications.

I hope we can all agree that what Microsoft did, in dropping OS/2,
after swearing up and down it was fully committed to OS/2 (and still
to this day trying to sell LAN Manager and SQL Server on OS/2!) was
"wrong" (in whatever sense you want to use the word).  I also hope we
can agree that neither company deserves sainthood just yet (although I
personally think Microsoft has longer road to travel).

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0i, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]