From: spexet@engin.umich.edu (Dennis Robert Spexet)
Subject: IBM marketing vs. Microsoft marketing
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 00:04:24 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world 
Keywords: Contest Windows NT Shareware prizes

In article <1992Aug28.011806.25489@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>it1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Tsai) writes:
>>  Gee, wasn't this one of the ideas proposed by Bert for OS/2 a few
>>months ago?  Of course since IBM isn't making the development tools
>>available to general users cheaply (no, I don't think $295 is cheap),
>>this may not be such a hot idea for OS/2 afterall..
>
>>brianmo@microsoft.com (Brian Moran) writes:
>>>The Windows NT Shareware Contest
>
>I get the feeling some folks from Microsoft were monitoring the OS/2
>newsgroups, taking notes of complaints and suggestions, and applied
>them to WinNT.  A lot of the issues addressed in the initial release
>of the pre-alpha NT were things OS/2 users had brought up.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit.

As nice a product as OS/2 is, one of the biggest factors against OS/2
is the way IBM markets itself and its products.

My argument is going to be somewhat vague, so I hope you will bear with me.
For what it's worth, the Windows platform and its developers and supporters
are extremely visible and apparent when compared to OS/2.  This translates
into a feeling of security for a developer when he or she develops for the
Windows platform.

At this point in time, OS/2 to many people is an abstract curiosity.  The
public perception, to many people, is that OS/2 is a proprietary, niche-
oriented product that is intended to run only on IBM hardware.  Furthermore,
there appears to be a perception that IBM management (as opposed to the
technical staff) is not serious about catering to anybody except the MIS
staffs of the Fortune 500 companies.

Now, I realize that this attitude may be changing, albeit slowly.  But the
perceptions by and far still exist.

Contrast this with Windows NT.  One thing that Microsoft does have (that
IBM does not appear to the public to have) is a definite plan for NT.  While
we all know how well Bill Gates sticks to his publicized plans, the fact of
the matter is that he *does* have a publicized plan.  Furthermore, the
average PC user or developer can read about these plans in places like
Byte, Dr. Dobb's Journal, or PC Magazine.

Where can I read about IBM's plans for OS/2?  To be honest, the only places
where I really see them in abundance are in the business sections of the
newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, or in Infoworld or
PC week.

As many people have stated on the Internet, IBM and Microsoft appear to
be preaching to different choirs.  However, one must ask the question:  Who
is going to be the primary influencers of the people who buy this stuff?

An example, and possibly not a very good one:  If we took a survey of
the readers of the OS/2 and Windows newsgroups, and asked them the
question:

"Who do you know of in Microsoft that is responsible for NT direction and
 development?"

One might answer with the names Bill Gates, or Dave Cutler, or even Gordon
Letwin.  Now give a parallel question:

"Who do you know of in IBM that is responsible for OS/2 direction and
 development?"

To be honest, I cannot give an answer.  There have been so many shakeups
and personnel movements within IBM and its OS/2 group that I couldn't tell
you.  I'll bet that most people on these groups who are not within IBM could
not tell you, either.

The point I am trying to make is this:  With Microsoft, the developer
who is not in a Fortune 500 MIS department knows who is responsible for NT,
where it came from, what it's status is, where the development tools are,
and probably most importantly, where Microsoft appears to be taking NT.

In other words, many developers and technical people have the feeling, 
rightly or wrongly, that NT is a product with a future, both on a technical
level as well as a marketing level.  The corresponding feelings for OS/2 do
not yet seem to exist in abundance.  If the management at IBM wishes to
make OS/2 a success, then they will probably have to address this very
issue, IMHO.

For what it's worth, I am not yet convinced that the IBM management (as
opposed to the technical staff, which has been superb) has made an attempt
to address this issue.  Furthermore, speaking as a PC user, I am not
convinced that they *intend* to seriously address the issue.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone.  It's just the way I see it.

>I also get the feeling IBM may just manage to snatch defeat from the
>jaws of victory if things keep going the way they are.  They got the
>WPS and Win3.0 support in place in 6 months, you'd think they could
>get a bug fix out in less time.
>-- 
>John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
>jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
>uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)

-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy