< Prev Next >
NATO SOFTWARE ENGINEERING CONFERENCE 1968
77
7. Special Topics
5. Hardware manufacturers have such an advantage in the knowledge of future systems and devices, and in the availability of hardware prototypes, that independent software producers could not compete.
6. The lack of separate pricing of software has not prevented the growth of independent service companies such as UCC.
7. Separate pricing may bring IBM, which currently owns the largest software house in the world (namely their Federal Systems Division) in more direct competition with the independent software houses. Thus, contrary to prevalent opinion, the independents may have more to lose than to gain by separate pricing.
8. Some people undoubtedly argue in favour of separate pricing because of their worries about the concentration of power in the hands of a single manufacturer. However, separate pricing may well be of most benefit to IBM
9. Software belongs to the world of ideas, like music and mathematics, and should be treated accordingly.
7.3.4. SPLITTING SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE PRODUCTION
7.3.4.1. THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR
A user’s dependence on his computing system is such that he should not have to rely on a single manufacturer for all aspects of it. The dangers inherent in an organization with sufficient capital resources producing comprehensive software for any industry, educational activity, research organisation or government agency are considerable and far outweigh, for instance, those of a national or international data bank. A hardware manufacturer who also produces the software on which business and industry depend has the reins to almost unlimited power. Preventing hardware manufacturers from producing any software for sale or gift would be a great encouragement to competition essential in an area which is so broad that it knows no boundaries at all.

7.3.4.2. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST
The above argument is persuasive in only a superficial way. It is the ‘there oughta be a law’ type of reaction to a worrying situation. The computing industry is still embryonic, and a law such as this would cause an inflexibility that we would later regret. We should build on strength and not on weakness — when we begin to fear competence, if it happens to be correlated with bigness, we are trying to build on weakness and not on strength.