NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/10822

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 5.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!netnews.cc.lehigh.edu!ns1.cc.lehigh.edu!sjb5
From: [e-mail] (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:31:25 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University
Lines: 103

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe Discar) writes
:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S
TACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe Discar) writ
es
>>>Ah, but the vendors aren't forced to stick with the contract.  The agreement
>>>generally says "we will supply product X at a cost of D only under these
>>>terms."  The vendors, at any time, can say "well, we don't want to do this...
"
>>>and simply pay more money for MS-DOS (later in your post, you allude to this)
.
>>
>>Really?  How many of these contracts have you seen?  None would be a likely
>>guess.  That said however, these contracts appear, from the outside at least
>>to be a bit more binding than that.
>
>One.  I've reviewed the Multiple License Pack agreement, and subsequently
>turned it down... why?  Simply because I, as a vendor, don't "move" enough
>systems to make it worthwhile--and my business in general is to provide
>the best solutions to a client... and the solutions are not always
>MS-DOS based.
>
>How many have you reviewed?

None, that should be obvious from my post.  I said from the *outside*.



>>No MS doesn't hold a gun to anyones head, and say "look into our eyes, you are
>>getting very sleepy.  You will bundle only what we tell you too..."  Of course
>>they don't do that.  But they can make it so hard for a competitor to keep up
>>with his competitors that he almost has to bundle the software, or lose
>>business instead.  MS has deeper pockets than any software company save IBM.
>
>Microsoft does not GIVE money to vendors (lord, if they did I would have
>signed the agreement).  What they do is make it exquisitely inexpensive for
>a vendor to acquire DOS and Windows under certain terms.  Consider it this
>way, if instead of DOS, Microsoft was peddling Broccoli Juice (tm)--and
>offered it under the same terms, it would hardly be successful because
>the Vendor's CLIENTs wouldn't want Broccoli Juice.  The problem is that
>the market, at this time, WANTS MS-DOS and Windows--which gives Microsoft
>the leverage it needs to say "if you want the best price for Windows and
>DOS..."
>
>In other words, if the market DESIRED OS/2 more than DOS+Windows, and
>IBM made a similar incentive, Vendors would be flocking to IBM's door
>instead of Billy's.

Not when Billy is creating the desire by trying to make certain that
absolutely everyone has a copy of Windows.  OS/2 as of yet has been remarkable
in the amount of attention it has been getting considering how easy it is to
get Windows, even if you don't want it.  People have this annoying tendancy to
consider whatever they have to be the best, and if Billy and Company make
certain that everyone has their system, a lot of folks are just simply going
to think it is the only system worth buying regardless of whether it is or
isn't.


>
>>They can afford to use tactics like this, even though they don't get the same
>>return they might if they used a higher price.  This used to happen a lot back
>>in the earlier part of the century.  A big company like say Standard Oil,
>>would go to gas stations and other places where oil and gas were sold and they
>>would basically give them two options.  They could buy their gas only from
>>Standard Oil or they would find themselves unable to compete because the big
>>company would make things so much easier on their competitors that they simply
>>couldn't afford to stay competitive.  They may not be holding a gun to
>>someone's head, but the effect is still the same.
>
>Well, sort of.  The problem is really that not many people (at this time)
>really want OS/2... which is cheaper than the cost of DOS+Windows.  To use
>your Standard Oil analogy, gas stations started turning to small
>comapnies such as Texaco for gas--severely cutting into Standard Oil's
>revenues.

Exactly.  But just because it is happening now doesn't mean that it is a
tactic that will continue to be successful.  OS/2 has enough problems still
that it is possible, though not likely, that it could flop.

>
>The same could happen with IBM and Microsoft--as long as IBM's "gas" is
>just as good as Microsoft's.  The real question though, is this: "Is it?"

I certainly think so, but MS is doing a good job of convincing people not to
try and find out for themselves.


>
>Joe
>My opinions.  By the way, I like your sig quote.
>

Thanks!

--
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||