***********************

* Failed Technologies *

* Andy Bennett        *

* 17/11/2002          *

***********************



Plagiarizing heavily from Dan:



 In this report on my researched topics I have tried to focus on 3 main areas:



 ·	Why the technology failed in the first place

 ·	What could have been done to stop the technology failing

 ·	Whether it could have been predicted that this technology would fail at the time or today







OS/2

====

In 1982 the Personal Computer revolution was still in its infancy.

IBM had started the ball rolling with its PC-XT that came with a

choice of three operating systems. - CP/M-86, UCSD Pascal P-System

and MS-DOS, licensed from Microsoft as PC-DOS. In 1983 Microsoft

started development of Windows and in 1984 IBM released its 80286

based machine, known as the PC-AT. By this time MS-DOS had become

the dominant operating system in the IBM and IBM compatible PC

market: A significant part of Microsoft's business was in

licensing MS-DOS to the PC manufacturers. 1984 also saw the start

of the collaboration between Microsoft and IBM on a new operating

system that would become OS/2.

OS/2 was supposed to be a joint

effort between both companies, but each had their own ideas about

how they wanted things to evolve. IBM was insistent that the new

operating system was compatible with its mainframe systems such as

System/360 and System/370. At one point an IBM representative on

the project requested that fonts be removed from the product: IBM

shipped a mainframe printer that could not handle fonts. Microsoft

was insistent that the new operating system be compatible with

existing MS-DOS programmes. While there is nothing wrong with

trying to maintain compatibility with existing products and

systems, as time went by each companies confidence in the other

slowly eroded. In 1986, shortly after the company was made public,

Steve Ballmer offered IBM a 30% share in Microsoft. By this time

however, IBM were no longer interested. IBM continued development

of OS/2 alone, eventually releasing OS/2 4.0, more commonly known

as OS/2 Warp 4, in September 1996 - 9 years after the release of

the original OS/2.



The failure of OS/2 was primarily due to an inability or unwillingness on the part of both companies involved to communicate effectivly.
Both IBM and Microsoft sought to shape OS/2 into something that was good for themselves and that fitted into their existing structures.
Neither company was prepared to be flexible enough for amicable agreements to be obtained;
they wanted to continue doing things in their own ways and IBM in particular did not want to undermine its monopoly in the computing arena that it had been nuturing for many years.
However, the computer arena was rapidly changing and the dektop market that was beginning to unfold was completely different from the mainframe market of the past.
The new desktop market played by completely different rules when compared to the old mainframe market.
No one was yet established in the new market: It was too new for that.
IBM also wanted to be able to set the standards in the PC market like it had been doing in the mainframe market. - On the one hand, IBM wanted to offer its customers the features of its mainframes and on the other, IBM did not want the PC to overtake mainframes and push them out of the market.
In effect, IBM was not taking the newly born PC industry seriously and did not believe that they would almost entirely force mainframes out of popular computing.
The best product would win and IBM was not in any position to ``throw its weight around''.
IBM was trying to apply its mainframe philosophies to the new operating system and Microsoft objected heavily to this.
Microsoft was also to blame: Microsoft was interested in promoting its own Windows "Operating System", which it believed to be smaller and lighter than OS/2 Warp. - Microsoft believed that OS/2 Warp was becoming unwieldy and too much like a mainframe operating system for ``ordinary'' people.
Microsoft was not interested in the mainframe arena and wanted to spread the use of its own programs even further in the PC arena.
IBM and Microsoft were approaching the design of this new operating system from completely different backgrounds and both were guilty of approaching the problem in a narrow way.
Bill Gates believed that "IBM promoted all good programmers into management." and that IBM were haunted by a successful past and unsuited to the new, fast changing PC world.



OS/2 could have been made to succeed if the companies has worked

better together and had been willing to compromise on some of

their requirements. Ineffective teamwork and a lack of

communication meant that the project did not fulfill its potential

and neither party ended up with what they wanted. Both companies

had their own agendas for pursuing the project and Microsoft

especially did not wants its Windows "Operating System" to fail as

a result. - Microsoft were primarily interested in bringing the

graphical features and ease of use of the Macintosh system to the

PC and they thought that working with IBM on the project may prove

fruitful. However, in the end, it was more profitable for them to

develop Windows on their own, and it quickly became popular in the

market place.



At the time, it was not hard to see that the project was not

working as had been originally hoped. Today, one wonders why it was attempted in the

first place since Windows is so popular today. However, it must be

remembered that Windows was not properly accepted until version

3.0 and before this Microsoft may have been worried that they

would be unable to get a foothold in the graphical software

market. Joining forces with the biggest player in the field must

have seemed like a safe option. The failure cannot be blamed on

the arrogance of the two companies alone: The PC revolution was

still in its infancy. IBM was using tactics that has consistently

worked for it before and was just beginning to find out that it

was hard to fend off competition in a market where everyone was a

beginner. - IBM only had the lead because they shipped the first

PC. Microsoft was still a relatively new, small and inexperienced

company and they had made a lot of money from the license

agreement with IBM to ship MS-DOS for a low fee with the PC-XT and

then the PC-AT. They, quite understandably, thought that working

with IBM was going to be a "winner" however, they found more

successful avenues to explore on their own and as such their

relationship was almost doomed to fail.



http://www.osdata.com/oses/os2.htm

Bill Gates - The Road Ahead