Conference 7.286::digital

Dropping NextStep already, are we?  How fickle....

Considering today's announcement that IBM would build and sell PowerPC systems
running MacOS (in 1996) , I don't see any fit for Digital in here, nor do I 
think there should be.   MAE has no significant future in my opinion.  We'd
be far better off to sell what we have - and signs I have seen show that we're
doing a lot better in the NT space lately. 

					Steve

    Why would anybody want *US* to be a trading partner?
    

re.3:

Regardless of the merits of the proposal in .0, I believe your stance to be
somewhat negative, clearly some companies do believe we are a credible trading
partner. For example, Oracle, Computer Associates, & Microsoft.

Dave.

What alliances have we formed with Computer Associates?

reckon it must have been a cooking apple that dropped then!

maybe try sitting under another tree?

    What would IBM get out of the deal for trading PowerPC/PowerMacintosh 
    support for an IBM endorsement of Alpha?  IBM has their own
    workstations.  
    
    Having Digital giving the "seal of approval" of PowerPC/PowerMacintosh
    isn't going to to help the PowerPC/PowerMacintosh market, will it?
    We'd just be another builder of systems and not any added value, right?
    Its back to my first question, why should IBM (or any other vendor)
    want to help Digital in the marketplace?
    
    Saying that we need to port both OS (I assume you mean OpenVMS and
    Digital UNIX) to PowerPC is a big chunk 'o work.  Don't forget
    compilers, et al.  However, there are also UNIX systems for PowerPC
    right (IBM's own workstations).  What would we have with Digital
    UNIX on a PowerPC that IBM doesn't already have?  We need some
    unique feature that would lead you to get a PowerPC/Digital UNIX
    system versions a IBM PowerStation, right?
    
    				-John
    

Tom,

Has it occurred to you that IBM makes most of their profits from the AS/400 and
the mainframe line? Why should they endorse our servers and enterprise systems?
I don't think they're suicidal.

    Digital has made plenty of mistakes, but VAX/VMS can hardly be
    referred to as a "disaster."
    
    Jim

    So what are the top ten reasons that people buy Digital
    systems? Here's my cut:
    
    1. We've got a load of Digital stuff in here already.
    2. Price/perfomance is pretty reasonable.
    3. 64 bits is probably a good thing to have.
    4. insert favourite reason here
    5. insert favourite reason here
    6. insert favourite reason here
    7. insert favourite reason here
    8. insert favourite reason here
    9. insert favourite reason here
    10. Its got an Alpha Architecture.
    
    I don't know what it tells you but it tells me that people buy
    Digital systems _in spite of_ Alpha Architecture and not _because_
    of it.
    
    And since Bold Moves are all the rage these days: Here's 
    Roelof's Bold Move Progam:
    
    1. Stop acting like an overgrown chip company who wants everybody
    to see their favourite toy.
    2. Rip Alpha and AlphaGeneration logo's of every machine and
    advertisement you can find.
    3. Summarily execute any Digital employee who even mentions that
    these things run on Alpha.
    4. Go over and watch how SGI is wrapping up the graphics market,
    think how we could do the same with the database, SAP and other
    markets.
    5. And finally the boldest of all: Repeat aloud three times a
    day that you really, really understand that the people who
    really _do_ care what chip's in there are the same people who _won't_
    buy Alpha. 
    
    
    re roelof

    Re: Mr. Newton's thesis.
    
    Admittedly, Tom's concept has some merit; Figure out a way to make
    Alpha (Insert your favorite Digital brand name if you like) and don't
    worry too much about the desktop.  Or, play to your traditional
    strengths.
    
    It falls apart, however, in the naive thaought process that suggests
    that IBM would spend one nanosecond considering such a strategy.  Ever
    since they unleashed the PC (I remember when and boy do I feel old),
    they have been scrambling to try to fix the mess that they created.  As
    user departments have implemented computing solutions, DP organizations
    have struggled to control IS.  And with the spate of new vendors over
    the last 15 years, IBM has been desperately trying to retain any
    semblance of control over IS departments.  It was not too long ago that
    IBM exec's could get IS managers fired for not buying the newest IBM
    whizz-bang.  
    
    So what's my point?  Any strategy that assumes that IBM will cooperate
    in allowing a competing technology to gain market share in centralized
    IS, or enterprise computing will be as succesful as another Red Sox
    World Series bid.
    
    gc

    
    I really like Roelef's top ten list.
    
    	For example:
    
    		We purchase Digital because....
    
    	10. We can easily remember our customer code number.
    
    	 9. We've had the same sales rep for over six months.
    
         8. Our computers are all commodities anyway.
    
    	 7. Our CIO was TFSO'd last year, and the position remains open.
    
         6. Our programming staff only knows VMS
    
         5. Our programming staff is one part-timer
    
         4. We love the Digital ads so much
    
         3. Our consultant is an ex-DECie
    
         2. You have the best technical support in the computer business
    
    	 And the NUMBER ONE answer is...
    
    	  
    	 1. Our CEO is Ken Olsen.
    
    
    
    	Thank you, thank you. I feel better already. Oh, thank you nurse...
    
    		the Greyhawk
    
    	9. 

>What alliances have we formed with Computer Associates?

Sorry, I don't have a list, but for example the deal to offer CA's Unix CA90
products.

Dave.

    
    ...er..
    
    *If* IBM really wanted Alpha 64 bits all that much, and right now,
    they could just buy us, and spit out the bits (pun not intended) they
    didn't want.
    
    Of course, hostile bids are unheard of in our business no ?
    
    Seriously, if 'get IBM to sell Alpha' is our best hope, at a minimum
    this shows lack of imagination.
    
    

>Would you kindly providing me account/business manager for Computer 
>Associates? 

Don't know about worldwide account management but you could call/mail Judy Orava
@MRO. I believe Judy is the U.S. account manager. (I am assuming here you don't
want U.K. info, which is where I'm based).

Dave.

> Of course, hostile bids are unheard of in our business no ?

  What makes you believe it would need to be a hostile takeover?

                                   Atlant

> In other words, all these products are perceived as proprietary.  If we make
> a deal with IBM,
>
>   * AlphaStations and Alpha enterprise systems will be available from both
>     Digital and IBM.
>
>   * PowerPCs will be available from both IBM and Digital.
>
>   * Power Macintoshes will be available from both Apple and Digital.
>
> All of the products will be perceived as open, which increases sales, and the
> chances of signing up more vendors such as HP, Compaq, and Dell.

It isn't at all clear that "perceived as open" follows from the above.
(In fact, I would argue that it isn't anywhere close to what's necessary
to be perceived as open.)  Personally, it seems to me like this would
be less, not more.  (More overhead resulting in *less* being dedicated
to making products competitive over either the short or long terms.)

    Ahah !
    
    Now I have it.
    
    The following companies all do a deal to mutually support and sell
    Alpha, Mips, PowerPC,Sparc, PA-Risc, Intel (continue....) based systems.
    
    IBM, Digital, HP, Sun, SGI, Pyramid, Compaq... (continue...).
    
    So, everything now becomes an open standard.
    
    ... er... hang on, let me think about this a bit more...
    
    I'll file this in the 'Too Hard' box.

Intel would have you believe 1, Apple and IBM 2, Digital 3...  Is there
a pattern developing here...?

How does one overcome the 33 million pentiums that Intel will
ship this year?  All other issues are insignificant compare to
this one.


Gim

re: .33

Why do you feel the need to stop posting here?  This is definitely NOT the 
proper channel to get your ideas implemented, but I feel it is still worthwhile
reading... Perhaps you could post updates on your progress...

-D

>>> Currently there is

>>>   * one major brand-name company selling AlphaStations and Alpha enterprise
>>>     systems and OpenVMS: Digital.

Wrong! (unless you argue over the definition of "major")  Aspen and Nekotech 
are now selling their own Alpha "clone" systems with your choise of NT, Unix or 
OpenVMS.  I believe the Aspen system won an award at the last DECUS.  The Alpha 
clone system are finally a reality, with more vendor are on the way.  If the 
little guys are successful, I'm sure the big fish will become interested.


							-Paul

"Major" - say US $1Bn annual revenue on the low end.

This is the second note in as many minutes where I've seen something
that suggested that "we're believing our own propaganda".  The Alpha
clone makers aren't even close to major (at the very least, yet.)

We're talking about mass markets here, not Unix/VMS (both of which
are *low* volume).  Remember - Compaq ALL BY ITSELF is likely to pass
Digital in annual revenue soon (if it hasn't already), and it's
only a small fraction of the PC market, as opposed to a fraction
of the company being almost all of the Alpha market, which is in turn
comprised of (at least) 3 significant OS variants.

    Tom
    
    Several weeks back, I suggested thaty you tell us "what the

    Well, that was neat.....
    
    we'll try this again.
    
    Tom, several weeks back, I suggested that you be prepared to explain
    how the numbers worked for some of your ideas.  You told me that my
    suggestion was communistic or something like that.
    
    I repeat my suggestion.  If you are about to march up VP row, you had
    better have some idea of how the numbers work....Because a VP is an
    officer in the corporation who works for the stockholders, who care
    less about strategy than they do about profit.  Don't set yourself up. 
    Make sure you have some meaningful responses to questions about unit
    shipments, gross profit margins, market share increases, etc.  A
    response to a hard question that starts with "It should work like
    this..." is a quick route to TFSOland  (I've been there). 
    
    Do your homework and give it your best shot.
    
    
    Good Luck.
    
    gc 
      

    The June 12, 1995 issue of Computer Reseller News reports Digital
    Equipment Corp. will introduce a system based on the PowerPC 604. 
    The clone makers are one less as IPC based in Austin, Texas has dropped
    the Alpha in favor of the 604.
    As for cooperative ventures with other companies, if the lions share of
    advantage isn't on Digitals side, why bother. If someone wants a
    "simpler, gentler" environment, let them buy an IBM360. 
    I try to think of a way daily to make the competition look as bad as
    possible. I love it. Call it competition. Cooperation will have only
    one effect, stifle innovation.
    Has anyone seen performance figures on the PoverPC? Why so much
    silence?
    I don't want to coexist with the PowerPC, I want to make jokes about it
    a year from now. I want to see it fail miserably. I want to WIN. 

> I don't want to coexist with the PowerPC, I want to make jokes about
> it a year from now. I want to see it fail miserably. I want to WIN. 

  The trouble with the expectation is that it would take an
  absolute calamity inthe PowerMac market to brink its unit
  shipments down to the levels that Alpha presently ships at.
  And a calamity isn't likely to happen.

  Let me say that again, in numbers: In PowerMacs *ALONE*,
  PowerPC is shipping in volumes wel in excess of 1,000,000
  unites per year and the number is growing. Alpha, *IN
  ITS ENTIRE LIFETIME*, has shipped what? 100,000 units?
  200,000? In other words, about 1 or 2 *MONTHS* worth of
  PowerPC shipments or 1+ weeks-worth of Pentium.

                                   Atlant

    I think Tom has some excellent ideas. A PC-priced Alpha would be very
    attractive to the NT server space (for example), to the personal Unix
    arena (I know of 1 cosutomer who is buying HP 'cause its cheaper) and
    to the small VMS shop where they want reliability (as in a lawyers ?)
    
    Alan

>    I think Tom has some excellent ideas. A PC-priced Alpha would be very
>    attractive to the NT server space (for example), to the personal Unix
 
    And a free Alpha would be even more attractive...and therein lies the
    crux of my problem with Tom's ideas. To get my point across I will
    resort to oversimplification. Bear with me on this.
    
    While none of Tom's ideas taken individually are unreasonable what
    bothers me is that taken as a whole they are focussed on reducing
    cost to the customer and an implicit assumption that reduced cost
    will be accompanied by increased volume which presumably offsets
    the lower margins (not a self evident truth).
    
    More importantly though (and here the oversimplification kicks on)
    looking at Digital's customer profile you will see that they sit
    strongly on the side of technology innovators rather than that 
    of technology laggards. Technology laggards are interested in reducing
    cost. Technology innovators are (whatever their protests to the
    contrary) are not. Technology innovators are interested primarily
    in using IT to add value - and are more than willing to pay top
    dollar for it too since this is a proof that the IT solution
    acquired _must_ be adding great value -.
    
    The added value is NOT that of reduced cost, the added value is
    in the are of competitive advantage (e.g. a Digital based data
    miner giving better demographic analyses).
    
    I believe that our focus should be on defining that added value
    - and Digital business practices are a fundamental part of that
    added value - and limiting the solution to cheaper, faster Alphas
    (PC style or no) is fundamentally missing the mark.
    
    re roelof

RE: .44

>    More importantly though (and here the oversimplification kicks on)
>    looking at Digital's customer profile you will see that they sit
>    strongly on the side of technology innovators rather than that 
>    of technology laggards.

Of course, if you ask questions about *existing* customers, you aren't
necessarily finding out anything about people who are *not* currently
your customers.

Yes, there are people that will pay top dollar for advanced technology.
The problem is we utterly fail to exploit opportunities.  (For example, we
should be pushing EV5 workstations *now* getting profit from the "early
adopters" that are willing to pay, then significantly reduce the price over
time - fairly rapidly - so that the price after a relatively short period
of time [e.g. 6-9] months is in the PC price range ballpark.  i.e. you ship
better absolute performance to the people willing to pay a premium, but you
ALSO compete in the larger market so that software vendors see a large enough
installed base to make your platform interesting by making sure that both
your price and price/performance are equivalent to the main stream.)

Basically, the "early systems" is where you get your "extra" profit vs.
total commodity systems.

The thing you don't do is ship a system that's supposedly faster (i.e. Alpha)
in very low performance configs at the low end so that it is above x86
in price, but below x86 platforms in price/perf and absolute perf.  (We seem
to design systems for when particular Alpha chips will be available in volume.
We *should* design systems to be available when the chips are first available
in low volume, and get the margins out of the first systems.  As it stands,
we have a lead "on paper", but when you look at *shipping* systems
in the personal system band [both portables and desktops], Alpha starts
to look a lot more like a paper tiger.)

DG is switching to x86.
At least one system vendor is switching from Alpha to Power PC.

The handwriting is on the wall UNLESS we take explicit action to change
our "glide path".

>    I believe that our focus should be on defining that added value
>    - and Digital business practices are a fundamental part of that
>    added value - and limiting the solution to cheaper, faster Alphas
>    (PC style or no) is fundamentally missing the mark.

I don't believe that anyone has suggested that we should "limit" our
solution to cheaper/faster systems.  However, there are a lot of indications
that we are totally missing the boat by *totally avoiding* PC-price range
systems with PC-competitive price/performance.

    Moderator,
    
    please write lock this one ?.
    
    Ta,
    
    AW

>                   <<< Note 3950.51 by RDGENG::WILLIAMS_A >>>
>                                   -< ..!.. >-
>
>    Moderator,
>    
>    please write lock this one ?.
>    
>    Ta,
>    
>    AW

    Could you please supply a list of all other topics you wish
    write-locked, along with reasons as carefully communicated as the ones
    above?  Thanks.  Oh, and any other conferences you might take exception
    to?  Please forward them to POND::PALMER, he's the moderator of most
    of these conferences.
    
    Thanks for your help.
    
    								Tex
    Bye all means
    

    I'm tempted to nominate ::NEWTON for the \nassar Award
    
    

Nah, the Dr. Bronner award is a much better fit.

    .52
    
     --> 3959.11
    

RE: ::Newton

Christopher Columbus was ridiculed as well.

Right or wrong, I admire you courage and conviction...

Keep the faith...

Mark

    re the last few.
    
    Let him speak. He has ideas - he provokes discussion. He does NOT winge
    on about what might have been....
    
    Alan
    

Tom,

I hope your IBM friend shows as much tolerance to you and your ideas as 
your fellow noters have.

I'm personally getting a little tired of seeing your ideas (virtually the same
ideas time and time again) in the notesfiles I visit. Perhaps it's time to
take 'em to management. If you don't get a positive reception, perhaps there's 
a reason. I think you have several of your facts wrong and I'm willing to 
bet that management will feel the same way. 

tim moffitt

> God is a win-win player.

An atheist would say you haven't even gotten as far as getting the facts
wrong; the premise is false.  As a famous physicist once said, the theory
"is so bad it isn't even wrong."

___Pete

>    and "With God, All Things Are Possible!"

OK, so we have

	if <god> then <all things are possible>

Now it's manifestly true that 

	not <all things are possible>

and therefore

	not <god>

RE:  Christopher Columbus was ridiculed as well.
    
    An interesting comparison...   Cristopher Columbus 
    grossly miscalculated the circumference of the earth, and
    died not realizing he had never made it to the orient...
    
    If IBM wanted Alpha, they'd buy it (or us).  Digital could probably
    make a low power, low heat Alpha chip for less money than it 
    would cost to port VMS and Digital Unix to PowerPC.  Defacto
    standards rule the marketplace, not "open" standards created by
    alliances between vendors.  More than anything else, applications
    sell systems.
    
    FWIW, although I find Mr. Newton's opinions to be a tad bit
    naive, I do admire his enthusiasm.
    
    Jim
    

I'm kind of a naive new hire and all...but, Digital UNIX w/CDE on Alpha
is our answer to HP/UX IBM AIX, etc. etc....right?

This competition is really head to head, regardless of chip architecture...
our competitive edge is 64 bit addressing on our UNIX offering...and this is
directly related to the Alpha Architecture...

Why in God's name would we want to let IBM, or encourage IBM, to manufacture
Alpha based systems and get something like DB2 or whatever, addressing
64 bits and offering an alternative to our competitive edge, namely Oracle
VLM technology on Alpha?

Things are just starting to heat up with Alpha...this, as I understand it,
is a very calculated and long term chip architecture strategy...anybody can
license the chip...let's let them come to us...c'mon, this company is turning
around, let's protect our engineering core competencies and our technology
advances, they are are best and most important assets...

If your having trouble selling/positioning Alpha against PowerPC...sell them
a damn Prioris quad Pentium....for chr*st sake...

-Stephen

    I have been made aware why Tom does notes like he does from time to
    time.
    
    Tom, please carry on.
    
    My ripostes were totally unreasonable.
    
    

    Takes a big man to post a note like 3950.66.  My 10-gallon's off to
    you!
    
    								Tex

    I've been away on Hols for a few weeks and am a little behind in my
    noting. . .
    
    There have been a few suggestions lately that if IBM wanted Alpha
    technology, they could simply buy DEC.  Not so simple.
    
    The US Justice Department would be down on that like a tonne of bricks. 
    
    Bill

Bill:

> There have been a few suggestions lately that if IBM wanted Alpha
> technology, they could simply buy DEC.  Not so simple.
>
> The US Justice Department would be down on that like a tonne of
> bricks.

  Why?

                                   Atlant

> -< Does the word "Anti-trust" mean anything to you? >-

  Hasn't mean much to the Justice department lately.

                                   Atlant

    Re .71
    
    > Hasn't mean much to the Justice department lately.
    
    Does the phrase "Microsquash and Intuit" mean anything to you?
    
    -dick

Dick (et. al.):

  Microsquash and Intuit never really got past the initial "discovery"
  phase. Microsoft simply decided that the acquisition would not be
  approved in time to let it dominate the financial software market,
  so MS decided not to proceed.

  More telling is the complete capitulation of Justice in the earlier
  "unfair competition" lawsuit. Even though there was a substantial
  body of evidence that MS did "nasty" things (including using the
  market dominance of their O/S to leverage sales of their applica-
  tions programs as well as providing unfair assistance from the
  O/S developers to the apps developers), Bingaman decided to give
  them the mildest slap on the wrist. MS then proceeded to begin the
  Intuit acquisition, a step that basically said "In your Face, MS
  competitors!".

  Now, let's see how Justice's investigation into the "Microsoft
  Network" bundling comes out.

  -=-=-=-=-

  Returning to the main point of this note string, Digital is a
  small fish, and growing smaller. It is unlikely to attract much
  attention from Justice if IBM were to acquire us, particularly
  if the IBM whale were to then spit out many of the bits and
  pieces, saving only a jewel or two, for example, Alpha.

  At the same time, it is widely rumored that IBM is looking to
  acquire Novell (because of their NetWare product line and sec-
  ondarily, UnixWare and the WordPerfect apps). This would rep-
  resent a much more serious concentration of competition, yet I
  have not heard anyone say that Justice would block that acquisition.

                                   Atlant

    
    	Atlant, 
    
    	Go to the head of the class. For all of you disbelievers, remember
    	one thing. IBM *hates* to lose, ever, to anybody. Now that DOJ is
    	focused on Microsquish, IBM is loose in the hen house. Grap the
    	Networks, grab the network applications, and who do you love...
    
    	We better start getting serious about selling stuff, instead of
    	reorganizing resumes to save big $ jobs.
    
    	I'll say it one more time. FY96 is our seminal season. We don't
    	grow faster than the industry as a whole, we are in some kind
    	of problem sneakers. Don't want to be just another 64-bit chip
    	box company. That will be the K O D.
    
    
    		the Greyhawk
    
    
    		

    Re: .last
    
    Can't agree more.  Too many people are walking aroound here yelling
    "the war's over, we won!" because we have good 64-bit technology.
    
    Look at Sun's financial results.  Growing profitably at rapid pace. 
    But there are still folks around here that refuse to take Sun seriously
    because "SPARC is out of gas."
    
    If the company as a whole doesn't grow 25%, and Alpha doesn't grow
    at least 200% in the next year, Digital is dead meat.

    re: Sun out of Gas
    
    I remember a company selling microVAXen against Suns that were 10x
    the performance of said Micros for two years in the mid 1980s.
    
    There is a lot to be said for a loyal, installed base that needs to 
    expand compute power.  
    
    Customers don't always buy the fastest... they buy the easiest and 
    the cheapest that gets the job done and works with what they already
    have.
    
    To a SUN customer today, the easiest, and cheapest addition to their
    network is another SUN... Just like our customers bought MicroVAXen
    long after the industry had moved on and we weren't delivering that
    level of performance.
    
    Now we have the hotbox and are looking at growing market share from 
    SUN, HP, IBM... We need not only to keep our lead in performance, we
    need to keep it as a factor of 10 not just 1 or 2 times the current 
    performance.  10x is compelling. 2x is ho-hum, no reason to change.  
    
    Otherwise... Installed base loyalties will continue to rule and SUN
    will be bigger than us, and much more profitable by 1998.
    
    JMHO
    
    John Wisniewski

Haven't been in here for about two months and am catching up in spare time.
Reading this whole thread at one shot has been interesting, because of the
need to figure out what everybody is replying to.

What happened to the base note?

Steve

      In response to several mails, I am re-entering this with references
    to the basenoter's identity removed.
    
      The base noter, suffers from a form of manic-depressive illness.
    In the manic phase, he tends to 'spam' this, and apparently
    other conferences with lots of off-the-ceiling ideas. Some of them,
    like getting IBM to adopt Alpha architecture (which if I remember
    aright was the main theme of the basenote), generate quite a lot of
    discussion, if not a lot of agreement. The topic was started during
    his most recent 'spamming' session in this conference. I think he
    probably deleted it, along with a number of other notes, soon
    afterwards.
    
    Ken