🚀 go-pugleaf

Here in comp.os.os2.advocacy, chucks@isd.net (Erik Funkenbusch)
spake unto us, saying:

>Isn't anyone concerned that IBM never actually seems to *DELIVER* any
>new technologies?

Yes, it's a concern to me when they don't deliver, particularly when the
thing they don't deliver is something that some I might see a good use
for.  But IBM as a whole is a seething MAZE of R&D, and there are also
an awful lot of good products that come out of its doors that do a lot
to help offset the failures.

Keep in mind that products for the desktop and small server OS (or the
software environment in any form) are only a small part of IBM's total
interest area.  That's frustrating for some of us (in the OS/2 world,
at any rate) because it seems like we get overlooked a lot by other
"higher priority" things, but that's also reality.

>Why is this?

I suspect a lot of it is because IBM is simply large enough to be able
to survive test-firings of technology.

Most companies can't afford to do the types of things IBM does without
sinking some risk of their own survival into the mix.  IBM doesn't seem
to care.  It's too big.  :-)  So it can afford to play around a little
bit and see what works and what doesn't.

That's my theory, and I'll stick by it as long as it's convenient.  :-)

-- 
-Rich Steiner  >>>--->  rsteiner@skypoint.com  >>>---> Bloomington, MN
      Written offline using PC Yarn + Yep + FTE under OS/2 Warp 4
       Stupidity got us into this mess; why can't it get us out?