Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!trantor.harris-atd.com!trantor!chuck
From: chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Sun != Open Archtecture
Message-ID: <5089@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Date: 14 Dec 90 13:24:04 GMT
References: <36911@cup.portal.com>
Sender: news@trantor.harris-atd.com
Reply-To: chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano)
Organization: Advanced Technology Dept, Harris Corp, Melbourne, FL
Lines: 92

In article <36911@cup.portal.com>, johnm@cup.portal.com (John - Madison) writes:
> Assertion:  Sun is retreating from the idea of Open Systems.
> 
> Consider:
> - Sun has decided *not* to provide future versions of SunOS to clone
> makers.  They will instead be forced to buy System V from ATT.   This
> will allow Sun to produce proprietary systems and claim that the clone
> manufacturers are not compatible.

     But Sun will be running SVr4 themselves.  They are pretty much locked
into SVr4, and in fact, SunOS 5.0 will be SVr4.  So why shouldn't the
clones get SVr4 from the real source, USL, instead of Sun?  Sun has no
obligation to support clone makers.  All they did was create a market where
cloners could compete.  They don't have to make it easy for them.

> - Sun has been aggressively unbundling software like the C compiler,
> OS improvements, and such.  Further, they *prohibit* you from buying
> the unbundled Sun products and running them on a clone.  Not supporting
> such products is one thing, but a blanket prohibition is clearly aimed
> at the clone makers.

     I hate to see the compiler completely unbundled, which is a mistake.
But again, what obligation does Sun have to a clone maker?  How technical
support does IBM give Compaq?  Also, can you cite the licensing agreement
which restricts Sun products to Sun hardware?  Perhaps there is a market for
clones of unbundled Sun software!

> - Sun is providing marginal support for SBus card manufacturers.  While
> publishing specs and claiming that it is fully open, their technical
> support leaves a lot to be desired.  In addition, Sun has recently been
> pretty aggressive in competing with third party SBus card manufacturers
> and has been developing products to skim the cream by claiming the best
> selling cards for themselves.  Most SBus developers are small companies
> and need the revenue from high volume cards to plow back into r&d.
> Taking this market away from them will insure that no SBus developers
> grows to be very large, and may well discourage many third party
> developers.  After all, if you had an idea for a card, would you
> develop and market it, if you thought that Sun would jump into the
> market as soon as you demonstrated the concept?

     If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  Sun has no
obligation to not compete in the SBus market, nor do they have an obligation
to support all SBus vendors.  The fact that more than 100 SBus cards are
already available seems to show that small companies can compete in the
SBus market.

> According to (unnamed for obvious reasons) marketing people at Sun,
> they are very concerned about clone makers, both at the low and high
> end, and are trying to figure out ways to frustrate them.   Instead of
> standard approaches like faster machines, lower prices, and better
> support, they are using legal strategies like jerking the vendors
> around on licensing.  If you want to learn the novel forms of
> competitive advantage that Sun is seeking, talk to Solborne or Auspex.

     Sun should be concerned, and if I were Sun, I'd do everything I can
to compete and succeed.  You seem to think that Sun should roll over and
give up market share to clone vendors.  To be honest, I'm seeing faster
machines, lower prices, and better support from Sun.  And in this day and
age, I can't blame them from using legal tactics, too.

> In conclusion: when Sun was small, they supported open systems since it
> was a good tool to compete against larger, closed systems. Now that
> they are much larger and more able to set the standards, they have no
> more incentive to support truly open systems than any other company.
> Open Systems has gone from a strategy to a vapid marketing slogan.

     The point of open systems is to foster a market where software runs
everywhere, and people buy systems because of perceived advantages from their
vendor.  A company that produces a SPARC 1+ knockoff with no distinct
differences from existing Sun (or other) products deserves to die, because
they are not differentiating themselves in the market place.  Sun doesn't
owe anyone a free ride.  Only truly innovative companies will win a market
niche.  There may be 42 SPARC clone vendors right now, but you can be sure 
there won't be in two years.  Only companies like Solbourne (multiprocessing),
Toshiba (laptops), Matsushita (multi-media), FPS (supercomputing) and maybe
Mars or RDI (PC and Mac compatibility) will survive this very cut-throat
marketplace.

     Of course, if you don't like the way Sun does business, switch to any
other vendor who has over 150,000 installed RISC systems (and expects 250,000
by June '91 and 1,000,000 by Dec '92), a thriving clone market, 3,000 available
applications, and a 40% market share. :-)

-- 

Chuck Musciano				ARPA  : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com
Harris Corporation 			Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck
PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912			AT&T  : (407) 727-6131
Melbourne, FL 32902			FAX   : (407) 729-2537

A good newspaper is never good enough,
	but a lousy newspaper is a joy forever.		-- Garrison Keillor