Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!
newsgate.watson.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com!
portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!news
From: nle...@austin.vnet.ibm.com  (Nelly Leong)
Subject: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Sender: ne...@austin.ibm.com (News id)
Message-ID: <Cywsw9.5qwA@austin.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 18:04:56 GMT
Reply-To: nle...@austin.vnet.ibm.com  (Nelly Leong)
Organization: IBM Power Personal Systems
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.01
Keywords: PowerPC reference platform 
Lines: 101

The long, awaited for rumor :-) of a common PowerPC hardware reference platform
between Apple, Motorola and IBM has turned truth today.  Below is the press
release made available to the medai this morning.  We welcome any comment
or question you may have.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Press release for Monday, 11/7, New York


AGREEMENT REACHED ON HARDWARE REFERENCE PLATFORM FOR
PowerPC MICROPROCESSOR

Open platform to create broad array of computers that run
multiple operating systems


NEW YORK, November 7, 1994  .  .  .  Apple Computer Inc., IBM
Corporation and Motorola Inc. today agreed on a new hardware reference
platform specification for the PowerPC* microprocessor that aims to
deliver a much wider range of operating system and application choices
for computer customers.

The new platform defines an architecture -- a framework made up of
open technical concepts, definitions, specifications and interfaces --
that can be used by any hardware or software vendor to build
compatible PowerPC-based computer products that are ready to run a
tremendous variety of applications written for a number of industry
operating systems.

The new hardware reference platform for the PowerPC microprocessor is
expected to support popular computer operating systems, such as Mac
OS**, OS/2* for the PowerPC, AIX* and Microsoft Windows*** NT.  Many
of these operating systems already support current PC applications
through software emulation or hardware extensions.

To ensure that the vast majority of applications written to current
specifications will run largely unmodified on the new hardware
reference platform, the platform will combine many technical
characteristics and features from Apple's Power Macintosh architecture
and from the current IBM and Motorola PowerPC Reference Platform,
adopted by a number of hardware and software vendors.

Each company intends to take technical and financial responsibility to
port an operating system to the new platform.  Apple will be
responsible for porting the Mac OS, IBM for OS/2 for the PowerPC and
AIX and Motorola for Windows NT.  The three companies will continue to
work together with other vendors on porting their operating systems to
the new platform.

In a joint statement, the three companies said, "The PowerPC
microprocessor has already established itself as the industry's
price/performance and technology leader.  By combining that technology
with an open hardware platform and the industry's broadest range of
operating system availability, we are creating a new industry standard
-- one whose entrance means greater value and performance for
customers, greater opportunities for developers and greater
competition for the industry."

The hardware reference platform aims to create new business
opportunities and alternatives for software developers and hardware
vendors who demand a higher return on their investment.  This new
platform will allow them to invest once in developing a product and
have it reach a huge installed base of computers from a variety of
vendors.

The objective is to achieve 100 percent compatibility with current
PowerPC-based hardware and software application products, while
creating a new base standard that offers advanced function and future
capability. These features include designs for the industry-standard
high-performance peripheral component interconnect (PCI) bus
technology, system boot or start-up that works independently of the
operating system and industry standard components and I/O systems for
compatibility.

More technical information on the new hardware platform will be
published in the Spring of 1995.  The companies intend to present
prototypes of the systems based on the specification in 1995, and the
first computers are expected to be available in 1996.

PowerPC is a family of RISC-based microprocessors developed jointly by
Apple, IBM and Motorola and a key plank in the 1991 technology
alliance between the three companies.  Since then, the companies have
garnered broad industry support for the PowerPC.  Currently, more than
25 companies are developing or marketing PowerPC systems, including
Apple, Bull Systems, Canon, FirePower, Hitachi, IBM, Motorola, Power
Computing, 3DO, the Taiwan New PC Consortium and Toshiba.


*    Indicates trademark or registered trademark of  International
Business  Machines Corp.

**   Indicates trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.

***  Indicates trademark of respective company

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nelly Leong, IBM Power Personal Systems Division

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news2.near.net!
cat.cis.Brown.EDU!news
From: ST00...@brownvm.brown.edu ()
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 00:40:15 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
Lines: 4
Message-ID: <39n30l$s2d@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: <Cywsw9.5qwA@austin.ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
X-News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

Does anyone know if, with the new reference platform, a software vendor can
write one version of a program that will run on multiple operating systems
(on Son-of-PREP computers, of course)?  I assume this is part of the idea of
the whole thing, but I am not sure.

Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!
news-4.nss.udel.edu!brahms.udel.edu!not-for-mail
From: m...@brahms.udel.edu (Michael D Quillen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Date: 8 Nov 1994 11:03:58 -0500
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <39o7he$gdh@brahms.udel.edu>
References: <Cywsw9.5qwA@austin.ibm.com> <39n30l$s2d@cat.cis.brown.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: brahms.udel.edu

In article <39n30l$s...@cat.cis.brown.edu>,  <ST00...@brownvm.brown.edu> wrote:
>Does anyone know if, with the new reference platform, a software vendor can
>write one version of a program that will run on multiple operating systems
>(on Son-of-PREP computers, of course)?  I assume this is part of the idea of
>the whole thing, but I am not sure.

I don't think that's possible right now.
According to an article in The Wall St. Journal yesterday, there is much
sniping between Apple and IBM regarding a common OS.  Neither
wants to give in.  Isn't a common OS necessary for this kind of compatibility?


+-----------------------
 Michael Quillen
 University of Delaware      |  ...Under            |
 eMail: m...@chopin.udel.edu   |      Construction... |

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: andyj...@aol.com (AndyJawlik)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Date: 8 Nov 1994 14:05:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: ne...@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <39oi56$bhj@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
References: <39n30l$s2d@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

In article <39n30l$s...@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, ST00...@brownvm.brown.edu ()
writes:

"Does anyone know if, with the new reference platform, a software vendor
can
write one version of a program that will run on multiple operating systems
(on Son-of-PREP computers, of course)?  I assume this is part of the idea
of
the whole thing, but I am not sure."

You assume right.  That's it exactly.  Programs written to OSs on the
PowerPC Reference Platform or the PowerMac platform will run unchanged on
the new platform.

Andy Jawlik, IBM Power Personal Systems Division

Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibmpc.hardware
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!
NewsWatcher!user
From: jo...@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Joel Sumner)
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Message-ID: <joels-0811941722100001@222.208.249.12>
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.hardware, comp.sys.ibmpc.hardware
Sender: ne...@oakhill.sps.mot.com (oakhill news)
Nntp-Posting-Host: joelmac
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products
References: <Cywsw9.5qwA@austin.ibm.com>
   <39n30l$s2d@cat.cis.brown.edu>
   <39o7he$gdh@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 23:22:10 GMT
Lines: 28
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.sys.powerpc:31933 comp.sys.mac.hardware:110539

In article <39o7he$g...@brahms.udel.edu>, m...@brahms.udel.edu (Michael D
Quillen) wrote:
> According to an article in The Wall St. Journal yesterday, there is much
> sniping between Apple and IBM regarding a common OS.  Neither
> wants to give in.  Isn't a common OS necessary for this kind of compatibility?

Had Taligent succeeded, I don't think this friction would exist. Both
manufacturers would be "migrating" toward it and they would both "own" the
new OS, therefore, there would be no "competition" problem.  

However, since Taligent doesn't appear to have gone anywhere, and neither
company can profit off of the other's OS, neither of them will has any
incentive to unify on one OS. 

Then again, there is the argument that if they don't work together to
unify under one OS, they will BOTH be dead in the water and WIN-NT will
grab Apple's 10% and OS/2's 10%.

You can only get a "win-win" situation if neither side is going for the
throat....

(My comments are my own.. etc..)
-- 
Joel Sumner
Motorola Semiconductor Products
Data Communications
jo...@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Anything is possible except for skiing through a revolving door - Unknown

Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!
pipex!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!CC.UMontreal.CA!charette
From: char...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Frederick Charette)
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Message-ID: <charette.784423832@mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Sender: ne...@cc.umontreal.ca (Administration de Cnews)
Organization: Universite de Montreal
References: <39n30l$s2d@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <39oi56$bhj@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 23:30:32 GMT
Lines: 27

>You assume right.  That's it exactly.  Programs written to OSs on the
>PowerPC Reference Platform or the PowerMac platform will run unchanged on
>the new platform.
  >Andy Jawlik, IBM Power Personal Systems Division

Then, doesn't it create one more incentive for developers to develop only
for Windows? Or does it on the contrary narrow the gap between developing
for the MacOS or Windows, thus placing the accent on the availability
and/or usability of developing tools? 

From the consumers point of view, it means one might need two or more OSs
to run specific apps, instead of two or more machines. But will choosing
the MacOS become more common for this very reason? If one has already Word
6 for Windows, why would he feel the need to buy both the MacOS and Word 6
for Mac? And will it be possible to run the MacOS only to manage files 
with the Finder, then switch to Windows to run apps?

Is Apple betting either a) only on its hardware division or b) that 
consumers who will buy a PowerMac will feel a need to also buy the MacOS? 
Both bets seem equally hazardous to me, but would have there been any 
other choice?

Questions, questions, and so few answers...

Frederick Charette
Universite de Montreal

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!goyal
From: go...@utdallas.edu (Mohit K Goyal)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Date: 10 Nov 1994 05:10:29 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <39sa05$ks0@news.utdallas.edu>
References: <39oi56$bhj@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <39ql7v$o83@newsbf01.news.aol.com> 
<39rnd8$ai4@news.halcyon.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: csclass.utdallas.edu
NNTP-Posting-User: goyal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

: But will you ever be able to run MacOS on a PReP box that you buy today?
: Will you ever be able to run OS/2 for PPC, AIX, NT, or Solaris on a
: PowerMac that you buy today?  Or does anyone that wants to run MacOS plus
: any other OS on the same machine have to wait until 1996? 

Not sure if this answers your question, and hopefully Andy can clear
this up, but the impression I'M getting is that *any* software
written for a PREP-compliant machine will run *unchanged* on an
AIM machine.(the ones due in 1996)

I have no idea if software written for PowerMacs will run on the
AIM machines.

Finally, does anybody know if Apple is going to ever make a PREP machine,
or are they just going to skip PREP and make AIM machines.

OH YEAH...does the newly announced hardware platform have an official
name?(ie-acronym)

Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
pipex!uunet!decwrl!murky.apple.com!gallant.apple.com!kip-82.apple.com!user
From: ma...@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Michael Mace)
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Sender: ne...@gallant.apple.com
Message-ID: <mace1-111194185915@kip-82.apple.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 02:59:15 GMT
References: <39n30l$s2d@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <39oi56$bhj@newsbf01.news.aol.com> 
<charette.784423832@mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Organization: Apple Computer
Followup-To: comp.sys.powerpc
Lines: 127

I'll reply to a couple of people who had questions...


In article <charette....@mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA>,
char...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Frederick Charette) wrote:

> >You assume right.  That's it exactly.  Programs written to OSs on the
> >PowerPC Reference Platform or the PowerMac platform will run unchanged on
> >the new platform.
>   >Andy Jawlik, IBM Power Personal Systems Division
> 
> Then, doesn't it create one more incentive for developers to develop only
> for Windows? Or does it on the contrary narrow the gap between developing
> for the MacOS or Windows, thus placing the accent on the availability
> and/or usability of developing tools? 

The common reference platform announcement itself is more or less
developer-neutral.  It reassures them that IBM, Apple, and Motorola are
adopting a business model that will make PowerPC successful, but doesn't
change the OS situation that much.

The big news to developers is that we'll be selling MacOS broadly. 
Licensees will be able to sell MacOS systems directly against Apple, in
Apple's core markets, at whatever price they choose.  This creates the
prospect of rapid growth in MacOS share, and therefore in sales of MacOS
applications.

> 
> From the consumers point of view, it means one might need two or more OSs
> to run specific apps, instead of two or more machines. But will choosing
> the MacOS become more common for this very reason? If one has already Word
> 6 for Windows, why would he feel the need to buy both the MacOS and Word 6
> for Mac? And will it be possible to run the MacOS only to manage files 
> with the Finder, then switch to Windows to run apps?
> 

Choosing the MacOS will become more common because one of the main
objections to Mac in the past has been its proprietary business model. 
We're committed to destroying that objection.  And yes, a lot more people
will buy when we do that.


> Is Apple betting either a) only on its hardware division or b) that 
> consumers who will buy a PowerMac will feel a need to also buy the MacOS? 
> Both bets seem equally hazardous to me, but would have there been any 
> other choice?
> 

Apple is betting on both.  We think the Mac-compatible hardware market will
grow quickly enough to make room for both Apple-branded Macintosh computers
and MacOS compatibles.  So yes, we are betting on the hardware folks.  But
we're also betting that we can make MacOS an even more attractive product. 
That, combined with decreasing the barriers to Mac, should push up MacOS
sales.


And now for part II...


In article <39tm7c$g...@jet.ibmoto.com>, le...@ibmoto.com (Jim Lear) wrote:

> So this sounds like the plan:
> 
>   Six operating systems will become (or are) available for the new PREP:
> 	- Mac OS
> 	- OS/2
> 	- NT
> 	- AIX
> 	- Some once pondered "Pink" from Taligent
> 	- Solaris

You left out Novell, but I'll let them speak for themselves.


> 
>   Customers will get to choose from the above.  Now, you say you don't
> know which one the customers will pick.  I don't know which ones the
> customers will pick, and I don't think anyone else knows which one the
> customers will pick.  Let's just say the pick the top 3 in equal numbers.

I think most of them will pick MacOS for the desktop and NetWare for
servers, but that's a personal opinion and not meant as a slam at any of
the other fine companies creating operating systems for the new standard.


> 
>   Now, with customers equally distributed among 3 different operating
> systems which OS will the ISVs develop for.  Hmmm...three different OSes
> each with a third of the PPC market.  Hmm...the PPC (Mac) market is about
> 1/10 the size of the DOS/Windows market.  Call me stupid but why the would
> ISVs want to deal with four different OSes (incl. Windows) when 90% of the
> market will be in one?  It sounds like a good way to confuse your
> customers, your ISVs, and yourselves.

90% of the market was and always has been DOS/Windows.  We built a pretty
nice Mac business in spite of that.  What developers go for is growth
rates, because it's growth that creates new opportunities for selling
programs.  Even a very large market can be unattractive if it's saturated. 
Ask people trying to sell software to the DOS installed base, which is
still very large.  So we're going to do everything necessary to increase
substantially the growth rate of MacOS, and we expect that growth to
attract developers.


> 
>   If your plans are to compete with Windows/x86 you better unify your
> front.  Windows is a "de facto" standard accepted by the gross majority of
> the market and you're fighting an uphill battle (remember, your fighting
> the market momentum, not just Microsoft).  You aren't going to put a dent
> in that market when you're fighting the OS/2 vs Mac OS vs NT vs
> ... battles.  If I were planning the Apple/IBM/Motorola formula for OSes,
> I'd put a sign over my desk that said, "It's Windows stupid!"
> 

CP/M was a defacto standard too.

We're used to fighting uphill battles against the dominant OS, we know how
to do it, and in fact we've learned from our mistakes so I think we'll do a
much more effective job this time.

Besides, in the long run, "It's components, stupid."  Thus OpenDoc, which
will run on MacOS, and OS/2, and Windows95.


Michael Mace
Manager, Competitive Analysis
Apple Computer, Inc.

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!
caen!koesel
From: koe...@engin.umich.edu (Mark Koesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Date: 12 Nov 1994 08:40:22 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <3a1v1m$lut@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
References: <39n30l$s2d@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <39oi56$bhj@newsbf01.news.aol.com> 
<charette.784423832@mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA> <mace1-111194185915@kip-82.apple.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: joule.engin.umich.edu

In article <mace1-111...@kip-82.apple.com>,
Michael Mace <ma...@AppleLink.Apple.COM> wrote:

[schnip]

>In article <charette....@mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA>,
>char...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Frederick Charette) wrote:
>> 
>> From the consumers point of view, it means one might need two or more OSs
>> to run specific apps, instead of two or more machines. But will choosing
>> the MacOS become more common for this very reason? If one has already Word
>> 6 for Windows, why would he feel the need to buy both the MacOS and Word 6
>> for Mac? And will it be possible to run the MacOS only to manage files 
>> with the Finder, then switch to Windows to run apps?
>
>Choosing the MacOS will become more common because one of the main
>objections to Mac in the past has been its proprietary business model. 
>We're committed to destroying that objection.  And yes, a lot more people
>will buy when we do that.

Yes, but I think his point was not whether people will welcome the fact
that the MacOS will no longer be soley proprietary, but will this fact
be enough to offset the fact these people simply already know how, and 
like to use Windows.  That is, clearly the vast majority of the market
that the CHRP platform will be trying to cut into is Windows dominated.
What real reasons will there be for anyone who uses Windows to move to 
another OS? (assuming they've already decided to give the CHRP platform
a serious look).

(Warning: the folowing arestrictly IMHO) 

-We can probably rule out any aethetic/EoU arguments (see the MAC vs.
 PC thread ;-) ).  It'll be MacOS9 vs. Cairo vs. OS2 for WPOS.  I'm
 not claiming omnipotence, but I'll bet the differences aren't gonna
 be enough to cause a great migration. 

-We can probably rule out stability.  Trim kerneled, 32bit(at least),
 protected mem, preemptive mania - all of 'em. 

-We can probably rule out cost.  Enough said.

-Can we rule out development?  Well, MS isn't losing developers. IBM
 isn't gaining any.  Apple -  I think they're on the rise.  Bottom line,
 MS doesn't have much to worry about here.

-Can we rule out P&P, AV, etc.?  Hey if MacOS can do it on a CHRP box,
 I'll bet the others can too. 

Comments, additions anyone?

[schnip]

[Oops I lost the attribution on the original.  The author is not Frederick
Charette as above.  The part I'm quoting directly is still Mr. Mace.  Sorry] 
>> Customers will get to choose from the above.  Now, you say you don't
>> know which one the customers will pick.  I don't know which ones the
>> customers will pick, and I don't think anyone else knows which one the
>> customers will pick.  Let's just say the pick the top 3 in equal numbers.

[Note that the 3 were NT, MacOS, and OS2]

>I think most of them will pick MacOS for the desktop and NetWare for
>servers, but that's a personal opinion and not meant as a slam at any of
>the other fine companies creating operating systems for the new standard.

Hey, slam away.  I want to hear why your OS is the best!  I'm sure We'll
all be reading it in the trade rags in a year and a half, so why not
give us a preview.  :^)

>>   Now, with customers equally distributed among 3 different operating
>> systems which OS will the ISVs develop for.  Hmmm...three different OSes
>> each with a third of the PPC market.  Hmm...the PPC (Mac) market is about
>> 1/10 the size of the DOS/Windows market.  Call me stupid but why the would
>> ISVs want to deal with four different OSes (incl. Windows) when 90% of the
>> market will be in one?

Actually, there'd be three.  You counted Windows twice.  Presumably NT will
still be cross platform by then, and it's also likely that the Intel
platform will have a single Windows flavor by then (or the two flavors will 
look and feel identical, and run the *exact* same apps.) 

>> It sounds like a good way to confuse your
>> customers, your ISVs, and yourselves.
>
>90% of the market was and always has been DOS/Windows.  We built a pretty
>nice Mac business in spite of that.  What developers go for is growth
>rates, because it's growth that creates new opportunities for selling
>programs.  Even a very large market can be unattractive if it's saturated. 
>Ask people trying to sell software to the DOS installed base, which is
>still very large.  So we're going to do everything necessary to increase
>substantially the growth rate of MacOS, and we expect that growth to
>attract developers.

And I expect it will too.  Will this in turn pull users away from windows?

>>   If your plans are to compete with Windows/x86 you better unify your
>> front.  

[note, I think the 'your' referred to IBM.]

Actually they'll be competing with Windows/PPC (NT/PPC) too.  But, I
agree with you, whole-heartedly.  I think that the ideal OS would run
OS2, Win, and Mac apps, all with a simple double click on any of them. 
No need to create partitions for all you OSes, and reboot when you want
to use a certain application.  Of course, the issues of endianess and
source code licensing are big, but perhaps its feasible.  Such an OS
would give the CHRP platform a definite edge over the x86 plaform
and eliminate any need for Multiple OSes on the CRHP platform, save
maybe, Unix.

It is in my opinion that this is where Apple should be looking.  They 
need to dominate this platform, there survival hangs in the balance.
Of course such a strategy could lead to an OS2/x86 situation, no
native development. 

>> Windows is a "de facto" standard accepted by the gross majority of
>> the market and you're fighting an uphill battle (remember, your fighting
>> the market momentum, not just Microsoft).  You aren't going to put a dent
>> in that market when you're fighting the OS/2 vs Mac OS vs NT vs
>> ... battles.  If I were planning the Apple/IBM/Motorola formula for OSes,
>> I'd put a sign over my desk that said, "It's Windows stupid!"
>
>CP/M was a defacto standard too.
>
>We're used to fighting uphill battles against the dominant OS, we know how
>to do it, and in fact we've learned from our mistakes so I think we'll do a
>much more effective job this time.
>
>Besides, in the long run, "It's components, stupid."  Thus OpenDoc, which
>will run on MacOS, and OS/2, and Windows95.

But is OpenDoc not in direct competition with OLE (at least on Windows). 

>Michael Mace
>Manager, Competitive Analysis
>Apple Computer, Inc.

Thank you for taking time to comment in this forum Mr. Mace.
    __
 __/\_\ Mark G. Koesel - koe...@engin.umich.edu
/\_\/_/ Computer Engineering - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
\/_/\_\ The future: same old binary incompatibility headaches, 
   \/_/ only this time were taunted by the fact that we're all
        using the same operating system.  
-- 
    __
 __/\_\ Mark G. Koesel - koe...@engin.umich.edu
/\_\/_/ Computer Engineering - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
\/_/\_\ 

Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.ege.edu.tr!news.metu.edu.tr!mother.usf.edu!
darwin.sura.net!jhunix1.hcf.jhu.edu!news
From: Chris Umbricht, M.D. <cb...@jhuigf.med.jhu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Date: 14 Nov 1994 17:54:29 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Lines: 16
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3a888l$hsu@jhunix1.hcf.jhu.edu>
References: <39oi56$bhj@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <3a3enh$j3l@newsy.ifm.liu.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.220.56.102
X-Newsreader: Nuntius Version 1.2
X-XXDate: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:54:55 GMT

In article <mace1-111...@kip-82.apple.com> Michael Mace,
ma...@AppleLink.Apple.COM writes:

>We're used to fighting uphill battles against the dominant OS, we know
how to do it, and in fact we've learned from our mistakes so I think
we'll do a much more effective job this time.<

That would be nice. What are you doing about offering developers the best
development tools possible? Or don't you agree that's been one of your
"mistakes"? Most of the action I've seen to date is not from Apple....
>
>Besides, in the long run, "It's components, stupid."  Thus OpenDoc,
which will run on MacOS, and OS/2, and Windows95.

I hope you have something cooking for the meantime, before the components
conquer the market...

Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!decwrl!
murky.apple.com!gallant.apple.com!kip-67.apple.com!user
From: ma...@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Michael Mace)
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Sender: ne...@gallant.apple.com
Message-ID: <mace1-161194183207@kip-67.apple.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 02:32:07 GMT
References: <39n30l$s2d@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <39oi56$bhj@newsbf01.news.aol.com> 
<charette.784423832@mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA> 
<mace1-111194185915@kip-82.apple.com> <3a1v1m$lut@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Apple Computer
Followup-To: comp.sys.powerpc
Lines: 199

In article <3a1v1m$l...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, koe...@engin.umich.edu (Mark
Koesel) wrote:

> In article <mace1-111...@kip-82.apple.com>,
> Michael Mace <ma...@AppleLink.Apple.COM> wrote:
> 
> [schnip]
> 
> >In article <charette....@mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA>,
> >char...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Frederick Charette) wrote:
> >> 
> >> From the consumers point of view, it means one might need two or more OSs
> >> to run specific apps, instead of two or more machines. But will choosing
> >> the MacOS become more common for this very reason? If one has already Word
> >> 6 for Windows, why would he feel the need to buy both the MacOS and Word 6
> >> for Mac? And will it be possible to run the MacOS only to manage files 
> >> with the Finder, then switch to Windows to run apps?
> >
> >Choosing the MacOS will become more common because one of the main
> >objections to Mac in the past has been its proprietary business model. 
> >We're committed to destroying that objection.  And yes, a lot more people
> >will buy when we do that.
> 
> Yes, but I think his point was not whether people will welcome the fact
> that the MacOS will no longer be soley proprietary, but will this fact
> be enough to offset the fact these people simply already know how, and 
> like to use Windows.  That is, clearly the vast majority of the market
> that the CHRP platform will be trying to cut into is Windows dominated.
> What real reasons will there be for anyone who uses Windows to move to 
> another OS? (assuming they've already decided to give the CHRP platform
> a serious look).
> 
> (Warning: the folowing arestrictly IMHO) 
> 
> -We can probably rule out any aethetic/EoU arguments (see the MAC vs.
>  PC thread ;-) ).  It'll be MacOS9 vs. Cairo vs. OS2 for WPOS.  I'm
>  not claiming omnipotence, but I'll bet the differences aren't gonna
>  be enough to cause a great migration. 
> 
I think they can be part of the picture, but not the whole one.  Also, keep
in mind that aesthetics and ease of use have very different impacts in
different markets.  For instance, the people who read this forum are least
likely to be moved by ease of use issues (nothing personal).


> -We can probably rule out stability.  Trim kerneled, 32bit(at least),
>  protected mem, preemptive mania - all of 'em. 
> 
I think it'll be a wash.


> -We can probably rule out cost.  Enough said.
> 
I dunno.  I've seen a lot of people claim in this forum that the PowerPC
chip has better price-performance, but Apple isn't passing along the
savings.  I don't agree, but if you do believe that, you should also
believe that Mac cloners will pass along the savings aggressively.


> -Can we rule out development?  Well, MS isn't losing developers. IBM
>  isn't gaining any.  Apple -  I think they're on the rise.  Bottom line,
>  MS doesn't have much to worry about here.

Oh, I don't agree with that one at all.  Paradigm shifts always create new
winners and losers in applications, and we are trying to drive a paradigm
shift.

> 
> -Can we rule out P&P, AV, etc.?  Hey if MacOS can do it on a CHRP box,
>  I'll bet the others can too. 
> 
I'd gladly bet Apple's innovation skills against the other leading PC
companies.  And now we'll have licensees also investing in the platform. 
I'm very optimistic on this one -- the Microsoft/Intel business model
discourages innovation by PC companies.  We intend to encourage it.


> Comments, additions anyone?
> 
Folks, don't underestimate the importance of DOS/Windows compatibility for
increasing Mac sales.  The #1 reason customers give for not buying a Mac is
that they would have to give up the option of running DOS and Windows
programs.  There are a lot of people who want Macs today but don't buy
because of this.  Compatibility alone will make a difference in sales.


> [schnip]
> 
> [Oops I lost the attribution on the original.  The author is not Frederick
> Charette as above.  The part I'm quoting directly is still Mr. Mace.  Sorry] 
> >> Customers will get to choose from the above.  Now, you say you don't
> >> know which one the customers will pick.  I don't know which ones the
> >> customers will pick, and I don't think anyone else knows which one the
> >> customers will pick.  Let's just say the pick the top 3 in equal numbers.
> 
> [Note that the 3 were NT, MacOS, and OS2]
> 
> >I think most of them will pick MacOS for the desktop and NetWare for
> >servers, but that's a personal opinion and not meant as a slam at any of
> >the other fine companies creating operating systems for the new standard.
> 
> Hey, slam away.  I want to hear why your OS is the best!  I'm sure We'll
> all be reading it in the trade rags in a year and a half, so why not
> give us a preview.  :^)
> 

As someone pointed out, this is not Comp.Sys.Mac.Advocacy, so I am trying
to restrain myself.  Besides, plenty of other people have made this case
very well.  I'd prefer to spend my time clarifying things that have not
been communicated as well.


> >>   Now, with customers equally distributed among 3 different operating
> >> systems which OS will the ISVs develop for.  Hmmm...three different OSes
> >> each with a third of the PPC market.  Hmm...the PPC (Mac) market is about
> >> 1/10 the size of the DOS/Windows market.  Call me stupid but why the would
> >> ISVs want to deal with four different OSes (incl. Windows) when 90% of the
> >> market will be in one?
> 
> Actually, there'd be three.  You counted Windows twice.  Presumably NT will
> still be cross platform by then, and it's also likely that the Intel
> platform will have a single Windows flavor by then (or the two flavors will 
> look and feel identical, and run the *exact* same apps.) 
> 
> >> It sounds like a good way to confuse your
> >> customers, your ISVs, and yourselves.
> >
> >90% of the market was and always has been DOS/Windows.  We built a pretty
> >nice Mac business in spite of that.  What developers go for is growth
> >rates, because it's growth that creates new opportunities for selling
> >programs.  Even a very large market can be unattractive if it's saturated. 
> >Ask people trying to sell software to the DOS installed base, which is
> >still very large.  So we're going to do everything necessary to increase
> >substantially the growth rate of MacOS, and we expect that growth to
> >attract developers.
> 
> And I expect it will too.  Will this in turn pull users away from windows?

Ahhh, the $20 billion question.  I think it will, because it'll be a lot
easier to innovate on our platform.  That's just me making a promise at
this point, but our track record on pioneering new uses for PCs is pretty
good.  Combine that with an open business model and there's cause for
optimism.


> 
> >>   If your plans are to compete with Windows/x86 you better unify your
> >> front.  
> 
> [note, I think the 'your' referred to IBM.]
> 
> Actually they'll be competing with Windows/PPC (NT/PPC) too.  But, I
> agree with you, whole-heartedly.  I think that the ideal OS would run
> OS2, Win, and Mac apps, all with a simple double click on any of them. 
> No need to create partitions for all you OSes, and reboot when you want
> to use a certain application.  Of course, the issues of endianess and
> source code licensing are big, but perhaps its feasible.  Such an OS
> would give the CHRP platform a definite edge over the x86 plaform
> and eliminate any need for Multiple OSes on the CRHP platform, save
> maybe, Unix.
> 
> It is in my opinion that this is where Apple should be looking.  They 
> need to dominate this platform, there survival hangs in the balance.
> Of course such a strategy could lead to an OS2/x86 situation, no
> native development. 
> 

I think the key APIs for the platform will be the OpenDoc APIs, and they
are indeed cross-platform.

 
> >> Windows is a "de facto" standard accepted by the gross majority of
> >> the market and you're fighting an uphill battle (remember, your fighting
> >> the market momentum, not just Microsoft).  You aren't going to put a dent
> >> in that market when you're fighting the OS/2 vs Mac OS vs NT vs
> >> ... battles.  If I were planning the Apple/IBM/Motorola formula for OSes,
> >> I'd put a sign over my desk that said, "It's Windows stupid!"
> >
> >CP/M was a defacto standard too.
> >
> >We're used to fighting uphill battles against the dominant OS, we know how
> >to do it, and in fact we've learned from our mistakes so I think we'll do a
> >much more effective job this time.
> >
> >Besides, in the long run, "It's components, stupid."  Thus OpenDoc, which
> >will run on MacOS, and OS/2, and Windows95.
> 
> But is OpenDoc not in direct competition with OLE (at least on Windows). 

OpenDoc is designed to be a superset of OLE.  You don't have to give up OLE
in order to get OpenDoc.  So no, I don't see it as a direct competitor from
the user's point of view.  From the developer's point of view, you have to
choose an API to write to.  Which one do you choose -- the hard to program
and proprietary one designed for Windows, or the much easier open standard
that runs on Windows, OS/2, and Macintosh?

Michael Mace
Manager, Competitive Analysis
Apple Computer, Inc.

Path: nntp.gmd.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!
aix11.hrz.uni-oldenburg.de!nordwest.germany.eu.net!pophh!Germany.EU.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!caen!koesel
From: koe...@engin.umich.edu (Mark Koesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Date: 18 Nov 1994 00:22:40 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <3ags4g$bgi@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: azure.engin.umich.edu

In article <mace1-161...@kip-67.apple.com>,
Michael Mace <ma...@AppleLink.Apple.COM> wrote:
>In article <3a1v1m$l...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, koe...@engin.umich.edu (Mark
>Koesel) wrote:

[snip]
 
>> another OS? (assuming they've already decided to give the CHRP platform
>> a serious look).
>> 
>> (Warning: the folowing are strictly IMHO) 
>> 
>> -We can probably rule out any aethetic/EoU arguments (see the MAC vs.
>>  PC thread ;-) ).  It'll be MacOS9 vs. Cairo vs. OS2 for WPOS.  I'm
>>  not claiming omnipotence, but I'll bet the differences aren't gonna
>>  be enough to cause a great migration. 
>> 
>I think they can be part of the picture, but not the whole one.  Also, keep
>in mind that aesthetics and ease of use have very different impacts in
>different markets.  For instance, the people who read this forum are least
>likely to be moved by ease of use issues (nothing personal).

Yes, but the market I'm refering to is the average 'PC Windows user'
market.  Ease of Use is the name of the game here.

>> -We can probably rule out cost.  Enough said.
>> 
>I dunno.  I've seen a lot of people claim in this forum that the PowerPC
>chip has better price-performance, but Apple isn't passing along the
>savings.  I don't agree, but if you do believe that, you should also
>believe that Mac cloners will pass along the savings aggressively.

Yes, but I'm talking about software, not hardware.  The prices of the
OSes should all be about the same, IMHO.

>> -Can we rule out development?  Well, MS isn't losing developers. IBM
>>  isn't gaining any.  Apple -  I think they're on the rise.  Bottom line,
>>  MS doesn't have much to worry about here.
>
>Oh, I don't agree with that one at all.  Paradigm shifts always create new
>winners and losers in applications, and we are trying to drive a paradigm
>shift.

Are you talking about the component software paradigm?  I'm not sure I
follow here.

>> -Can we rule out P&P, AV, etc.?  Hey if MacOS can do it on a CHRP box,
>>  I'll bet the others can too. 
>> 
>I'd gladly bet Apple's innovation skills against the other leading PC
>companies.  And now we'll have licensees also investing in the platform. 
>I'm very optimistic on this one -- the Microsoft/Intel business model
>discourages innovation by PC companies.  We intend to encourage it.

But MS/Intel isn't the Point.  It's MS/CHRP and Apple/CHRP.

>> Comments, additions anyone?
>> 
>Folks, don't underestimate the importance of DOS/Windows compatibility for
>increasing Mac sales.  The #1 reason customers give for not buying a Mac is
>that they would have to give up the option of running DOS and Windows
>programs.  There are a lot of people who want Macs today but don't buy
>because of this.  Compatibility alone will make a difference in sales.

Ah, so what your refering to is the Mac/MacOS platform.  I'm talking about
CHRP here.  Of course you apparently think that by the time CHRP rolls
around, Apple will have more than it's %10-%15 percent market share now,
and that the CHRP platform will grow on that.  I on the other hand don't
think that'll happen.  I think that things will remain the same until CHRP,
at which point many Windows users will migrate from x86 and use Windows
on CHRP instead.  I also think many new PC users will choose Windows on 
CHRP instead of MacOS on CHRP (or OS2 on CHRP), threatening the MacOS
market, but not neccesarily the Apple hardware Market.


>> Hey, slam away.  I want to hear why your OS is the best!  I'm sure We'll
>> all be reading it in the trade rags in a year and a half, so why not
>> give us a preview.  :^)
>
>As someone pointed out, this is not Comp.Sys.Mac.Advocacy, so I am trying
>to restrain myself.  Besides, plenty of other people have made this case
>very well.  I'd prefer to spend my time clarifying things that have not
>been communicated as well.

Well of course I was joking, hence the smilie.  But I really do want to
hear and welcome your input.  Thanks for keeping with the thread.  

>> >still very large.  So we're going to do everything necessary to increase
>> >substantially the growth rate of MacOS, and we expect that growth to
>> >attract developers.
>> 
>> And I expect it will too.  Will this in turn pull users away from windows?
>
>Ahhh, the $20 billion question.  I think it will, because it'll be a lot
>easier to innovate on our platform.  That's just me making a promise at
>this point, but our track record on pioneering new uses for PCs is pretty
>good.  Combine that with an open business model and there's cause for
>optimism.

Again, in 96 your platform will no longer be *your* platform.  I'll be able
to pick up an Apple Box, and load it up with Windows.

>> It is in my opinion that this is where Apple should be looking.  They 
>> need to dominate this platform, there survival hangs in the balance.
>> Of course such a strategy could lead to an OS2/x86 situation, no
>> native development. 
>
>I think the key APIs for the platform will be the OpenDoc APIs, and they
>are indeed cross-platform.

Yes, a very good point that i completely ignored.  If component-based
computing (from an application point of view) takes dominance by 96,
the concept of whose OS is better may be moot.  Still the MS name will
hold alot of water, and that alone can be the deciding factor.
 
>> But is OpenDoc not in direct competition with OLE (at least on Windows). 
>
>OpenDoc is designed to be a superset of OLE.  You don't have to give up OLE
>in order to get OpenDoc.  So no, I don't see it as a direct competitor from
>the user's point of view. 

So, MacOS9 (or whatever) will support OLE?  

> From the developer's point of view, you have to
>choose an API to write to.  Which one do you choose -- the hard to program
>and proprietary one designed for Windows, or the much easier open standard
>that runs on Windows, OS/2, and Macintosh?

Well, I'd probably go OpenDoc, but I'm not a developer (yet), so we'll see.
In general though, the developers will go where the market is, and as far as 
I can see, MS has and will have that for some time to come.
-- 
 __/\_\ Mark G. Koesel - koe...@engin.umich.edu
/\_\/_/ Computer Engineering - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
\/_/\_\ The future: same old x86/PPC binary incompatibility, only this time 
   \/_/ we're taunted by the fact that we're all using the same OS.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!
aix11.hrz.uni-oldenburg.de!nordwest.germany.eu.net!pophh!Germany.EU.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!decwrl!
murky.apple.com!gallant.apple.com!kip-80.apple.com!user
From:   (Michael Mace)
Subject: Re: Hardware Reference Platform Agreement Reached
Sender: ne...@gallant.apple.com
Message-ID: <--231194...@kip-80.apple.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 01:55:55 GMT
References: <3ags4g$b...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Apple Computer
Followup-To: comp.sys.powerpc
Lines: 243

I'll answer several of these in one note, due to time constraints...

================

In article <3ags4g$b...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, koe...@engin.umich.edu (Mark
Koesel) wrote:

> In article <mace1-161...@kip-67.apple.com>,
> Michael Mace <ma...@AppleLink.Apple.COM> wrote:
> >In article <3a1v1m$l...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, koe...@engin.umich.edu (Mark
> >Koesel) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>  
> >> another OS? (assuming they've already decided to give the CHRP platform
> >> a serious look).
> >> 
> >> (Warning: the folowing are strictly IMHO) 
> >> 
> >> -We can probably rule out any aethetic/EoU arguments (see the MAC vs.
> >>  PC thread ;-) ).  It'll be MacOS9 vs. Cairo vs. OS2 for WPOS.  I'm
> >>  not claiming omnipotence, but I'll bet the differences aren't gonna
> >>  be enough to cause a great migration. 
> >> 
> >I think they can be part of the picture, but not the whole one.  Also, keep
> >in mind that aesthetics and ease of use have very different impacts in
> >different markets.  For instance, the people who read this forum are least
> >likely to be moved by ease of use issues (nothing personal).
> 
> Yes, but the market I'm refering to is the average 'PC Windows user'
> market.  Ease of Use is the name of the game here.

Oh, I see what you mean.  I thought you meant customers didn't care about
ease of use.  If ease of use is the name of the game (and I agree), then
all I can say is that I'm VERY confident Apple can maintain its lead in
this area, and no I can't go into details, so I'll just ask you to wait and
see what happens next year and then judge for yourself.


> 
> >> -We can probably rule out cost.  Enough said.
> >> 
> >I dunno.  I've seen a lot of people claim in this forum that the PowerPC
> >chip has better price-performance, but Apple isn't passing along the
> >savings.  I don't agree, but if you do believe that, you should also
> >believe that Mac cloners will pass along the savings aggressively.
> 
> Yes, but I'm talking about software, not hardware.  The prices of the
> OSes should all be about the same, IMHO.
> 
Okay, but the cost issue that's usually raised in a Mac vs. PC context is
system (HW + SW) pricing, and I contend that Mac clones running 604 are
very likely to demonstrate a very significant price-performance advantage
over Win/x86 systems next year.  This will help increase the share of
MacOS, because the only Windows OS available for the hardware platform at
that time will be NT, which is not exactly a volume leader.  

I feel bad making so many "wait and see" statements like this, but then
since we're talking about the future I kind of have to.


> >> -Can we rule out development?  Well, MS isn't losing developers. IBM
> >>  isn't gaining any.  Apple -  I think they're on the rise.  Bottom line,
> >>  MS doesn't have much to worry about here.
> >
> >Oh, I don't agree with that one at all.  Paradigm shifts always create new
> >winners and losers in applications, and we are trying to drive a paradigm
> >shift.
> 
> Are you talking about the component software paradigm?  I'm not sure I
> follow here.

Components + RISC, and the functionality that a system vendor can create
with the combination.

> 
> >> -Can we rule out P&P, AV, etc.?  Hey if MacOS can do it on a CHRP box,
> >>  I'll bet the others can too. 
> >> 
> >I'd gladly bet Apple's innovation skills against the other leading PC
> >companies.  And now we'll have licensees also investing in the platform. 
> >I'm very optimistic on this one -- the Microsoft/Intel business model
> >discourages innovation by PC companies.  We intend to encourage it.
> 
> But MS/Intel isn't the Point.  It's MS/CHRP and Apple/CHRP.

Ohhh, I getcha.  So you're arguing that Microsoft will dominate the OS
space for the common hardware platform.  An interesting perspective.  I
think that'll depend on who does the better job of delivering the next
generation of personal computing functionality.  I think with OpenDoc
native on PPC, we have a jump on the other folks, but it'll be an
interesting battle.

> 
> >> Comments, additions anyone?
> >> 
> >Folks, don't underestimate the importance of DOS/Windows compatibility for
> >increasing Mac sales.  The #1 reason customers give for not buying a Mac is
> >that they would have to give up the option of running DOS and Windows
> >programs.  There are a lot of people who want Macs today but don't buy
> >because of this.  Compatibility alone will make a difference in sales.
> 
> Ah, so what your refering to is the Mac/MacOS platform.  I'm talking about
> CHRP here.  Of course you apparently think that by the time CHRP rolls
> around, Apple will have more than it's %10-%15 percent market share now,
> and that the CHRP platform will grow on that.  I on the other hand don't
> think that'll happen.  I think that things will remain the same until CHRP,
> at which point many Windows users will migrate from x86 and use Windows
> on CHRP instead.  I also think many new PC users will choose Windows on 
> CHRP instead of MacOS on CHRP (or OS2 on CHRP), threatening the MacOS
> market, but not neccesarily the Apple hardware Market.

I'll let Apple's sales numbers over the next couple of quarters speak for
themselves.

Note that we haven't ruled out selling other OS products on our hardware. 
The extra volumes would increase our efficiency and let us cut Mac pricing.


But that would be an addition, not a replacement for our Mac business. 
We're committed to selling customers whatever they want, but also making a
complete Mac hardware and software system the most compelling choice.


[deletion]
 
> 
> >> >still very large.  So we're going to do everything necessary to increase
> >> >substantially the growth rate of MacOS, and we expect that growth to
> >> >attract developers.
> >> 
> >> And I expect it will too.  Will this in turn pull users away from windows?
> >
> >Ahhh, the $20 billion question.  I think it will, because it'll be a lot
> >easier to innovate on our platform.  That's just me making a promise at
> >this point, but our track record on pioneering new uses for PCs is pretty
> >good.  Combine that with an open business model and there's cause for
> >optimism.
> 
> Again, in 96 your platform will no longer be *your* platform.  I'll be able
> to pick up an Apple Box, and load it up with Windows.

That's fine if you want, but I think you'll find better features on the
MacOS/Mac hardware combination.  The neat thing, though, is that you can
choose whatever combination you want.  No more proprietary traps.

> 
> >> It is in my opinion that this is where Apple should be looking.  They 
> >> need to dominate this platform, there survival hangs in the balance.
> >> Of course such a strategy could lead to an OS2/x86 situation, no
> >> native development. 
> >
> >I think the key APIs for the platform will be the OpenDoc APIs, and they
> >are indeed cross-platform.
> 
> Yes, a very good point that i completely ignored.  If component-based
> computing (from an application point of view) takes dominance by 96,
> the concept of whose OS is better may be moot.  Still the MS name will
> hold alot of water, and that alone can be the deciding factor.

I'm stealing someone else's line, but components are like objects in your
rear-view mirror:  Closer Than You Think.


>  
> >> But is OpenDoc not in direct competition with OLE (at least on Windows). 
> >
> >OpenDoc is designed to be a superset of OLE.  You don't have to give up OLE
> >in order to get OpenDoc.  So no, I don't see it as a direct competitor from
> >the user's point of view. 
> 
> So, MacOS9 (or whatever) will support OLE?  

OpenDoc is architected to be a superset of OLE.  As for native OLE, you'd
have to ask Microsoft.  We won't force it off the platform, if that's what
you're asking.

> 
> > From the developer's point of view, you have to
> >choose an API to write to.  Which one do you choose -- the hard to program
> >and proprietary one designed for Windows, or the much easier open standard
> >that runs on Windows, OS/2, and Macintosh?
> 
> Well, I'd probably go OpenDoc, but I'm not a developer (yet), so we'll see.
> In general though, the developers will go where the market is, and as far as 
> I can see, MS has and will have that for some time to come.

So our challenge is to create growth in the Mac market, by providing great
new features on the PowerMac.  Fair enough.

===========

In article <3a888l$h...@jhunix1.hcf.jhu.edu>, Chris Umbricht, M.D.
<cb...@jhuigf.med.jhu.edu> wrote:

> In article <mace1-111...@kip-82.apple.com> Michael Mace,
> ma...@AppleLink.Apple.COM writes:
> 
> >We're used to fighting uphill battles against the dominant OS, we know
> how to do it, and in fact we've learned from our mistakes so I think
> we'll do a much more effective job this time.<
> 
> That would be nice. What are you doing about offering developers the best
> development tools possible? Or don't you agree that's been one of your
> "mistakes"? Most of the action I've seen to date is not from Apple....

Remember that third parties are an integral part of our business model, so
it's fine with us if some of the most important tools come from our
developers rather from Apple.  However, we know there are important issues
on tools and that our tools work has not been as complete or consistent as
it should be.  This is one of those frustrating issues where I can't go
into details on what we're doing, but for what it's worth this issue is
getting a ton of attention within Apple.

> >
> >Besides, in the long run, "It's components, stupid."  Thus OpenDoc,
> which will run on MacOS, and OS/2, and Windows95.
> 
> I hope you have something cooking for the meantime, before the components
> conquer the market...

We launched the GUI on Mac in 1984, and even earlier on Lisa, but GUI
application sales didn't surpass DOS application sales until the early
1990s.  We can generate lots of growth before the final conquest.

===============

In article <39sa05$k...@news.utdallas.edu>, go...@utdallas.edu (Mohit K
Goyal) wrote:

[clip]
> 
> OH YEAH...does the newly announced hardware platform have an official
> name?(ie-acronym)

Not yet.  The naming process is incredibly slow due to trademark issues --
it's very hard to find a good name that has not yet been trademarked.  In
my group, we're just calling it the "common hardware platform" for the
moment.

Michael Mace
Manager, Competitive Analysis
Apple Computer, Inc.

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO v IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/