Leaked memo (was Re: HTML Rendering in PMMail/2)

[Simon Bowring]

An allegedly leaked memo, possibly from a BSW programmer has recently 
appeared, this is my take on it - I am copying the message to TB!

Wow! Assuming this is genuine (and I've no reason to think it's not)...

>It now appears that the small but vociferous band of such users would 
>indeed pay for such upgrades but that the enhancements they are 
>demanding would be uneconomic even if they were each prepared to pay 
>$500 for the upgrade. 
Sadly, this could easily be true (I believe it)!

>It was further suggested that a if we maintained the goodwill of the OS/2 
>users when they eventually converted to Windows they would all purchase 
>PMMail 2000. From reading the mailing list it is abundantly clear that the 
>Pope is more likely to convert to Mormonism than most of the members of 
>the mailing list are to convert to Windows. 

Can't argue too much with that - some OS/2 users will of course 
ultimately convert to windows (as many have done) and some to Linux
(ditto), some will convert to BeOS, and possibly some will even convert 
to operating systems TBD!

>Let me now turn to the Windows version of a PMMail. You have been 
>unable to cite a single instance of a purchaser of this version who was not 
>a previous user of the OS/2 version. 

There are 2 here - we have 3 PMMail users in our company, me (OS/2 only) and 
two PMMail/2000 for Windows users who *never* had the OS/2 version - only 
one of them has even run OS/2 before!  

If BSW had converters to import Outlook's emails and addresses, I would
have recommended that all our (30-ish) Windows users migrated to 
PMMail/2000 (since I am in charge of virus countremeasures, Outlook 
consititutes our biggest risk-exposure to viruses, and no AV tools 
are up to the job of detecting new Outlook email worms before its 
"too late".

>The supply of these "heretics" now seem to be exhausted and I simply 
>do not see how it will be possible to persuade any significant number 
>of Windows users to pay any significant sum of money for a mail client 
>when there are several perfectly satisfactory mailers available free. 

If BSW marketted the software(!), especially as a means of protecting
users against Outlook targetting viruses (the most common and dangerous), 
I think they could sell on that alone, add PGP to that and you have another 
reason to use it.  I wonder if they've tried approaching AV companies like 
NAI and Sophos etc?

>While I take your point that when OS/2 users are finally driven to the 
>conclusion that the operating system is dead they could probably be 
>persuaded to change to an other operating system as long as it didn't have 
>any connection with Microsoft do we really want to get involved with 
>Linux? 

If you're serious about being in the software business and you ignore 
Linux, then...you are not serious about being in the software business!
Any sensible port to Linux would effectively mean you can support almost 
any flavour of Unix at the drop of a hat, and there is a shortage of 
good GUI email clients on Unix!

>It appears that the main attraction of this operating system is that it 
>is non commercial and appeals to those that like to tinker; 
Also it appeals to technical people (not at all the same as "tinkerers") and
people with a serious Computer Science background who understand what an 
operating system should deliver - agreed Linux in its current form does 
not appeal to "ordinary" non-technical computer users (i.e. most Windows 
users). This may change, or it may not, either way Unix has been, is and 
will continue to be the choice of OS for a great many serious/professional
computer users.

>those that have tried to make money out of it have almost universally failed.
Its early days yet, but of course if they don't port to Linux, they certainly
won't attract Linux users!  To attract the linux community, they need only 
release a free version - they could charge for an enhanced or more capable 
version.  They may even be able to sell to the Linux suppliers like Red Hat,
Caldera, SUSE etc.
 
>The biggest danger of of this strategy is that Microsoft, on the off-chance 
>that they might be able to make some money out of it, could embrace 
>Linux. 
Or MS could switch to making hamburgers - only slightly less likey than
embracing Linux, which would deprive them of their main strategy - 
generating "lock-in" to their products via "embrace and extend".
This is also a non-agrument:  MS can, have and will continue to turn 
their attention to all/any parts of the software industry that they think
may be profitable. When MS do embrace a new application or market area, 
they do put other (especially small) companies out of business "overnight" 
any company that sells any applications is exposed to the same "danger".

If this message is genuine, and if it originates from
a programmer, it makes me think that:

a) The programmer(s) are "Windows Programmers" (and not "Programmers")
b) The sources are in a mess
c) The progammer(s) really don't like the s/w they are maintaining - this 
   is a serious concern and a recipe for disaster - it may be because the
   sources are genuinely in a bad mess, or it could be that the programmers 
   are crap or some combination of both.

Any comments?

Simon Bowring