From Techrights

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Microsoft is threatening our channel)
(take the risk against our "even playing field")
Line 125: Line 125:
== take the risk against our "even playing field" .. ==
== take the risk against our "even playing field" ==
Line 135: Line 135:
Cc: bradc; bradsi; micheles; mikene
Cc: bradc; bradsi; micheles; mikene
: I have no doubt our "intelligence" is accurate and that IBM is going to take a very aggressive position on DOS 5 .. I'm willing to take the risk against our "even playing field" concept) to ensure that Ehead is successfully in this upcoming context ..
I have no doubt our "intelligence" is accurate and that IBM is going to  
take a very aggressive position on DOS 5.
I'm willing to take the risk against our "even playing field" concept)  
to ensure that Ehead is successfully in this upcoming context ..
comes v Microsoft
comes v Microsoft
== MS: divorce from IBM was inevitable .. ==
== MS: divorce from IBM was inevitable .. ==

Revision as of 14:05, 17 January 2009


our Chinese wall never existed ..

From: Bill Gates To: Pam Edstrom; Marty Taucher; Steve Ballmer; Jeff Raiks Cc: Mile MAples; Mike Murry; Bill Gates; Bill Neukorn; Jonathan Lazarus; Pete Higgins; Paul Maritz; Nathan Myhrvold Subject: Microsoft and the Chinese Wall Date: Saturday, December 04, 1993 4:08 PM

.. Our Chinese wall never existed and yet is constantly cited in press article after press article. What is the truth about this Chinese wall? ..
The boundary between applications and systems is constantly changing with more and more work being taken over in an abstract way by the system to simplify the creation of complex applications, allowing for tighter sharing and integration and to allow abstractions that allow hardware to improve without forcing software redesign ..
Some people like to suggest that developers were confused about whether OS/2 or Windows would succeed. Microsoft certainly didn't have a crystal ball on this. We shipped Excel well before 1/2/3 shipped. We shipped Word way before anyone except Describe shipped a Word processor. Other than IBM we lost more money on OS/2 than anyone else in both systems and applications. Fortunately it is not hard to retarget a program written for one graphical platform to another and a number of libraries were available to make the task very straightforward ..
So back to the Chinese Wall. Does Microsoft systems allow Microsoft applications to provide input on the next version of the system? Absolutely .. There is no Chinese wall. Information is encouraged to flow in both directions. It happens on a formal and an informal and basis everyday ...

comes v Microsoft


"I think we will have to live without a Chinese wall clause for the front end of the compiler", Bill Gates 2001

"GATES: [Strongly] Chinese wall is not a term we've ever used", 1994

"Microsoft has stated to the Press over the years that there is a "Chinese Wall" between its operating systems and applications divisions", 1994

"We bend over backwards to make sure we're not getting a special advantage," Bill Gates March 1991

"There is a very clean separation between our operating systems business and our applications business... It's like the separation between church and state.", Steve Ballmer 1983

IBM Microsoft Joint Development Agreement

"IBM" .. and "MS" .. desire to establish .. a working relationship .. for evaluating the feasibility of and/or developing systems software products based upon IBM PC DOS and/or MS DOS including Linkers and Basic Interpreters, but excluding other languages;
"MS Code", for the purposes of this Agreement, shall mean .. pre-existing computer programs and Derivative Works thereof, owned by MS ..
In the event that MS desires to use the services of any third parties who are not employees of MS in its performance under this agreement, MS shall provide IBM with written notice of the third parties identities and the tasks performed ..

Boca Raton Area Counsel

International Business Machines Corporation

P.O. Box 1328

Boca, Raton Florida 33432


June 10 1985

Microsoft is threatening our channel

Mary Murphy 03/10/94 19 AM To: Frank Callahan Subject: Microsoft is threatening our channel

I need your help to verify what I recently learned from the industry analyst I have researching EMS and Microsoft's strategy's acceptance by our customers. While I was obtaining a status on the market research, I probed for preliminary results. She mentioned that "Microsoft is threatening your channel if they don't sell MS Mail exclusively."
(Kirty. since cc:mail is the product at highest risk, you might also want to check on the channel from your end. We'll share with you what we find out.)
She is having a great deal of trouble getting any of the Microsoft customers to answer questions about EMS, as Microsoft has threatened full prosecution of anyone who violates their non-disclosure
Microsoft is "playing hardball," according to the analyst. They bare working very closely with "MS friendlies" in our accounts to feed evaluation groups misinformation about Notes which minimizes it, and upset or delay sales ..

keeping IBM out of the OEMs ..

From: stevewe Tue Jan 8 09:26:18 1991 To: richardf Cc: stevek Subject: joint ibm/ms/oem meeting Date: Tue Jan 08 09:25:28 1991


The bottom line is that IBM is driving towards independence from us and I think they will try to deliver their own retail OS/2 with OEM H/W support in the 2.0 timeframe (10/91). In the meantime, I'm trying to keep keep out of the OEMs by convincing them we are representing them as well and convincing the OEMs that our public statements about IBM owing core development and MS the OAK and OEM distribution channel are true ..

comes v Microsoft

take the risk against our "even playing field"

From: richmac Sat Apr 6 20:13:19 1991 To: garyh Cc: bradc; bradsi; micheles; mikene

I have no doubt our "intelligence" is accurate and that IBM is going to take a very aggressive position on DOS 5 .. I'm willing to take the risk against our "even playing field" concept) to ensure that Ehead is successfully in this upcoming context ..

comes v Microsoft

MS: divorce from IBM was inevitable ..

To: Steve Ballmer FROM Peter Neuport Subject: Systems Retreat Summary DATE February 21, 1990


IBM as a development partner inhibits our ability to create quality market center products .. They must recognize their weaknesses ands our strengths or divorce is inevitable ..

comes v microsoft


comes: the biggest advantage in getting involved with MS ..

From: kellyw Feb 23 15:55:35 1989 To@ joachimk Subject: Zenith/Win 3 Cc: jeffl; richardf; russw

Is there anything we can do to give Zenith an OEM exclusive on Windows 3 in exchange for their development participation, say for 30 - 60 days ..

.. What we've done with Zenith' on OS/2 1.1 is a travesty. Though Zenith did the lion's share of the development work, they didn't get any preferential treatment above and beyond extended to other folks in the early shipment program .. Zenith's time to market -- the big advantage in getting involved with us in the first place, is reduced to a matter of a couple of days ..

Lets fix this by giving Zenith a minimum of 30 days guaranteed time to market ...

comes: establishing OS/2 as the dominant workstation standard ..

March 17, 1989

Nearly four years have elapsed since the initiation of our Joint Development Agreement ..

It is critical that we develop and articulate a strategy to establish OS/2 as the dominant workstation standard. We must communicate a single message to our respective organizations, independent software developers and customers ..

We should be working together in five areas of systems software:

1. Standard Edition and Networking 2. Database, Communications and Workgroup Services 3. Portable OS/2 4. DOS and Windows 5. Tools and Languages



We must restructure our systems software offerings so as the customer can purchase only the components appropriate to his needs ..

It is our proposal that we pursue the oppurtunities for OS/2 and DOS as follows.

Standard Edition: .. The contents of the base SKU should be limited to the needs of the standalone user ..



Joint work on kernel and presentation manager Microsoft responsible for peer-to-peer OS/2 (and DOS) networking (IBM responsible for wide-area/heterogeneous connectivity - see below)


Two way royalty for base SKUs Royalty to Microsoft for networking

Database Communications and Workgroup Services

Microsoft believes that IBM should repackage the components of Extended Edition, and offer them desperately from the base operating system. Microsoft believes the separate offerings should be:

- A Database (SQL) server package for OS/2 servers - a Communications package (key SAA and OSI protocols and interfaces) for OS/2 servers - a Communications package for OS/2 workstations - a Mail Store and Forward package for OS/2 servers


Microsoft believes that IBM should separate out the "front-end" or "tools" pieces of Extended Edition into one or more separate offerings. and offer them separately from the above offerings. Microsoft would not license these front-end pieces ...

comes: the 1989 IBM PS/2 forum ..

Today we are fortunate to have with us a gentleman who is uniquely qualified to talk about PS/2 and OS/2

He is vice president for systems software at Microsoft. Microsoft and IBM have a long history of cooperation beginning with the original PC and DOS.

Today Microsoft is our joint development partner for OS/2. This gentleman is responsible for Microsoft's work on that project, ladies and gentlemen help me welcome Steve Ballmer ..

I would like to thank IBM for inviting me to talk with you this morning because it gives me a chance to talk to you about our plans are for OS/2 and try to reinforce some of its benefits.


Microsoft Joint Development with| IBM

OS/2 Standard Edition

  • Identical Programming Interface
  • Identical Applications
  • Identical User Interface

A Complete User Interface Based on Microsoft Windows

Advanced Graphics Capabilities Based on IBM GDDM


As mentioned, our relationship goes back to 1989 when we did the original work on the IBM PC and DOS together.

[I thought Tim Paterson did the original software work and the hardware was done exclusively by IBM at Boca Raton]


We wanted to give a very consistent message to the software development community. So, we built the OS/2 (standard edition) as a joint development project ...

comes: Windows first OS/2 eventually strategy

William H. Gates April 27, 1989 Cc: steveb ..

.. The particular issue on which I wish to comment is what I will call a "Windows first OS/2 eventually" strategy in applications development .. I do not believe that Windows is adequate for our needs .. the DOS environment, with or without Windows, is too fragile to support graphical workstations ..

Microsoft's own plan to deliver Windows applications much in advance of their OS/2 counterparts thus harms us in two ways .. It is difficult for us to exert pressure on the many specialized applications developers with which we deal to create OS/2 versions of their software when OS/2's own creators appear to let the OS/2 languish in favor of Windows ..

J. Michael Palmer Manager, Technology Research Corporate Information Systems ...

comes: the superiority of PM on OS/2 ..

To: Steve Ballmer From: Adrian King Cc:c Bill Gates; MArk MAckaman; Mike Maples; Cameron; Myrthvold; Gabe Newwell; Russ Werner Date: August 22nd, 1988


OS/2 is going to take longer to succeed than expected

OS/2 will be very successfully with the Windows ISVs almost immediately . I do not think we are endangered here. I think they can post much faster than we could provide compatibility. They have to have a cross environment strategy anyway in order to support the Mac.


We could make UNIX interesting to people by delivering a crummy PM or by delivering a goos PM?X. The currently favored PM?X proposal (same look and feel, different API) is also very confusing. Does this say we think the X-Windows API is good? Does it say we think the PM API is bad? If PM/X servers to delay UNIX GUI then its a good thing, otherwise it could be damaging to the PM sell.


We all believe that fundamentally OS/2 with PM really is a better platform for superior business applications: 16Nb memory, a real task scheduler, good swapping algorithms, no expanded/extended memory weirdness ... but these factors must be combined to demonstrate the overall superiority of the platform .. I think we need to push the ISVs toward PM in order to demonstrate the superiority of the environment. An opportunity for the ISV to delay will simply further delay the acceptance of PM ..


I think we need to think very carefully about how much we want Windows to compete with OS/2 in the OEM channel and for the ISVs attention. The strains that show in our strategy now are temporary, and should not allow us to lose sight of the goal of making OS/2 the next generation operating system as quickly as possible ..

lessons learned from Blue Janus ..

COMMENT: This stuff is dynamite, why didn't the DOJ use it at the time, instead of focusing on the Browser ???

- quote - Blue Janus

The release of OS/2 2.0 and its imminent pre-installation on IBM-brand PCs give rise to Blue Janus. If IBM wasn't going to "OEM" PC-DOS & Windows then we'd OEM it to their channel. We signed deals with 5 of IBMs top 7 dealers, granting them a $65 WinDOS for PS/2 price in exchange for minimum commitments.


In its life, Blue Janus sold 35K units WW. Blue Janus is now obsolete as the ability to upgrade OS/2 has been built into the MS-DOS 6 Upgrade ..

IBM allowed a dualboot setup with OS/2 and DOS. If Blue Janus found OS/2 if failed to install or offered the opportunity to remove this 'unknown' OS.

"We never solicit upgrade customers from licensees .. This has always been our policy" - unquote -

Personal tools
Search entire domain