From: chuck@melmac.Harris-ATD.com (Chuck Musciano)
Subject: Re: GeoWorks' future (was Re: An SDK in 1993, did he say?)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:15:51 GMT
Reply-To: chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com
Organization: Advanced Technology Dept, Harris Corp, Melbourne, FL

In article <1992Aug13.130636.4269@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, dtaylor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Douglas A Taylor) writes:
> For the present, let's look at GeoWorks' situation.  It sounds like
> they are a small company, without the huge programming staff or PR
> budget of a MicroSoft or an IBM.  They may be facing real tradeoffs
> between product quality and getting that product to market in a timely
> manner.  Sure it would be great if they could get GEOS 2.0 on the
> market by the fall Comdex.  It would be neat if they could steal NT's
> thunder.  The folks at GeoWorks probably think that would be neat,
> too.  The problem is, it probably is not possible to do that.  They
> could maybe get some financing and hire more programmers, but
> programmers take time to train, especially on a radically new concept
> like an object-oriented operating system.
> 
> So what do you do if you're Brian Dougherty?  My guess is that you
> take the long-range view.  You figure that if you can't make one
> window of opportunity, you'll make the next.  You ally yourself with
> other software companies, like Borland, who (1) produce high-quality
> software; (2) bring products to market quickly; and (3) are also
> threatened by MicroSoft.  You try to forsee new trends, like pen
> computing, that you can edge yourself into.  Then I guess you hope
> that high-quality, easy-to-use software will win out over market share
> and marketing hype in the end.

     The bigest mistake GeoWorks is making is to restrict the audience of
its SDK.  GeoWorks has this outstanding product, with great features, and
an enthusiastic user group crying for new apps.  GeoWorks is too small to
produce all the apps, so they need to leverage off that user group.  Put 
the SDK in the hands of as many people as possible, and let them feed the
user's needs for apps.  Of course, let the third party vendors write apps
too, but let the PD and shareware market thrive.  

     A few days ago, I went to one archive site and picked up all sorts of
Windows goodies: a backgammon game, an archive unpacker, resource monitor,
an alternative file manager, and a couple other games.  *I'll never be
able to do this for GeoWorks*.  The SDK is out of the reach of people who
write that kind of stuff.

     In my opinion, if GeoWorks doesn't make the SDK easily accessible by
plain old programmers (of which I am one), they might as well hang it up.
To be quite honest, GeoWorks has already missed its window.  

     By the way, the argument that plenty of machines will only run
GeoWorks is wearing thin.  You can pick up an entry level 386 box for
under $1,000, which is probably less than what most XT-clone owners
paid for their machines years ago.  In another year or so, there will
be usable 486 boxes under $1,000.  Why run GeoWorks when you can upgrade
to a much better machine (with Windows bundled in, no less) and have
access to thousands of programs?

-- 

Chuck Musciano				ARPA  : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com
Harris Corporation 			Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck
PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912			AT&T  : (407) 727-6131
Melbourne, FL 32902			FAX   : (407) 729-3363

A good newspaper is never good enough,
	but a lousy newspaper is a joy forever.		-- Garrison Keillor