|
Re: (OT) The giant steps down before the crash
de hummingbird 06/16/2006 03:33
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 05:54:32 -0500 'Caesar Romano'
posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:59:34 +0100, hummingbird
><OPRBMDQMZNLV@spammotel.com> wrote Re Re: (OT) The giant steps down
>before the crash:
>
>>On 16 Jun 2006 02:58:56 +0200 'John Jay Smith'
>>posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>>>I have stated before what I think the future will be for Microsoft with
>>>vista and office 2007 ....
>>>They are badly designed abominations... and it seems that Gates is getting
>>>out of the boat before it sinks...
>>>
>>>http://news.com.com/Gates+stepping+down+from+full-time+Microsoft+role/2100-1014_3-6084396.html?tag=nl.e498
>>
>>hhmm. I wonder if there's data available to show that the downfall
>>of a software company begins when its products become bloatware?
>
>Addressing the downfall of a software (and hardware) company, read two
>books:
>
>Hard Drive : Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire
>(Paperback)
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887306292/qid=1150452707/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-6270183-6177655?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
>
>and
>
>Big Blues : The Unmaking of IBM (Hardcover)
>by Paul Carroll
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517591979/qid=1150452783/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-6270183-6177655?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
>
>Two excellent and very books that tell the story from two perspectives
>of the rise of MS and the fall of IBM (although IBM is certainly not
>gone by any stretch).
>
>What's really interesting is how MS was drawn into the OS business
>almost against their will by happenstance. (The quy (??Kendrick??) who
>owned CPM didn't want to sign the onerous IBM non-disclosure
>agreement. IBM went to MS, MS says "..no, we only do BASIC here.." and
>sends IBM back to the CPM guy who still won't sign the non-disclosure
>agreement. So IBM goes back to MS and brow-beats them into doing an
>OS.
>
>Now here's where Gates is brilliant: Instead of wanting exhorbant
>royalties on the new OS, which is what IBM expected MS to try to rip
>IBM off on, Gates wants very minimal royalties BUT wants the
>non-IBM-hardware (i.e. the "PC-compatible" market) rights to whatever
>OS is developed. IBM is thrilled by this because at the time there
>*was NO PC-compatible market* and IBM never thought there would be
>one.
Thanks.
Having spent my career working for IBM, for some time in Entry Systems
Product Management in Europe HQ, I know something about the rise of
Microsoft. In those days the major problem we had was with MS-DOS,
sloppily written and with many bugs and limitations.
Gates was never highly thought of inside IBM, often described as an
untrustworthy cowboy and clearly struggled to step up to the role of
dealing with the prof IBM Corporation. Tensions grew from very early
days and continued when Gates developed Windows. The rest is history.
There are many variations of the debates which went on between
IBM and Gates in the early days, few of them very accurate.
I knew some of those in Boca Raton who were personally involved.
IBM's biggest single problem with the intro of the PC was that too
many of those in control at corp level only ever wanted it to be an
intelligent terminal with v/limited computing capacity, to protect the
huge revenues of existing product lines and in fairness, few knew much
about the technological developments which would occur allowing PC
performace to rise. IBM's open architecture PC family 1 series was
intended to create and expand the global PC market under IBM control.
PC/2 was intended to regain control after it had been lost and MCA
was all about that, despite it being marketed as something different.
Again, the rest is history.