decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Comes 2402A (NdiGetFirst()) | 310 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Comes 2108 (Office/Chicago leverage) repost
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 01:48 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/Comes-2108.pdf

<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT<br />
2108<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>To: Hank Vigil, Robbie Bach, Brad Chase</b><br />
<b>From: John Sage</b><br />
<b>Re: Office/Chicago leverage</b><br />
<b>Cc: Eva Camp, Mark Kroese</b><br />

<b>Date: 5/16/94</b>
</p>

<p>
<u>Objective</u><br />
One of the central challenges for the Office team in FY95 is to leverage the
Chicago launch in order to
generate momentum for the new versions of our desktop applications. At the same
time, we want to help
drive widespread acceptance and adoption of Chicago by introducing a 32 bit
version of the new Office
shortly after the Chicago launch. The objective of this memo is to outline some
possible areas for co-
marketing and to raise the discussion of how best to realize synergies and
efficiencies between our two
teams.
</p>

<p>
<u>Overview</u><br />
I start with the presumption that we want to create a linkage between Chicago
and new Office 95 (final
name TBD)&mdash;a connection that suggests the two just "go
together" in the way Lotus has positioned the
linkage between Notes and SmartSuite. The core question is how explicit we
want/need to`make this
connection between the two products. We need executive direction to tell us
whether to make the linkage
an implicit "Level 1" connection (e.g. behind the scenes stocking
promos, joint PR calls, complementary
positioning, packaging, etc.) or an explicit "Level 2" connection
(e.g. all of the Level l plus joint
advertising, end-user marketing, cross promotions, etc.)
</p>

<p>
I have reviewed the Chicago marketing plans and have identified most of the
areas where I believe there
could be leverage between the two products. There are many Office 95 marketing
programs that have yet
to be defined so this list is skewed pretty heavily in favor of Office riding on
Chicago's coattails.
</p>

<p>
<u>Suggestions for Marketing Leverage</u><br />
Outlined below are several specific recommendations/plans for working together
in a number of key areas.
Both Level l and Level 2 activities are included in these suggestions (Level 2
activities are denoted by an
arrow bullet.) I've laid out these suggestions in a way that maps pretty closely
to the Chicago marketing
organization so that the respective leads can evaluate the appropriate tactics.
</p>

<i>Product Positioning and Messaging</i><br />
<ul>
<li>Link Office 95 and Chicago positioning. If Chicago "makes the
possibilities of
computing easier for everyone (final Chicago positioning TBD)" then Office
95
must tie into this core theme. Tie into Chicago message development process and
message testing.</li>
<li>Ensure that Office 95 reinforces key Chicago messages: 1) Easier
"computing
that's easier for everyone; 2) Faster "get your work done faster"; 3)
Accessible "get
easier access to all kinds of info and 4) Compatible "works with and
improves your
system today."</li>

<li>Adopt naming and packaging conventions for Office 95 that are
consistent with
Chicago. Ensure that conventions don't sub-optimize Office WW
business.</li>
<li>Prepare demoable features in Office 95 that support Chicago
integration and
synergy.</li>
<li>Develop and evaluate advertising creative that communicates different
degree of
linkage between both products. Prepare media schedules that help extend reach
and
frequency of both products. Run joint ads reinforcing Chicago/Office
synergy</li>
<li>Prepare PR schedules and plan in complentary way so that editorial
community
picks up the complementary links and connections between both
products.</li>
<li>Revise EBC presentations to reflect common elements b/t Office and
Chicago</li>
</ul>

<i>"First-Wave" Adoption&mdash; Reaching IEUs in advance of
Office 95 launch</i>
<ul>

<li>Give the 6-7 million early adopters with Chicago-capable hardware an
early "heads-
up" about Office 95. As the Chicago "Early Evaluation Program
(EEP)" rolls out 3-
4 months prior to launch (M7 release), there is an excellent opportunity to let
early
evaluators know about the pending release of the defining Chicago
app&mdash;Office 95.
We should have a pointer or billboard to call attention to Office
95.</li>
<li>Use "Upgrade Buddy" program to gain exposure to early
adopters and the second
layer of people they influence. A simple mention or "billboard" in the
first two
million boxes carrying the Upgrade Buddy program notice would provide excellent
exposure for Office 95. This tactic may constitute a "Level 2" idea
since it is
somewhat public.</li>
<li>Gain mention of Office 95 in the "Chicago World Tour", a
series of technical
seminars rurming in the months after the Chicago launch.</li>
<li>Visual ties to Office 95 in scheduled Chicago IEU and VAR/SP
ads.</li>
</ul>

<i>Distribution and Retail</i>
<ul>
<li>Leverage Chicago push into new outlets to increase distribution of
Chicago Office
applications. Possibly develop low-cost Office trial vehicle that is either free
or very
low cost to ensure viability in non-traditional retail environments (e.g record
stores)</li>
<li>Ensure that Chicago team carries Office 95 "preview message"
on pre-release
reseller account calls (4-6 months prior to RTM)</li>

<li>Link Office 95 into Chicago reseller training programs and 20-city
training tour</li>
<li>Link Office 95 into distributor and ATC training and scheduled
"Chicago Days"</li>
<li>Link Ofiice 95 into MS field training and RSM
presentations</li>
<li>Reinforce Chicago after launch through conesponding Office 95
activities</li>
<li>Run Chicago promotion featuring Office-related premium (e.g. $50 off
Office 95
when available, etc.)</li>
</ul>

<i>"Next Wave" Plans&mdash;Reaching IEUs, and Fringe IEUs
with Chicago-capable hardware</i>
<ul>
<li>Chicago defines next wave audience as those who "tend not to
upgrade their
operating systems and who have some degree of relative influence..." Our
biggest
opportunity is to harness the huge visibility push Chicago is making with non-
enthusiasts to raise the profile of Office 95.</li>

<li>Ride "next wave" advertising and PR trains. Non-traditional
advertising and PR
vehicles will be instrumental in reaching a broad base of new users. To the
extent
that we can use these efforts to also introduce new Chicago customers to the
value/benefits of our 32-bit office suite, we can achieve some incredible
leverage.</li>
<li>Review Chicago direct marketing plan to see if there are possible ties
for Office (e.g.
visuals, box shots, premium offers, etc.)</li>
</ul>

<i>Corporate Transition and Large Account Adoption (Adamt and
Sergiop)</i>
<ul>
<li>Where appropriate, Office should be involved in major account trial
and evaluation
programs. Would like to explore Office beta seeding in Chicago
"marquis"
accounts and coordinated trial in remainder of top 200 worldwide
accounts.</li>
<li>Include mention and positioning of Office in Chicago Technical
Workshops being
held in district offices and subsidiaries.</li>
<li>Ensure Office participation in Large Account "Chicago
Council" to assist with
corporate rollout and technical product issues.</li>
<li>Leverage "virtual transition team" (e.g. CATM, PSS, Seminars
and WWT) to
convey Office 95 message as part of core activities.</li>

<li>Cultivate early trial among MIS managers in medium and large accounts.
Tie into
Chicago "Early Experience Program (EEP)" with topline positioning with
Office.</li>
</ul>

<i>Solution Provider Adoption and Recommendation</i>
<ul>
<li>I have not seen the most recent plan for reaching SPs and VARs. The
Chicago team
is reaching out to a large base (15K) of 3rd parties and involving the channel
to help
these efforts prior to launch. If Office can piggyback on any of these efforts
(e.g. the
"PEEK" early look program) we can help Office 95's development message
and
positioning.</li>
<li>Leverage outreach programs aimed at MES and ATCs. Tack Office 95
message
onto Chicago at training venues such as Enterprise Inside Track, TechEd,
DevCast,
BizCast, etc.</li>
</ul>

<p>
<i>Conclusion and Next Steps</i><br />
Independent of any specitic programs or tactics, we assume that Office 95 will
share a look and feel and
overall positioning that is consistent and complementary with Chicago. We will
emphasize and reinforce
Office/Chicago linkage through packaging, sales and training collateral,
messaging, and product
positioning. So the key question facing our teams now is the degree to which we
make an explicit
connection between Office 95 and Chicago. Here's what needs to happen moving
forward:

</p>

<ul>
<li>Drive meeting with Bradc, Hankv and Robbieb to review
recommendations</li>
<li>Review recommendations with respective Chicago team leads</li>
<li>Revise leverage plan as appropriate</li>
<li>Gain executive approval for Chicago/Office leverage plan</li>
<li>Publish plan for Office and Chicago teams</li>
</ul>

<p>
Please get back to me with your feedback and suggestions. I'd like to finalize
this before I leave on 5/19 if
at all possible.

</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2157 ("Sea Change" brings opportunity) repost
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 01:53 PM EDT
http://groklaw.net/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02157.pdf

<p>PLAINTIFF'S<br />
EXHIBIT<br />
2157<br />
Comes v. Microsoft</p>
<hr />

<p>
<b>DOJ - Legal</b>
<hr />
<b>From:</b> Bill Gates<br />

<b>To:</b> Bernard Vergnes; Brian Fleming; Chris Peters;
Hank Vigil; Jeff Raikes: Joachim
Kempin; John Neilson; Lewis Levin; Mike Brown; Mike Maples:
Pete Higgins; Pete
Pathe; Richard Fade; Steve Ballmer<br />
<b>Cc:</b> Bill Gates; Executive Staff and Direct
Reports<br />
<b>Subject:</b> "Sea Change" brings opportunity<br
/>
<b>Date:</b> Thursday, October 06, 1994 11:35PM
</p>

<p>
This memo looks at the opportunities created for DAD and other groups over the
next decade as the
framework of computing changes.
</p>
<p>
&lt; &lt; File Attachment: SEACHAN.DOC &gt; &gt;
</p>

<p>
To: Steve Ballmer, Mike Maples, Pete Higgins, Jeff Raikes, Bernard Vergnes,
Richard Fade, Joachim
Kempin, Mike Brown, Hank Vigil, Lewis Levin, Chris Peters, Peter Pathe, John
Neilson, Brian Fleming<br />
From: Bill Gates<br />
Cc: Executive staff, Executive staff direct reports<br />

Date: October 6, 1994
</p>

<p><b>"Sea change" brings Opportunity</b></p>

<p>
Among our future challenges is the high percentage of office workers and homes
who will already have an
"Office" solution and are no longer candidates to be new users.
Already in a number of our large accounts
we have seen major sales years when Office is widely deployed and then a drop in
sales to a much lower
level at least for the DAD products. The solution to this is to get more revenue
from our installed based. If
we can get high percentages of our users to buy upgrades our business will
thrive. The challenge there is
"adequacy". Some people feel we have already gotten to the point where
most users will not benefit from
updated Office applications, Although we can do a better job on this in the
short run "adequacy" will limit
our penetration. However, over the next decade I believe we will see several
"Sea changes" which will
drive major waves of upgrades. This is an optimistic point of view that struck
me during this Think Week.
Its new thinking - at least for me and I think it leads to exciting
opportunities.
</p>
<p>
An imperfect analogy is the consumer electronics industry which has seen major
wave not only of
hardware sales but software sales including old titles as new formats like CD
come along.
</p>
<p>
Startling sometime after 1990 the move to graphical computing has been a
"Sea change". Although the vast
majority of Wordperfect user would have said their product was quite adequate at
the start of the "Sea
change" every year a higher percentage of those have moved across to either
Windows Wordperfect or
Windows Word. Because it took several tries to fully exploit graphical word
processing and match up with
the latest operating system users who switched by 1992 will have bought on
average at two major
upgrades. The graphical computing sea change has played out over a period of 6
years creating immense
share and leadership opportunity for the software company that saw it coming and
helped make it happen
(Microsoft). By 1996 Office users will spend an insignificant amount of money on
DOS applications and
even the diminishing installed base will know they are "dated".
</p>
<p>
Arguably the shift to an integrated Office approach is another "Sea
Change" which we help caused and
benefited from. However it is not as clear cut or total as the move to graphical
interface. No matter what
you consider the start date of this shift, 6 years after its start there will
still be significant numbers of users
buying and using standalone word-processing and spreadsheets. Anything we can do
to drive the Office
percentage up is very helpful to our strategy.

</p>
<p>
I believe we are in the midst of another major sea change which is the move to
electronic communication
with office documents. In the past PC software users created most of their own
input and did their output to
a printer. During this decade a very high percentage of input will come across
private networks (another
terms for corporate LAN/WAN) and public networks (including Internet and online
services). The
information coming across the private network will include business information
created to review sales,
budgets, personnel, customer service and every other aspect of the business.
Word must become a great
authoring and reading tool for electronic documents. Excel must blow away the
competition in being a
viewer for corporate data by tighter integration to databases and extensions of
features like pivot tables.
we need to make sure public networks include lots of documents best viewed with
Office. The product
approach for this is complex and multifaceted including things like supersetting
Internet features and
providing free subset readers. The basic point however is that users expectation
of what Office applications
will do as changing and 3-4 years from now anyone forced to use the software we
have today would find it
completely inadequate for dealing with the electronic world.
</p>
<p>
This sea change like others provides opportunities for new challenges as well as
our familiar rivals.
Extended Web viewers from startups will grow to provide Word with new
competition. These competitors
will ridicule the number of commands and features Word brings from its past and
suggest it is not the right
tool for the new usage model. Embarrassingly we find ourselves somewhat behind
on of our old rivals in
providing both the system (replication, security) and application (views with
categories, @ expressions,
multivalued fields, flowing forms) elements for basic workgroup-sharing and so
Lotus is recognized as a
leader in moving corporations into the benefits of corporate wide information
sharing. We can move out in
front of this sea change but it will require a focus and an overhauling of parts
of our interface and
coordination between systems and DAD beyond what we have had in the past.
</p>
<p>
In a recent meeting on Office96 there was a discussion of whether the priority
should be designing for our
installed base or for our competitors installed base or new users. Some math
relating the size of these
groups, potential penetration and price suggested a focus on the installed base.
Although its an interesting
calculation it is absolutely the wrong framework to consider our choice in. We
believe this "Sea change"
is inevitable and are willing to bet all of our success on it. We must optimize
for being the best product for
these new scenarios even if that means causing disruption in our user interface
or compatibility that will
cause existing users to wait longer to buy an upgrade. Very few users will
switch to a competitive product
for non-"Sea Change" related features (unless all of their cohorts are
using another product but that is the
subject of another memo). Due to the "Sea Change" they will buy an
upgrade - the only questions are
whose and when. Winning the "whose" is far more important than winning
the when. In the early 1990's
Lotus surveyed their installed base and found limited desire for graphical
interface. By the time it showed
up in the surveys it took them too long to respond and users were willing to
switch. Microsoft bet on the
"Sea change". It takes even more guts to bet on the "Sea
Change" when you are the market leader but it is
the only way to position yourself for massive upgrades.
</p>
<p>
Lets do some math on the "Sea change" opportunity. Our installed base
has not peaked. My exhortation
about studying the saturation phenomena is not to say I believe we are at the
peak in some countries we
have only scratched the surface of the new user potential. However we should
understand the potential for
new users at least on a per country basis. Lets say over the next 2-3 year we
get our high end applications
installed base up to over 24M users. Lets assume that during the peak 4 years of
a sea change 30% of those
users buy 3 $150 upgrades and 30% buy 2 and 30% buy 1. This generates $1.6B per
year which is almost
the size of our current business. During those years we will also be deriving
revenue from new users,
addons, and new products. With the kind of discounts we are providing right now
the $150 might seem
high however an upgrade which provide "Sea change" benefits is worth
more than an upgrade which only
provides more functionality without a "Sea change". Calling these
changes to the product "upgrades" may
be misleading both intemally and externally. We want to draw on our installed
base but we want to take
them somewhere new.
</p>
<p>
The "Sea change" to electronic information sharing is a particularly
important one because it will bring us
closer to our customers. It will also bring our competition and free software
closer to our customers. The
effort to learn about upgrades and to install them will be much lower than it is
today. Lots of low cost and
free software will be easily distributed. Memory and disk size will outrun even
our prodigious ability to
create demanding software making it easy for developers who are don't spend as
much time optimizing to
provide adequate products. Although its something to be watchful of I don't
think new entrants will be able
to redefine the categories enough to take Office out of the mainstream. The
value of having the best
software will be even greater because of the new scenarios.
</p>
<p>

Electronic information sharing is not the final "Sea change" that we
can see ahead. Microsoft has always
assumed that hardware advances will be incredibly rapid and that assumption
still holds true. It is critical
that we look out ahead to see what other "Sea change"s are coming.
There is no rule that says only one
takes place at a time.
</p>
<p>
One "Sea Change" that is still at least three years away but probably
not more than 6 years away is the
move to extensive use of voice input. This will catch on even more rapidly than
graphics interface did. This
will have a deep effect on Office. This is one we should be spending time on
today. If a computer had
perfect speech recognition how would we choose to work with it? What combination
of keyboard, pointing
and speech would we use? Of course the early speech devices will be imperfect so
we will have to pass lots
of context to the voice recognition module from our applications.
</p>
<p>
I still believe strongly that once a tablet sized computer has the right
accuracy and physical characteristics
that pen based computing will be successful and that either mainstream
applications will address this or a
new category will emerge. I believe that linguistic understanding and expert
systems will find there way
into productivity software over the next decade. I am sure Nathan will provide
further thoughts on "Sea
Changes" to come.
</p>
<p>
These "Sea changes" will not affect only Office. Windows also has the
opportunities and challenges of all
of these changes.
</p>
<p>
A static view of the world of technology badly misleads one in understanding the
value of our installed
base and continued commitment to renew our products. I have been guilty of this
myself. Articulating the
"Sea changes" that we are betting on and preparing the company for
them is the most important and
exciting part of our work.
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2388 (HEADLINE: Letters; letter to the editor) repost
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 01:55 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/Comes-2388.pdf

<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2388<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>PC Week, November 26, 1990</p>

<p>LANGUAGE: ENGLISH</p>
<p>LOAD-DATE: August 18, 1995</p>

<p>LEVEL 1 - 295 OF 363 STORIES</p>

<p>Copyright 1990 Information Access Company, a Thomson Corporation<br
/>
Company<br />
ASAP<br />
Copyright 1990 Ziff-Davis Publishing Company<br />
PC Week
</p>

<p>November 5, 1990</p>

<p>SECTION: Vol. 7 ; No. 44 ; Pg. 88; ISSN: 0740-1604</p>

<p>LENGTH: 532 words</p>

<p>HEADLINE: Letters; letter to the editor</p>

<p>BYLINE: Silverberg, Brad ; Bucher, Tim ; Luse, Marv ; Held, Fred
H.</p>

<p>BODY:<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;UNPLANNED LEAKS
</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To the Editor:</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is in response to your
Oct. 22 story alleging that Microsoft released
information about the upcoming Microsoft MS-DOS version 5.0 in an attempt to
create fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding DRI's Digital Research Inc.'s DR
DOS 5.0.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The feature enhancements at
MS-DOS version 5.0 were decided and development
was begun long before we heard about DR DOS 5.0. There will be some similar
features. With 50 million MS-DOS users, it shouldn't be surprising that DRI has
heard some of the same requests from custsmers that we have. There will also be
significant features unique to Microsoft MS-DOS version 5.0.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As for the timing of the leaks,
it was not an orchestrated Microsoft plan
nor did the leaks come from Microsoft. In the past, users expressed frustration
when we neither acknowledged that a new product was in development nor gave a
sense of our direction for the release. Thus, to serve our customers better,
we
decided to be more forthcoming about version 5.0.</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Brad Silverberg</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Vice President, Systems
Software</p>

<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;General Manager</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2415 (Webmaster/Server ISV event - day one) repost
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 02:07 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/Comes-2415.pdf

<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2415<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>

<p>
<b>From:</b> John Shewchuk<br />
<b>Sent</b> Thursday, October 05, 1995 2:46 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> bens; bobmu; bradsi; chrisjo; craigfi; donbrad: jallard;
jimall; johnlu; mikecon; paulma; nchl;
thomasre<br />

<b>Cc:</b> patfer<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Webmaster/Server ISV event - day one
</p>

<p>
When I got Gosling and Naughton started on the Java OLE control for Blackbird,
it was a sensitive issue at Sun &mdash;
Gosling was getting it done as a "black" project. So please don't
raise public awareness of the project without checking
with Naughton.
</p>

<p>
Regarding Java vs OLE controls<br />

=====<br />
Both Gosling and Naughton will admit that Java is a programming language and
that without APIs to call, Java is kind of
stupid. There is a growing consensus among developers that have tried HotJava
that it has major limitations.
</p>

<p>
The lack of APIs is the reason StarWave is doing the Java OLE control&mdash;
so they can get assess to OLE automation;
especially automation ot Blackbird objects. Gosling admits that once someone
does this it is no longer cross platform
and it is hard to be safe.
</p>

<p>
Finally, OLE and Java go together nicely. You don't need to position them as
competitive. Java goes up against VB.
We need to get the VB team to respond to Java. Maybe VB should be cross-plattorm
and safe. See the Blackbird rude
Q&amp;A.
</p>

<p>

Regarding overall messages<br />
=====<br />
I think this whole cross-platform issue is going to die down once we start
getting cool OLE controls (or Netscape add-ins)
that take advantage of DirectX and other Windows 95 APIs. Cross platform is an
important customer message but in the
long run it a bad technical goal because it means lowest common denominator. So
talk the talk, but show customers and
publishers what they are missing. Leverage our strength in great Windows 95
capabilities.
</p>

<p>
Netscape add-ins ONLY RUN IN A NETSCAPE BROWSER. You can't use them in IE, Word,
PowerPoint, VB, Delphi,
VC++, Blackbird or anything else. You can't even use them inside each other. OLE
is OPEN. Netscape add-ins lock you
into a Netscape only strategy. This is lame. Java is probably not much better.
</p>

<p>
Finally, both Java and Netscape add-ins fail to address design-time operation.
This is a huge leverage point for
Microsoft. Senior people that are fully in the Netscape camp think twice when
they see the Macromedia Director editor
come up inside the Blackbird design environment. They think about what it will
take to get this clone in Netscape and it is
a pain.
</p>

<p>
Why does this matter??? Because it represents a radically different model of
content creation than Java or Netscape
add-ins suggest. CPs don't want to write code!!! They want to focus on creating
cool content... They want simple, simple,
simple. Programming is hard. OLE controls are PACKAGED bundles of capability.
OLE makes it easy for hot software
developers to package up a lot of code that the creatives can use. LibO from CRG
can attest to the fact that Bud and
Norm from Macromedia practically fell over themselves to create Blackbird OLE
controls because when they heard that
they could provide their cool runtime to lots of non-programmers. (It turns out
that many Macromedia users hate the fact
that they have to learn Lingo to do anything cool.)

</p>

<p>
So let's make sure we explain that OLE controls are more than JUST an add-in
strategy- OLE Controls are the start of a
COMPLETE strategy. Add an open message, VB, Blackbird, IE with OLE control
support, open scripting, and so on, and
then you have story. Let's fight on our own turf &mdash; in other words,
focus on the content providers and ISVs (they are the
enablers for the content providers) and give them what they want. And let the
great applications win over the viewers.
</p>

<p>
----------<br />
From: Brad Silverberg
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Comes 2402A (NdiGetFirst())
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 02:25 PM EDT
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/Comes-2402_A.pdf

<p>
<b>From:</b> Troy Chevalier(SMTP:mail.mcom.com)<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, September 02, 1995 12:53 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> thomasre &lt;thomasre@microsoft.com&gt;<br
/>
<b>Cc:</b> chrisjo@microsoft.com<br />

<b>Subject:</b> RE: NdiGetFirst()
</p>

<p>
Thomas, that certainly lets me know what I shouldn't
be doing. Thanks.
</p>

<p>
Chris, we are working on signing up for Premier support.
I understand the process takes up to 10 days to get in place.
Any chance we can get some assistance first?
</p>

<p>
Thanks,<br />
Troy

</p>

<p>
----------<br />
<b>From:</b> thomasre &lt;thomasre@microsoft.com&gt;<br
/>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 01, 1995 5:43 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> troy@netscape.com<br />

<b>Cc:</b> chrisjo@microsoft.com<br />
<b>Subject:</b> Fw: NdiGetFirst()
</p>

<p>
well, we tried to dig up some info, but still probably not everything
you need.
</p>

<p>
----------<br />
From: jeremys<br />

Sent: Friday, September 01, 1995 5:06 PM<br />
To: thomasre<br />
Cc: chrisjo<br />
Subject: RE: NdiGetFirst()
</p>

<p>
Ndi apis are scary and internal... I don't even use 'em in our wizard,
not a one! It looks like the header file got into the DDK by
accident. These WILL disappear very soon, NOBODY should use them.
</p>

<p>
To enumerate net cards, protocols, etc. call DiGetClassDevs, which is
documented in the DDK. To install protocols etc. call
DiCallCIassInstaller, which is documented in the DDK.
</p>

<p>
For the GenInstall problem, you should talk to someone else... MS
developer support? One program manager recently mumbled something to
me like "GenInstall isn't really public or supported". I asked what
was public, and he named some function like InstallInf or
InstallHInf, but I haven't been able to find any mention of it.
</p>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )