Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 12:46:22 12/07/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 1997 at 10:24:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Actually, it's exactly what he did. Whether he tried to "corner" the >market >in software or not doesn't really matter. There have always been >alternatives >to things like PC-dos. IE DR-dos, OS/2, etc. Now linux is making huge >inroads with several hundred thousand users around the world. But most >would >agree that even with all the problems inside the various windows >platforms, >they really do provide a "computing for dummies" platform. Win95 is the >best >yet in this regard. It notices when you install a new modem and fixes >itself >up. Ditto for a new video device, a new SCSI disk, a new Scanner, and >so >forth. > >Most people end up using it because its the best thing out there for >that >specific market. I use unix. I'll probably *always* use unix. But I >also >do my own technical support. And unix requires quite a bit of technical >support in general, compared with Win95... > >If something better comes along, it only has to overcome the huge >installed >base of software for Win95. If that "something" is win95 compatible, >and it >is obviously better, I'd bet it would sell... > > > >>> >>>Just a reminder for all those who seriously think that Microsoft would >>>be in business for even 12 months if its customers were really >>>dissatisfied and had a serious alternative. >> >>Aha. If no alternative exists, because Microsoft stops them to exist, >>you cannot choose. > > >I don't see how microsoft could do this. IE how could Gtes stop me from >writing Crafty and competing with them, supposing they had a chess >program? >IE Excel has competition, MSWord has lots of competition. Etc.. He was talking about operating systems. I knew the manager of the local Egghead software outlet in my area a while ago. (He has since moved on). During this period, Egghead went from stocking a couple shelves of OS/2 software along with OS/2 itself, to only stocking OS/2. Since the latest version back then was selling quite well, I asked him why the change. Why stop stocking OS/2 titles? He said that he couldn't testify to this publicly, but that Microsoft reps had come to Egghead and told them that if they continued to stock OS/2 titles, they would lose the deep discounts they received on Microsoft Word, Excel, etc. He said he didn't like it, but they sold so much Microsoft product, that they could only comply, or they couldn't compete. If you attempt to buy a Micron computer without Windows 95 or NT installed, because you intend to put OS/2 or Linux on it, Micron will tell you that they cannot sell you the computer without Windows installed. They will not tell you why, but they won't sell it to you unless you buy the Windows with it. In the same fashion, DR-DOS, which was a better product than MS-DOS, was selling quite well, and forcing Microsoft to upgrade their stodgy DOS to compete. When Windows 3.1 came out, there was a sudden error message that would come up if you were running DR-DOS, stating that your data was in danger of being corrupted. If you called Microsoft about it, they would ask, "Are you running MS-DOS?", and when you told them DR-DOS, they'd tell you that it was a problem with DR-DOS that would go away if you switched to MS-DOS. It was later proven that the error message was a fake, and that it only lokked for DR-DOS, and if it found it, posted this message. It wouldn't corrupt your data, just scare you out of using DR-DOS. Digital research went out of business. Even the original Windows was a tactic to crush a competitor. At the '82 COMDEX the talk of the show was a product called Visio. It was a windowed environment for PCs, and many of the major players then had signed up to write applications for it. Dollar Bill went around the show telling them that he was only "6 months" from releasing his own environment called "Windows", and it was so much better than Visio that they would waste their time writing for it. Of course, he did not even have the idea at that time, but started work right afterward on his vaporware. It was not released for two years, and it wasnot as good as Visio, but by that time Visio's manufacturer had gone out of business, as they could not sell anything, due to the lack of applications. This tactic has been repeated over and over by Gates and Ballmer. I recall the spin that you shouldn't write apps for OS/2 2.0, because Windows NT would be out in 6 months. Then when it was released a year and a half later, and it was a PIG, Gates admitted that no home user would really want it, and only 2% of all Windows users would want to upgrade, but that you shouldn't write applications for OS/2 2.1 because Windows 4.0 would be out in 6 months (i.e October of 1993). Well Windows 4.0 became Windows '95 2.5 years later, and the saga continues... Hope this helps you understand how a company can stifle competition. There are other examples, of course, but this should give you the idea. kp
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.