🚀 go-pugleaf

In <332e80c6.0@news.essex1.com>, bgqhr!drrdw0.bnl (Chris J. Alumbaugh) writes:
>In message <E77v9M.GLK@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca> - carsten@edm2.com (Carsten
>Whimster - EDM/2)Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:08:10 GMT writes:
>:>
>:>
>:>I know one company who will care about this announcement: the company
>:>that bought Mesa and Clearlook (Sundial?). They have supposedly been 
>:>working on releasing their programs as OpenDoc components. This type
>:>of thing can sink a small company like that.
>
>Yeah, and that is what really irritates me about IBM. It is getting harder
>and harder to "still believe". IBM makes awesome technology, but doesn't
>know how to sell it.  To large companies and to consumers,, stuff has to
>be "sold".  
>

[snip]

>
>Chris J. Alumbaugh

Chris:

I was hoping to spark these sorts of responses when I posted this article.

In defense of IBM, I must say that Big Blue is a $60-$70 billion dollar
a year corporation.

$70 billion a year.  That's alot of money... IBM managers must be doing
something right.

$70 billion.  This is how $70 billion dollars look with all its zeroes:

	$70,000,000,000.00

That's *ALOT* of money!

As most of us know, the vast majority of this gross revenue is derived
from IBM's mainframe operations (S/390, MVS, MVS/ES, MVS,VSE, VS,
and whatever other letter combinations you can put together).

To a lesser degree, the AS/400 group (with its OS/400) figures in there.

So does the RS/6000 group (with its famous AIX flavour of Unix).

The IBM PC Co. (that target of our derision) does add some value to the bottom
line, but not much.

Let's see, who did I leave out...?

Oh, yeah:  the ISSC, which is IBM's Global Services Division:  It brought
in excess of $23 billion last year.  ISSC is IBM's fastest growing division.
This group is known to push OS/2 just because it's IBM technology (I wish
there were more groups like this at Big Blue!)

Hmmm, who else is there...?  There's the Internet Group (in Raleigh, NC).

There's PSP (our champions and favourite band of fools and misfits -- not the
software developers and engineers, just the managers!).  

And then there's SWS (the Software Solutions Division run by a General Manager
who is one of OS/2's biggest supports).

There's also the Microelectronic Division -- you know them, they're the
chumps who teamed with Apple and Motorola to develop the PowerPC.
So of course these guys mean *NOTHING* to IBM.

Then there's is the new Edmark Group -- IBM's newly formed
Consumer Division... These guys are doomed before they even start:
The consumer market and IBM go together like oil and water!

Then there's the Hursley (England) research groups. (Mike Cowlisaw (sp)
is there).

Like wise, Big Blue has a group is Boulder, CO.  I'm not sure waht they do.

Then there's is that group up in Redmond, WA, helping MS operating systems
run on IBM hardware.  Strangely, I'm not angry over this...

There are many other IBM groups and divisions.  I just can't remember them.

My point is:  IBM has many diffreernt divisions that all operate with
conflicting interests.  This leads to the abnormal behaviour: many IBM
divisions/groups have no use for IBM technologies:

	TopView
	OS/2
	IBM Software Servers (far more scalable then anything Netscape, RADNet or Open Market, etc, has)
	WorkPlace OS (never saw the light of day)
	PowerPC (huge disappoinment)
	IBM PC DOS
	OpenDoc
	DOM/DOSM
	etc...

All of these products are software.  IBM is *NOT* a software company.

IBM stands for International *BUSINESS* *MACHINES*

Big blue sells *HARDWARE*

Let's not foget this!

Sadly, I feel AIX will be the next IBM technology to get the cold shoudler, only
because IBM managers have no real vision or focus for it.  I love AIX.  I love OS/2.

They're both being allowed to fend for themselves!

So don't be surprised if IBM divisions/groups won't support its software.

IBM simply isn't in the business to sell software.

IBM sells hardware, and they are *VERY* good at it.

If we want IBM to better support OS/2, then PSP must 
sell its own hardware (much like AIX is sold with RS/6000s, OS/400s
is sold with AS/400 and OS/390 is sold with S/390s).

If we want IBM to better support OS/2, then we must buy OS/2 software
(from Stardock, Sundial, SofTouch, SPG, StarDivision, DUX and, yes,
even Lotus).

If we want IBM to better support OS/2, then we must have ISVs who will
port standards to OS/2 (why are there no independent ports of RealAudio,
ShockWave, etc.)

If we want IBM to support OS/2, then PSP must do a better job
telling the industry of the benefits of OS/2.  This will be the
hardest thing to do...

So, with all that said:

   Should Lou Gerstner force Jim Pappos (of Lotus) to use OpenDoc?
   Should John M Thompson force the PC Co. to preload OS/2 on everything insight?   
   Should RS/6000 group bundle Notes/Domino instead of Netscape products? (They've started bubdlly Lotus recently).
   Should the AS/400 groups help PSP market OS/2?
   Should IBM make silly consumer commercials extolling the virtues of OS/2 (a business OS)?
   Should all IBM units support OpenDoc, SOM/DSOM, Software Servers?

They answer to all the above questions is: NO!

IBM *MUST* give it's customers what they want.  If the customers want
Netscape, then give them Netscape.  If they want Windows, then give them
Windows.  If they want Java, then give then Java.

As long as it's running on IBM hardware then that's all that matters.

Bill Gates was right:  Hardware companies should never try their hands
at software (at least, not above the OS level).

IBM suffers from a lack of software vision and focus.  It has no software
strategy.  IBM's software effort is like a rudderless ship.

$70 billion.  That's alot of *HARDWARE* money!

-Kevin