From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: MS ready to release 32-bit Word & Excel?!?! Read on...
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:52:59 GMT

In <1992Sep29.200425.2154@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.173907.13875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Yes, but I suspect that Bill Gates will have additional profit-driven
>>reasons for not supporting OS/2 right away.  After all, it is
>>certainly in his interest (money wise) if OS/2 dies out and NT takes
>>over.  This is less likely, the more OS/2 applications that there are. 
>>

>That is a point well taken, but past history has shown that
>Microsoft has been willing to support "competing" OS's in a sense
>by developing or porting applications to the Macintoy and SCO XENIX
>environments. While they are not Microsoft owned and operated OS's,
>they were lucrative income streams none the less.

Well, let's look at these two 'competing' OS's for Microsoft
(presumably competing with MS-DOS).  Note that NEITHER of them is
something that would be used by someone as a DOS *replacement*.  Sure,
Xenix runs on the same hardware, but Xenix and DOS are hardly in the
same market space.  Additionally, I think MS *still* gets money for
Xenix, so it isn't really 'competitive'.  As for the Mac, Mac users
don't see the Mac and the PC as competetive, really, and I don't see
any way that MS could break into the Mac OS market (and neither do
they, presumably).  

However, OS/2 and Windows/NT are going after pretty much the same
market space.  The more successful OS/2 is, the fewer sales there will
be of NT.  I simply don't think Bill Gates will take moves that make
it HARDER for NT to be a success, since that's his current strategic
direction. 

>>
>>I think he will take more than just the profitability of doing a
>>version for a specific OS into account; like possible impacts on the
>>other parts of his business (like, is it a good idea for MS to produce
>>an application for a competing operating system?).
>>

>Again, I hold up the Mactintoy...

But, as before, MS-DOS/Windows and Windows/NT aren't exactly
competitive with System 7, so once again it isn't the same situation. 

>>
>>Yes, but Bill Gates isn't interested in pushing up the quality of OS/2
>>software.  The lower it is, the better his profit picture will look,
>>particularly after NT finally ships.
>>

>Maybe, but I don't think so. Much of what is OS/2 software may also
>be finding it's way into NT, and Microsoft can not really afford a
>public black eye indirectly because schlock is being served up on
>their 32 bit platform. It is really in their best interest to
>promote good software, whatever the platform, because if people
>like, and use it, then it will find it's way onto NT as well,
>strengthening their position in the 32 bit OS arena. Lofty
>thoughts, but it does hit the bottom line directly if applied, and
>Bill Gates in no dummy in that respect.

Well, I don't see where that really applies.  After all, if everyone
else is serving up shlock on NT, that is just that more of the
applications market that MS can get by producing better applications
FOR NT.  That leaves 'shlock' on OS/2, until those who also compete on
NT have upgraded THAT product.  


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps