From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Bundling Networks, OS/2 v. NT
Date: 08 Oct 92 09:27:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <7520@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu wrote:
> In article <1992Oct07.092552.15639@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> >I assume you read the reason why I don't think this will make much of
> >a difference in price....
> 
> I read it, and found it to sound a lot like the software vendor's standard
> official line about why prices go up instead of down. As such, I don't buy
> it, especially since it completely ignores business' mania for recovering
> costs associated wwith a given product. If the networking package really were
> a separate product, then it would be accounted for and charged for separately.
> 

Another practice that takes place is to spread the development cost over
a large volume of sales.  If you spend $10million developing a feature,
and you sell 10million copies of the total system, that means that
you're going to affect the cost by a dollar.  Not a whole lot.
What you say may have some merrit, but I think it may not apply this
much in the case of networking.  There was also the fact that many
potential customers were going to get networking anyway, so I guess those
who don't need it get an added bonus anyway.


> >Or possibly the option to not install the network, or whatever.  Fine.
> 
> ...and leave absolutely no trace of it. Not a single file, not a single extra
> line in CONFIG.SYS (or whatever), nothing at all.

'Tell you what, I'll send you a special version of PETE2.EXE that removes
all reference to any network talk from all system software and documentation,
and also removes all network talk from all newsgroups you may choose to access.

This is a minor modification from the version I'm making for f.mccall.  It
removes all references to CDROM.
;) ;) of course...

> 
> >Any advanced OS worth it's salt will make these two things possible.
> >Installable network drivers, protocols, etc.  I believe OS/2 does this,
> >MS Lanman does this on many platforms, NT does this, and I think many 
> >other products.  But why shouldn't some of the common protocols be
> >supplied with the system, given they probably don't cost too much to
> >add, and you can always not install them, or remove them.
> 
> Common according to who? This is ripe for manufacturers to declare their own
> networking package common and only provide for it, regardless of market
> reality.

What's wrong with this?  In many cases, people will wan't to hook their
machines up to different vendors products, which will mean using a more
standardized protocol, so doing what you said may happen would probably
be a bad business decision.  You can only really get away with that
when you control all facets of your system, ranging from the hardware
to the apps.  Only 1 company in recent memory has done that, but
they are finding it difficult now that there are a number of strong
competitors.
(BTW: this is not MS.  MS doesn't make Hardware).

> 
> >Just because
> >MS ships Windows Write with windows didn't stop other folks from writing
> >word processors.  Just because Terminal was shipped with windows didn't
> >stop other from writing terminal software.  It just gives people something
> >to start with.
> 
> Networking packages aren't like stripped-down versions of common software.
> Including full-function TCP/IP networking in NT is like including
> Weird...er...Word for Windows: nobody in their right mind would try to
> compete. Why should FTP Software develop an NT version of PC/TCP, when you're
> throwing in an equivalent package with the OS (and cranking up the price to
> cover it)?

Why should DR develop another DOS when MS DOS covers that base?

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy