Joe Geiser writes:

>I'd like to propose for discussion (and some
>really deep thought by HP), that HP pick one or two vertical
>markets, find the "big name vendors" in these markets, and
>give them whatever assistance is necessary (monetary
>assistance, personpower assistance, heck - even pay some
>outside people to help if their resources would be streched
>too thin) to port their apps to the MPE line (even if under
>POSIX)... and after a successful port - market the
>everlovin' hell out of it... flood the market with the news
>both during the port, and when it's ready for release - and
>get the vendor to do the same ("HEY - WE ARE PORTING TO THE
>HP3000 - AND WE SUPPORT THE PLATFORM!")

First, let me say that I have been convinced by others on this list that
NT is really the only viable application platform, and Microsoft says
it's scalable to the enterprise, so this whole discussion is probably
hypothetical.

But, in the spirit of the hypothetical argument, I will assume that there
really is a reason to choose the 3000 over NT, and ask if Joe's methods
are the right ones. I don't think they are:

>[HP should] give them whatever assistance is necessary (monetary
>assistance, personpower assistance, heck - even pay some
>outside people to help if their resources would be streched
>too thin) to port their apps to the MPE line...

This is exactly the wrong approach. A vendor who ports an application
under such an arrangement has no stake whatever in its success. If the
going gets a little tough, their paltry initial investment is easy to
abandon. It becomes HP's project, not the vendor's, so the vendor gives
it short shrift in enhancement plans, in support, in marketing, and in
that difficult-to-quantify elixir of success that might be called "pride
of ownership."

Back in 1984, Apple knew that it needed a killer app to sell the
Macintosh. So they paid Lotus Development Corp. to port 1-2-3, clearly
the killer app of the day. They gave them cash, engineers, hardware,
marketing assistance, the works. The product, called Jazz, was finally
delivered two years late, and nobody cared about it, least of all Lotus
-- which already had its money. Meanwhile, little companies like Adobe,
Aldus and Microsoft tied a big part of their future to the success of the
Macintosh. Microsoft delivered the killer office apps for which Apple had
paid Lotus (Excel was written specifically for the Mac, and two versions
later was ported to Windows), and Adobe and Aldus invented a whole new
market. You only get those kinds of results when the developer has a
stake in the outcome.

>flood the market with the news
>both during the port, and when it's ready for release - and
>get the vendor to do the same ("HEY - WE ARE PORTING TO THE
>HP3000 - AND WE SUPPORT THE PLATFORM!")

Except that everyone will know it's a lie, since the developer invested
little or nothing. That's not "support" -- at least, it's not the kind of
support that will do anything for the long-term future of the platform.

Besides, the vendor is probably already investing their own money in an
NT port, and HP will get to sell the hardware anyway. Why should they pay
someone to port to MPE when they can just sit back and collect revenue
from their Wintel product line?

-- Bruce


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Toback    Tel: (602) 996-8601| My candle burns at both ends;
OPT, Inc.            (800) 858-4507| It will not last the night;
11801 N. Tatum Blvd. Ste. 142      | But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
Phoenix AZ 85028                   | It gives a lovely light.
btoback AT optc.com                |     -- Edna St. Vincent Millay
Unsolicited mail to [log in to unmask] will be inspected for a
fee of US$250. Mailing to said address constitutes agreement to
pay, including collection costs.