I'm a fellow Corel long who's been lurking here for quite a while. I finally came across something to contribute to the thread.
Date: Sunday, April 13, 1997
Source: By James Coates, Tribune Staff Writer. James Coates is a computer writer for the Tribune.
Section: PERSPECTIVE
Column: ON THE RECORD.
Parts: 1
Copyright Chicago Tribune
JOHN W. THOMPSON
GENERAL MANAGER OF IBM IN NORTH AMERICA
Three years ago, John W. Thompson left a Chicago job as chief of Midwestern operations for International Business Machines Corp. to become head of Big Blue's personal computer software division, including the OS/2 operating system that has been eclipsed by archrival Microsoft Corp.'s Windows 95.
Thompson seems to have emerged unscathed--in fact, the 26-year IBM veteran has been promoted to general manager of IBM North America, a promotion that puts him in charge of all operations at an IBM branch that enjoys revenues of $30 billion in the United States and Canada.
During a visit to Chicago, Thompson expressed pessimism over the future of Apple Computer Inc. and outlined IBM's strategy, much of which hinges on heavy use of the new technology known as Java. If Java catches on, consumers soon will be able to do everything on an $800 computer that now would require a $13,000 desktop workstation. And that would not be good news for Microsoft and Windows 95.
Q: After the OS/2 wars, do you feel empathy with your counterparts at Apple? They keep postponing the release of the promised new Macintosh operating system that most observers agree is absolutely essential if Apple is to compete and survive.
A: I would really hate to see Apple fail. I feel strongly that we very much need forces in this business like Apple to ensure that competition flourishes. We all benefit by the resulting new technologies that competition forces us to create. Apple has some great products and there should be room in the industry for them.
Q: But will Apple actually survive long enough to see any innovations catch on? The company now says that its next operating system, the answer to Windows 95, will be ready for mass sales in early 1998.
A: I have to tell you that when I look at the history of operating systems--and I do have a bit of experience in that particular area--I have some real worries about Apple's future.
Considering the time it took for various operating systems to catch on, Apple's hopes to have one in place and growing quickly may not be realistic.
It took a long time for (Microsoft) DOS to become a force when Apple was the dominant player (in the 1970s). Then it took a long time for the original versions of Windows (3.x) to become the widespread replacement for DOS. In fact, it takes on the order of seven years for one of these operating systems to take off, Apple really doesn't have that kind of time left to do it. So I do wonder if they'll make it.
Q: It becomes obvious from IBM's emerging product lines and from the things that you and other top executives are saying at trade shows and in interviews that IBM has some big plans for the so-called NC or network computer. Does IBM buy into the Java idea that people will download small amounts of software from a large network as each bit of software is needed? Will the word processors, spreadsheets and database managers from your Lotus subsidiary be broken into pieces and sold as downloads?
A: We acquired Lotus in the summer of 1995 because the company had a vision of desktop computing that was in line with our thoughts. That is, that the marketplace would move more toward collaborative services, where mail and personal productivity applications all would converge on the desktop.
I want that. I'm a classic example of a laptop road warrior. I want to have on my portable desktop the personal productivity applications that I use. I want to be able to plug in from my hotel room and pull down my mail.
Q: How will you divide the labors?
A: Lotus will continue to build on the SmartSuite brand of applications. (SmartSuite combines spreadsheet, word-processing and other programs). But we will take SmartSuite packages and divide them into components that can use the World Wide Web. That way you will be able to use the portion of an application that is most relevant to you and have that application component downloadable from the Web so you could run it on your machine.
To us, this is a wonderful strategy because we tend not to use 80 percent of what exists in one of these applications. The model we're developing requires only a relatively small machine, a Web-enabled browser and the capability to attach to a network. You won't need a big hard drive and lots of memory. If I want to send a simple letter to you, it should not require a 2 gigabyte drive and a 200 MHz Pentium.
Q: Do you share the zeal of Larry Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle Corp., who says that Microsoft out of sheer greed is forcing people to build huge machines that run horribly bloated software that costs many thousands of dollars, and that the company can be defeated by selling the sort of downloadable Java-type software you just described?
A: Larry is on some mission to destroy Bill Gates' network, and I don't care to join in on that. But Larry's right when he says that there is a broad array of users who don't need all that the industry--not just Microsoft--has delivered.
The paradigm is shifting to where some of our customers will use network computers for their main tasks. I don't subscribe to all or nothing, though. I think there always will be a place for fully functioning computers and that network versions will find a place as well.
Some industry analysts say it costs $13,000 per year for a company to support a single computer. That's when a CEO starts wondering: "How many of these things do I have? I have 5,000 of them? It's costing me how much?" They tend to get worried.
The network computer offers them a chance to use far less expensive machines in many cases, and at IBM we already have built such a box.
It is called a Network Station. We think it's a wonderful box. It is about as thick as a tape recorder, but it contains an integrated Web browser and can download and use all sorts of applications.
Q: How do you view your industry's overall profit picture? Is it starting to slide? Are we in for a plunge in technology revenues, drops in the price of technology stocks?
A: I certainly hope not. Many of the market analysts who track our business say that the information-technology industry will continue to grow at double digits through 1998 for sure, and probably through the strategic period that lies maybe three to five years out.
The issue for us is how can we make our products relevant to the problems our customers want to solve?
Q: You were the moving force behind what was called the "Chicago model" for operating your division that IBM adopted in the early 1990s after it suffered spectacular losses because of customers moving from traditional big mainframe computers to networks of personal computers running Microsoft operating systems and software. The Chicago model seemed to have focused on persuading customers that IBM should manage its computer business while the customers did what they do best. Will this carry over to IBM North America, now that you are in charge?
A: Many customers are reaching the point where they say: "You know, my core competency is banking, not management of the information-technology infrastructure.
"So I don't want to manage the day-to-day operations of a broad network or of a disparate set of server farms or data centers. I'd rather have someone who does that as their core competency do that for me."
So we get them to marry their core competency of banking with the core competency of someone in the information-technology industry, like IBM, to manage their operation.
The Midwest, in fact, has embraced that concept very readily. A number of very large Chicago companies--Ameritech, Unicom, and over in St. Louis, McDonnell Douglas--all turned to IBM as a provider of operations support services for their information-technology structure, or for their network.
Q: Speaking of networks, why has IBM been so quiet about the new project? Why aren't you telling the world that IBM is buying into this less-is-more thing in a big way?
A: We have not tried to create fanfare. We have a very big and important PC business. Ellison doesn't have a PC business. Our whole approach is, "Mr. Customer, here are several alternatives that are available to you for the delivery of applications to your work force."
Computing can be provided in a number of ways, and there are a number of forms of computing from which customers can choose. Everything need not be painted with the same brush.
Q: Forgive a smart-aleck question, but if you were victorious and were ever able to paint over your competition, can we guess what color you would choose?
A:.The more blue the world is, the better I feel.
----------
This is an edited transcript.
PHOTO (color): John W. Thompson. Tribune photo by Walter Kale.
PHOTOS: John W. Thompson of IBM envisions a program where his company manages a system for a company, allowing that firm to concentrate on its specialty without developing complex programs of its own; the small network computer (right) being developed in the industry is a thrust toward savings for companies.
Keywords: BLACK INTERVIEW TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS EXECUTIVE
Document ID: S7103103 |
