From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: Byte: Is Unix Dead ?
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:28:25 GMT

In article <1973@ltb.ltb.bso.nl>, wierda@ltb.ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda) writes:
> 
> There are several reasons for NeXT to to use OSF/1 Mach:
                                     ^^
	Typo perhaps?  Did you mean to type 'not'?
> 	- Licensing cost.
> 	- Maintenance will be a pain in the ass, since every change has to
> 		travel through a huge bureacracy, since every member has to
> 		agree. This will increase cost.
> 	- Their current version is pretty stable, but lacks a few specific
> 		things.
	Yup, those are reasons...but NeXT's contribution is NeXTSTEP and
	not Mach so freeing up people working on Mach and putting them on
	NeXTSTEP-related activities would, I suspect, more than counter-
	balance the good points you bring up.  Note that they could still
	customize OSF/1 where necessary.  They would also get the new
	goodies as they are added.
> Their is also one reason why NeXTSTEP on /NT (if at all feasible) is a bad
> idea: It would instantly kill the NeXT hardware operation.
	I believe the opposite would be true.  Right now, the only boxes
	they can sell are ones where people buy the whole package--Mach and
	NeXTSTEP.  If they could sell generic NT boxes, they could probably
	sell all they could make and bring their unit costs down for all of
	us.  In short, adopting NT would give NeXT hardware a new market
	and would stimulate hardware sales just as NT would stimulate
	NeXTSTEP sales and sales of NeXTSTEP applications.  NeXT could also
	get some advantage from being able to bundle NeXTSTEP with their
	hardware while it would be an extra cost item on other NT boxes.

	The same thing would be true for OSF/1 but to a much lesser extent
	(much smaller market).
> 
> Within the limits they have, I think NeXT is doing the right thing (just not
> fast enough, they are loosing advantage, though very slowly). It's in
> marketing and salse that their trouble is. Like for instance the lack of
> direct sales force to get to large companies in Europe.
	Well, product choices are the essence of marketing along with choices
	on distribution.  A marketing choice that's a winner in the U.S. might
	not be a winner in Europe.  Direct sales is very expensive but I
	suspect that a direct sales effort in Europe, as in the U.S., would
	be greatly assisted by a presence in the mass market.

	The August 24 issue of MacWeek reports that MicroSoft Windows 3.1
	has sold over 4 million copies in 4 months.  That's half as many
	copies as the total for Windows 3.0.  That's a sales rate of over
	a million copies a month!!!  

	Now you don't have to be a detractor of Windows 3.1 to point out
	that NeXTSTEP is a lot better.  And we've already seen that
	NeXTSTEP developers (though usually much smaller and poorer) can develop
	applications that are, in many cases, superior to their Windows competitors.
	What's missing is a level playing field.  Porting
	to NT will, as I've said before, tilt the playing field in our
	favor.

	Steve Jobs was right; he had a superior concept; he has done more with 
	less than Bill Gates.  But both MicroSoft and Apple have the mass
	market.  Steve only needs to move into the mass market to give himself
	the opportunity to prove he was right again.
> 
> Just my worthless opinion.
	Just my opinions, too (but ain't it fun ?^)

c.f.waltrip

Internet:	<waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu>

Opinions expressed are my own.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy