Anyone who hasn't heard of the Microsoft anti-trust trial must have been heavily
sedated throughout 1997 and 1998. It's quite possibly the most important trial since
AT&T was busted up two decades ago. The future of the PC software industry,
both consumer and corporate, may be riding on this case. If Microsoft is allowed
to continue tying sales of its applications to sales of its dominant operating system,
then no other developer stands any significant chance of making a name for themself,
creating or expanding markets, or toppling Windows as the operating system of choice
among computer makers (OEMs) and developers.
Just for a moment, let's presume that Microsoft is found guilty on all charges
of wielding its monopoly in operating systems to corner other markets ranging from
office software to internet software to internet content. Unlike most presumptions
which begin this way, let's not look at what is then to be done with Microsoft,
but what might be possible for IBM's OS/2 operating system.
As OS/2 users and developers, we've made our choice in the face of adversity,
to the usual smirks and wide-eyed looks of our friends and family, and to the bewildered
looks of employers who don't understand anything that doesn't appear on the cover
of the mainstream computer press. Why have we made this seemingly bizarre choice?
Surely we cannot expect great profits from developing solely OS/2 applications nor
can we expect to land any but a small handful of jobs working with computers in
any fashion (increasingly needing to know MS Office 97, IE4, and FrontPage regardless
of how often they fail, produce poor results, or require complete system upgrades
just to run at an excusable speed). Usually we've chosen OS/2 because it's not only
the most technically sophisticated consumer OS currently on the market but it's
the easiest to use.
Combining technical features of a corporate UNIX with a familiar and flexible
graphical user interface (GUI), OS/2 proudly serves the purpose of every operating
system -- to provide an interface between the user and the computer hardware which
leaves neither end of the spectrum unfinished. A user very rarely needs to understand
the internal workings of the hardware in order to use it with OS/2 as they would
with a UNIX variant such as Linux or FreeBSD. At the same time, OS/2 is not 90%
user interface with a shaky, flaky twenty year old excuse for an operating system
handling the hardware.
With the legally found guilt of Microsoft, OS/2 could very well have a new chance
at life. First and perhaps most importantly, the general public may become aware
that you cannot look simply at what the developer says about its own products and
that other operating systems DO exist for the PC. Secondly, assuming some action
by the court to level the playing field not only for applications but for operating
systems as well, OS/2 is the only currently available consumer-capable OS which
is fully stocked and ready to go. BeOS is still sadly lacking hardware support,
even moreso than OS/2, and Linux is still far too complex for the Jones'es next
door.
Also, considering OS/2's ability to handle the still-used (more than you might
think) DOS and Windows 3.xx programs, a clever marketing campaign targeted to move
the thousands of WinDOS users (businesses as well as consumers) to OS/2 could result
in millions of dollars in profit for IBM. This was tried briefly in 1994-5 and was
successful. IBM killed it too quickly and failed to even properly market it at the
time. One would hope they've learned from the mistakes of the past ... one would
hope.
Now, since those Win16 applications are typically aging not-too-gracefully, and
with the field leveled to a point where developers don't feel an incessant need
to rapidly advance their releases to keep up with the Microsoft war machine (marketing
department) it's more than possible that OS/2 could see a few new developers as
well as a few old favorites such as Corel, Opera, TrueSpectra, and Netscape. This
renewed interest in "alternative" operating systems could also mean increased
revenue for OS/2's existing, struggling, software developers to enhance their product
offerings and make them more viable across the industry.
But this all falls upon IBM to take the initiative and give a damn about anyone
other than Fortun 500 corporations. IBM who seem content to rake in the cash selling
support for what they well know to be an inferior, clumsy, and unstable product
known as Windows.
The market for support is far more lucrative than the market for product because
there's next to no investment needed to simply support ... until Microsoft decides
to foreclose on these lucrative markets and internalize everything as they have
done in previous ventures.
With Microsoft more or less out of the way after an anti-trust breakup, there
would still be those millions of Windows systems to service and support and, besides,
there are other operating systems that would be willing to pick up where IBM decides
to drop OS/2 in the mud they've pulled it through for the last four years. What
does IBM care if Be Inc. or Red Hat step in to take the industry by storm? It's
not as if they'd be taking marketshare away from IBM's products, and IBM could certainly
sell support for these (because there is no such thing as problem-free software).
IBM can feel content to fulfill the American Dream -- to let all their innovation
and all their manufacturing slip away to other companies and become a once-great
corporation now resigned to be the consumer and pay a few handymen to take wrench
and screwdriver to products when they break.
There's nothing quite like burning out as a footnote in history.
Note: I'm hoping this will light a fire under IBM's hind section,
not discourage OS/2 users.
|
|
|
|