Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) wrote:

>Supertimer (supertimer@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: >>Can you imagine what would have happened if two years ago,
>: >>Microsoft decided "to hell with backward compatibility, Microsoft
>: >>Windows 95 will have NO compatibility with DOS or Win 3.1"?
>: >
>: >...then Microsoft might have ended up with a decent OS...
>: >...but still doubtful...
>
>: No; they would get a BIG backlash from Win 3.1 users.  95 will
>: not sell that well and users would continue to stick by Win 3.1.
>: Then Microsoft might axe Win 3.1 in an effort to force users to
>: switch.  Users would ask "why couldn't they have upgraded
>: Win 3.1, keeping capatibility?"
>
>Ever see any statistics on the number of people who have not upgraded to
>windows 95? There are a lot of 'em. And just where does a fellow buy 3.1
>these days? I'd say it's been axed.

Of course it has been axed, but not the same way as my example.

Do you know why Windows 95 was so successful and there was
no backlash when Windows 3.1 was axed?  It is because 95 was
a real upgrade to 3.1.  When I use 95, half my software is 3.1.

If Apple had went the ARM based Apple II route, then Apple II
users would have had a genuine upgrade path.  No complaints.
They could axe the IIe, but the ARM based II could take the IIe's
hardware and software.  Built from your existing base, then
penetrate and expand, like Charlie Springer said.  Microsoft
is doing this EXACTLY.  Why do you think Microsoft can
beat Apple even though Apple was always more innovative?

Now in my example that you quoted, it is a "what if" scenario.
What if Microsoft Windows 95 had been a "next big thing"
that was NOT Windows 3.1 compatible (like the Macintosh
not being A2 compatible).  95 would not sell well, like Mac
did not sell well initially.  What if Microsoft, in order to get
95 sales up, deliberately axe Windows 3.1?  Can you imagine
the uproar?  Millions of PC users suddenly find their 3.1 wares
obsoleted....Microsoft of course did not follow this "Steve Jobs"
stupidity.  They built on their Windows 3.1 base.  Windows 3.1
to Windows 95 is not IIe to Macintosh, but IIe to ARM based
IIGS Plus!

>: By ignoring their installed base, jumping to the "Next Great
>: Thing," and killing a successful product, Microsoft would have
>: headed on the road to disaster.
>
>: Remind anyone of a certain company and a certain attititude?
>
>MS ended support for 3.1 ya know.

No they didn't; the support is IN Windows 95.

IF Microsoft had "Next Big Thing" fever, ignored the user base,
and made Windows 95 incompatible with 3.1 and DOS and then
turn around and axe 3.1 after users reject Windows 95, THAT's
when you would have the disaster senario....