User:Sebquantic/vaporware notes

Draft

"The problem of vaporware has existed almost as long as computers have," according to Computerworld magazine's Avery Jenkins, and Microsoft is not the first company to be accused of anti-competitive "preannouncement" practices. ...

Notes

WSJ talking about 3d realms going out of business:

last duke nukem game released in 1996.

didn't officially announce closing

Take-Two Interactive Software owns publishing rights

1. Dipert, Brian (2006-03-30). "Long-promised game may yet appear". Business Source Premier. 51 (7). EDN: 110.

3dr "pre-announced" DNF on april 1997.

suffered a series of "miscues and restarts" leading gaming press to label it as vaporware.

pundits said initials stood for "Duke Nukem Whenever", "Duke Nukem Whatever", "Did Not Finish"

3rd co-founder Geroge Broussard said it was in "full production" and parts were finished in 2006.

1. http://books.google.com/books?id=Sr0eo0Q2t1sC&pg=PA98&dq=vaporware+%22video+game%22&cd=2#v=onepage&q=vaporware%20%22video%20game%22&f=false

talks generally about video games and vaporware

1. Thompson, Clive (2009-12-21). "Learn to Let Go: How Success Killed Duke Nukem". Wired News. Condé Nast Digital. Retrieved 2010-04-15.

original game made 3rd wealthy

screenshots and videos published every few years

video games normally take 2-4 years to develop

took dnf 12 years

sued for millions by its publisher the day after they went out of business.

rapid advancement of computers created an "arms race" in the video game industry, 3rd constantly added new features to catch up.

first demonstrated at E3 in 98'

IBM was accused of announcing its System/360-91 machine (above) three years before its release intentionally to draw attention from a competitor's similar machine, a practice later called "vaporware"

1. Flynn, Laurie (1995-04-24). "The Executive Computer". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2010-04-14.

[vaporware] a term whose precise definition is somewhat elusive. And it is among the topics at issue in the Microsoft Corporation case that the United States Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear today in Washington.

"One of them told me, 'Basically, it's vaporware,' " recalled Ms. Win blad, "It became clear to me there was no future development." Thus, in this earliest use, vaporware referred simply to a project that had lost steam."

"with Ms. Winblad's help, the term had spread throughout the relatively small cluster of influential observers of the PC desktop software industry who were increasingly appalled at how long it was taking some companies to get products out the door after announcing them."

notable example that helped popularize the term: "in 1983, when a tiny company named Ovation Technologies Inc. began trying to drum up support for a new integrated program that was being widely hailed as a great innovation, even showing a demo of it at trade shows. The trouble was, said software executives who were there, the software didn't exist -- the demo was faked in an attempt to raise capital. But before any actual product appeared, the company failed to raise the money it needed and died. With this incident, vaporware came to connote outright fakery."..."Widely considered the mother of all vaporware."

"Nearly 10 years ago, [Stewart] Alsop began publishing a list of companies that have pre-announced products, called the Vaporlist, with the hope of pressing companies to stop the practice, and to this day the list holds considerable influence in the industry.

1. Dyson, Esther (1983-11-28). "Vaporware" (PDF). RELease 1.0. Rosen Research: 5.

dyson's newsletter thah popularized it

1. Shea, Tom (1984-05-07). "Developers Unveil 'Vaporware'". InfoWorld. 6 (19). InfoWorld Media Group: 48. ISSN 0199-6649. Retrieved 2010-04-13.

Winblad was the first to call it vaporware. she compared it to "selling smoke". Esther Dyson (respected expert in microcomputers) used the term in her newsletter RELease 1.0 in 1983. From there popularised to industry people.

term used by company who wants attention but cant yet release its product

use in software is an extension of the practive for hardware makers: IBM's 370 mainframe announced years before release.

sometimes called "vaportalk" in the 80s

early videogame example: public relations firm Coakley-Haegerty used the concept as the basis for a marketing campaign for a new arcade-game called Sente by Nolan Bushnell. The game's maker was contractually prohibeted from competing with his former employer Atari, but he wantwd to release it after that. It wasnt ready, so they put together the marketing campaign: the made a big box wrapped in brown paper with a button on it labeled "no comment", made advertisements and brochures for it talking about Bushnell and the box, but not the actual product, and even displayed the box at a New Orleans trade show.

1. Prentice, Robert (1996). "Vaporware: imaginary high-tech products and real antitrust liability in a post-Chicago world". Ohio State Law Journal. 57 (4). ISSN 1163-1262. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

1. Bayus, Barry L.; Jain, Sanjay; Rao, Ambar G. (2001-02-01). "Truth or consequences: An analysis of vaporware and new product announcements". Journal of Marketing Research. 38 (1). American Marketing Association: 3–13. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.1.3.18834. ISSN 0022-2437.

origins

(page 3) Later, the term came to have broader connotations (after Winblad). (Dyson 1987) [Dyson, E. (1987), "Beware the Hypervapor!" Forbes, (July 13), 478]

(page 3) Infoworld helped popularize this term when its editor, Stewart Alsop, presented Bill Gates with the Golden Vaporware award in November 1985 at the Alexic Hotel in Las Vegas to celebrate Microsoft's releasese of the first version of Windows (Garud 1997; Ichbiah) [Garud, R. (1997), "Betaware's Better Than Vaporware," Journal of Commerce, (November 3), 7A.]

(page 3)MSFT definition: vaporware n. 1: a product th^ ttie vendor keeps promis- ing is about to arrive "real soon now," but it goes so long past its shipment date that no one believes it wili ever really ship {Jargon: An Informal Dictionary of Computer Terms by R. Williams and S. Cummings 1993) 2: slang for announced software that may never materialize (Computer Dictionary by D. Spencer 1992) 3: a term used sarcastically for promised software that misses its announced release date, usually by a consid- erable length of time (Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 1991)

(page 3)20th anniversary issue of Byte (1995) published a list of famous vaporware products.

(page 3)"Many firms find it beneficial to communicate their devel- opment activities to internal and external audiences in advance of a new product introduction"

(page 3)"industry pundits have coined the term "vaporware" to describe products that miss their previously announced release date."

(page 4) some vaporware unintentional because of uncertanties of product development, but "industry participants" alledge is is used to gain competitive advantage. (Jenkins 1988; Johnston 1995; Johnston and Betts 1995; Singh 1997; Wall Street Journal 1996)

articles that alledged it:

Johnston, S. (1995), "V^wrware Tactics Elicit Mixed Reviews," Computerworld, (May 1), 147.

Jenkins, A. (1988), "Long Overdue: The Reasons Behind Vaporware," Compuierworld. (October 5), 11-13.

Johnston, S. and M. Betts (1995), "Industry Debates U.S. Vaporware Probe," Computerworld, (February 13), 2.

Wall Street Journal (1982), "The Case That Won't Die," (April 8), 24

Singh, J. (1997), "The Vaporware Game," CNet News, (April 25), (accessed June 1997),

(page 4) USDEP.JUSTICE investigated the practice in 1995. ((e.g.. Black and Wylie 1997; U.S. Department of Justice 1995; Yoder 1995)

(page 11) Section 2 of the Sherman Act 15 (U.S.C. 2), which states that a violation of antitrust laws requires proof that a prean- nouncement is both knowingly false and has actual or likely miyket impact.

(page 4) authors say "preannouncement behavior" by companies is done for three reasons: (1) tell potential conpetitors they are working on something so they "back off" (2) tell potential competitors theys are further along in developemnt than then are, so they should "back of" (3) if the competitor has released their product first, a preannouncement may delay acceptance of the competitor's product by telling customers that another is comming. authors call these activies "interfirm" signals (stuff above, could also be letting them know what your are spending on development), as opposed to for the benefit of customers. They say this can be intentional, as opposed to the "prevailing thought" at the time, which was that a firm would stand no advantage for vaporware, ans so it must all be unintentional.

(page 5) telegraphing development costs: firms might "preannounce" to signal dev costs between firms. intentional vaporware occurs when "having use a preannoutvement to deter entry, a firm introduces is net product and an optimal time later than originally announced. The preannouncement tells the aspiring firm that this larger firm is doing something with low dev costs, so they save their money be deciding not to enter. There are potential penalties for false announcements: antitrust investigations, loss of reputation.

(page 5) "Software development is a complex venture that is laden with uncertainty." complex, and done by different teams. testing for bugs is a significant part of a product's development times line, and companies have real reason not to want to realease a buggy product.

(page 5) example: Windows was announced for shipping on May 1984, but didnt ship untill 18 months later.

(page 5) (Yoder 1995.) "United States V. Microsoft Corporation. In rejecting the U.S. Department of Justice's proposed settlement with Microsoft, U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin repeatedly chastised the government for not questioning Microsoft's new product announcement practices. According to Judge Sporkin, "Vaporware is a practice that is deceitful on its face and everybody in the tnisiness community knows it"

1. Johnston, Stuart J.; Betts, Mitch (1995-02-13). "Industry debates U.S. vaporware probe". Computerworld: 2. ISSN 0010-4841.

"A court brief recently filed by several unnamed Microsoft rivals accused Microsoft of engaging in "predatory preannouncements" that stifle competition, a charge that Microsoft denies. To date, courts have ruled that preannouncements do not violate the antitrust laws unless they are knowingly false and have a market impact, the government maintained."

Judge Stanley Sporkin began probe on microsoft's use of preannouncement as an anti-competitive practice.

"Microsoft certainly didn't invent vaporware. They're simply following a hallowed tradition," said Amy Wohl, editor of the industry newsletter "Trendsletter" in Bala Cynwyd, Pa.

[Alan Freedman, editor of the Electronic Computer Glossary] said its difficult to predict when a product will be released, "programmers are notorius for being terrible estimators of project time". However, he also said Microsoft may be exploiting the same "FUD factor" that IBM made famous in its heyday. he defined the fear, uncertainty and doubt factor as "a marketing strategy used by a dominant or privileged organization that restrains competition by not revealing future plans." This is precisely Sporkin's point, but some of Microsoft's rivals were not concerned last week.

1. Jenkins, Avery (1998-10-05). "Long overdue; The reasons behind vaporware". Computerworld: 10. ISSN 0010-4841.

Computerworld had a section of their magazine called "PC VAPORWARE" in 1988

"the problem of vaporware has existed almost as long as computers have"

Famous example in mid-1980s: Ovation Technologies released a demonstration front-end [UI] for an upcomming software package called Ovation in 1984 that was well received by reviewers, and created anticipation from users, and was featured in a cover story for an industry magazine. It was never relased, and author claims there was never any software developed beyond the UI. Lotus Development Corp. has similar issues.

author says "vaporware is the inevitable result of the coquettish game that developers play with users, teasing them with potential products while at the same time holding out until they have a commitment to buy."

[ David Moskowitz, president of Productivity Solutions consultant firm] says unintentional vaporware begins as a "lack of communications between the marketing department and the technical staff." marketrs see they need to get the product released, but dont understand tht technical hurdles in making it happen.

being the first to market with something has definite advantage (product identity, building user base), author says Lotus and Ashton-Tate are in the position they were at the time because they were first to market.

overemphasis on trying to capture user's attention leads to vaporware

George Hathaway [director of application services for Lotus untill 1998] says caused by "lack of planning, a lack of product management, a lack of proper development technique and a lack of personnel trained in the right skills"

Lotus: "1-2-3/G, 1-2-3 Release 3.0, 1-2-3 Mac, Agenda and seven other programs all were announced by Lotus more than a year ago and, in most cases, have yet to see the light of day."

IBM used "FUD" (talking about furutre requirements but never mentioning specifics) to maintain customer interest in future products without risking being accused of vaporware: "This approach is successful only because of IBM's size and dominance in the market."

1. Gerlach, Heiko A. (2004). "Announcement, entry, and preemption when consumers have switching costs.(econometric analysis)". RAND Journal of Economics. 35 (1). The RAND Corporation: 184. doi:10.2307/1593736. ISSN 0741-6261. JSTOR 1593736.

"In 1964, IBM announced the launch of its System/360/91 model, which was at the time a large innovation over the leading system offered by Data Control. Right after the announcement, sales and prices of Data Control computers went down tremendously. However, the product did not make it to the market in 1964, and after several new announcements, it was finally introduced in 1967. At that time, Data Control had already brought a suit against IBM accusing the computer manufacturer of an anticompetitive vaporware announcement, i.e., announcing a product that IBM knew could not be launched by the promised date, in order to freeze the preentry market."

1. Hann, Marco A. (2003-09-01). "Vaporware as a Means of Entry Deterrence". The Journal of Industrial Economics. 51 (3). John Wiley and Sons: 345–358. doi:10.1111/1467-6451.00204. ISSN 0022-1821.

major software products are routinely late: Windows95 2 years late, Windows2000 3 years,

Duke Nukem Forever, sequel to "hugely succesfull Duke Nuken" announced in 1998, author notes it hadn't come out by 2003.

"In the antitrust case against Microsoft in the earl y1990s,vaporware was one of the accusations made"

I(Fisher, McGowan, and Greenwood[1983]) n the case against IBM, in the late 1970s,one of the claims was that IBM had engaged in premature announcements

simple definition of above "vaporware equilibrium": "Theintuitionis as follows.Theincumbent wantsconsumersto believethattherewillnot bea newproductin thenext period, and the potential entrant to believe that there will be one. If consumersbelievethereis no innovation,theyarelessinclinedto postpone theirpurchase.If the potentialentrantbelievesthereis an innovation,she willchoosenot to enter"

author says the argument about firms not using vaporware as a tactic meaning they dont do it intentionally is false, becuase in his definition above it removes any hit to their reputation. He says that when customers find out that the incumbent firm didnt actually inovate anything, it dont damage their eputation because " all firms will lie when they happen to be unsuccessful in innovating", so the customer will just shrug it off. "Hence, claiming one has an innovation when this is not the case, goes unpunished in this model."

1. Stern, Richard H. (April 1995). "Microsoft and vaporware". IEEE Micro Magazine. 15 (2). IEEE: 6–7. ISSN 0272-1732.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

history of vaporware used in a legal sense

Three anonymous companies "The Gang of Three" in Silicon Valley protested setlement of MSFT antitrust case, claimed MSFT released Quick Basic 3 in 1998 as vaporware against Borland's Turbo Basic. DOJ said there was no evidence the company KNEW they werent going to release Quick Basic

DC federal judge Stanley Sporkin, who reviewed the MSFT settlement, said he was troubled by an internal MSFT memo saying "The best way to stick it to Philippe is preannounce ... to hold off Turbo buyers." Sporkin ruled is equated to illegal securities and fraud principles. quthor says "precedents are sparse and the law is murky"

previous "vaporware" cases (term "vaporware" not used, but same practices):

IBM (when?) and Kodak (when?) cases failed because plaintiffs failed to establish they KNEW their products were going to be late. AT&T preannounced a telephone service plan one year in advance, and jury concluded (jury verdict) it had significant effects on customers shifting from MCI to AT&T.

author questions how damaging vapoware cases really are compared to other antitrust actions. "truthful preannouncements usually benefit the public. Only the deliberately false ones are totally lacking in redeeming social value.", but "deliberately false vaporware announcement. Little is gained, and possibly much is lost, when such vaporware flourishes. It harms the public and also discourages potential market entrants from creating new software. Will small software houses even try to develop new applications if they think an 800-pound gorilla will vapor-zap the product before it gets a chance in the marketplace?"

1. Messmer, Ellen (1990-10-22). "Software firms form group to raise ethics". Network World. 7 (43). IDG Network World: 9. ISSN 0887-7661. Retrieved 2010-04-14.

7 software vendors (ashton-tate, hewlet-packard, digital equiptment corp, sybase, and others) got together to raise to issue of vaporwafre and discourage its practice. "the vacuous product announcement dubbed vaporware and other misrepresentations of product availability [...] have already hurt the industry because they have negatively affected its credability." "Vaporware give the software industry a black eye" -Stuart Woodring, directory at Forresster Research

1. Mohen, Joseph (1989-06-19). "Seeking a cure for the vaporware epidemic". Network World. 6 (24). IDG Network World: 32. ISSN 0887-7661. Retrieved 2010-04-13.

"Press releases about nonexistant products have reaches epidemic prortions"

he critisizes the press for publishing reviews and reworded press releases without checking weather or not the product actually exists. he says companies need to have two references that show it exists, or be prepared to give a working demostration, otherwise dont announce it.

1. Fawcette, James E. (1985-06-10). "Press' Vaporgate". InfoWorld. 7 (23). InfoWorld Media Group: 5. ISSN 0199-6649. Retrieved -2010-04-14. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

(counter-point to above)

talking about the malicious use of the term , calling it "vaporgate" (editorial director for InfoWorld):

"the term is like a scartlett letter hung around the neck of software developers."

"like any overused term, it has lost its meaning"

says it is inconsisten with other industry press coverage: "nowhere do i see discussion of whether General Mothers is doing something quasi-unethical by "preannouncing" its next-generation Saturn automobile."

1. Fletcher, Seth. Power Strugle. page 52. Nov 2008 Vol. 273, No. 5 ISSN 0161-7370 Published by Bonnier Corporation (http://books.google.com/books?id=5jsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=vaporware&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=17#v=onepage&q=vaporware&f=false)

(irony from above)

Popular Science used the term to refer to GM's Chevy Volt was being being developed contrary to claims: "is not [...] vaporware" in 2008.

1. http://books.google.com/books?id=eVMLO1GM9uQC&pg=PA15&dq=vaporware&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=18#v=onepage&q=vaporware&f=false

popular science using it to refer to hardware in 2007

1. Sloan, Allan. Financial Vaporware. Newsweek; 04/28/97, Vol. 129 Issue 17, p57

author uses the phrase "financial vaporware" to describe Yahoo! and Amazon.com selling stocks to pay for their operating costs, making it look like they were in the black, while being millions in the red. In 1996 Yahoo! earned $96,000 in Q4, but 1,508,00 was from investment money. Author says the investment money didn't come from operations, but from selling $100,000,000 worth of stock in 1996. // Amazon.com lost $6,000,000. author claims they sold $9,600,000 worth of stock to stay afloat that year.