|
|
|
| Authored by: foulis on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
<p align=right>PLAINTIFF'S<br>EXHIBIT<br>1456<br>Comes
v. Microsoft</p>
<br>
From: eziob Sun Oct 18 15:57:05 1992<br>
To: paulma<br>
Subject: NT and Chicago strategy<br>
Cc: bobmc eziob jonl stefanop steveb umbertop<br>
Date: mon Oct 19 00:29:26 1992</p>
Paul,<br>
Chicago and NT strategy are 2 different problems.</p>
NT<br>
I do agree with you when you say we doing a large investment to push NT as a
mission critical platform, well suited for networked environments. This message
was only partially conveyed at the MCS meeting. The message given by Marketing
was very simple and in a way correct.</p>
We need at least 2 years before mission critical applications will be available,
there is a need to start selling NT the earliest possible time to show a
positive response in term of sales. There is a large number of power users, if
we reach a portion of them we get an excellent startup with NT.</p>
My points are as simple.</p>
We competing with excellent chances to establish the standard operating system
of the future. It never happened in history a company different from IBM has
been even trying to achieve that. We talking about the control of the computer
industry in the years to come; do we really care about short term
sales?</p>
We doing fine on the client side, we get the server side and bingo!!! Talking
about defocusing if we try too hard to run after a niche segment (Power users)
we do not pay enough attention to the really long term strategy. I believe
product groups got this version. Hermes is a clear and additional demonstration
of the attention we pay to networked mission critical environments. (And, by the
way, Hermes will most critical to the success of NT).</p>
Furthermore I do not believe the appealing power user segment is so large. We do
no have, day 1, that much hardware support; as example for advanced computer
graphics we would need support for hardware 3D transformations, we do not have,
day 1, that many device drivers and subsystems for handling analog and digital
peripherals.</p>
Most important we do not have the appropriate support structure in place. The
segment is large, but we can only target a portion of this segment with some
difficulties in term of structure.</p>
I think we did fine with Lan Manager, our sales cannot be compared to Novell,
but we could compare our Lanman growth rate. Most important we now have the
appropriate people to support the networking strategy.</p>
Chicago is a different story.<br>
<p align=right>MS 0156329<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
W4W is the product that will blow away Novell market share. I don't care if
every W4W license will be used on a Lan; people may buy W4W even because they
need</p>
<hr>
<br>
Windows and they like a calendaring package. To me each W4W sale is a networking
license. Looking at the number of Windows sales, W4W will let us walk into an
account and avoid to be reminded about Novell market share. W4W is really
addressing Novel and Lotus Notes.</p>
A product like Chicago (or W4W on Chicago) will not keep the attention away from
NT or W4W.</p>
We released Win 3.1 this year. We will release Chicago in 94. I think it is too
long between releases.</p>
OS/2 is now positioned between NT and Win 3.1 (or W4W).</p>
I do not think it is a problem, I do not believe there is the need for 32 bit
flat memory model and for multithreading to deploy a large networked
installation. But I say that with some understanding of Win, OS/2 and the
necessary background for the implementation of large projects.</p>
But think about the MIS manager of a large corporation, the IBM director will
walk in there and tell him: would you deploy 3000 PCs without multitasking? They
both do not know what they talk about, but they old friends and the MS manager
will buy that, he will ask his technicians and they will confirm OS/2 has more
multitasking than Win 3.1 and multitasking is important for
networking.</p>
Now, we lucky with this account, we too talk to this MIS manager and we tell
him: You need multitasking? No problem, NT has all of it, and even more. The MIS
manager will ask his technicians how much? (he only understand those numbers)
and he will find out for 3000 PCs he will need 1,000,000 K additional dollars.
Later on he will find out OS/2 was underestimated at 4 megs, but memory cost
will be down and the OS/2 sale will be already done.</p>
OS/2 is the IBM problem, but not so much of a problem as Office Vision. IBM is
not dropping OS/2 like Office Vision. OS/2 is not completely dead. Win 3.1 will
have to compete against OS/2 for about 2 years. IBM is going to release
Workplace on 32 bit this year. We show Cairo as the future (94...) and we show a
user interface similar to OS/2 Workplace.</p>
I do not believe IBM will lose the operating system market completely. I believe
IBM will have a share of this market and we will have another one. The question
now is how big will be our and IBM share? With Chicago IBM would have had a much
more difficult time.</p>
Ezio</p>
<br>
<p align=right>MS 0156330<br>CONFIDENTIAL</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
