Editing Lotus 1-2-3 (section)

=== Decline ===
[[Image:1-2-3 Floppy Disk Set.jpg|thumb|right|upright|A Lotus 1-2-3 box, as seen in an exhibit at the Computer History Museum in 2008]]

A 1990 member survey by the [[American Institute of Certified Public Accountants]] found that 62% of spreadsheet users used 1-2-3, with 93% recommending it to others. 1-2-3 was also the most popular database at 25% of respondents, ahead of [[Ashton-Tate]]'s [[dBase]] at 16%, as well as the most popular graphics and staff scheduling tools.<ref name="aicpa1990">{{Cite report |url=https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1563&context=aicpa_guides |title=1990 AICPA survey of computer usage |author-link=American Institute of Certified Public Accountants |year=1990 |id=561 |access-date=2025-04-30}}</ref> By 1991 Lotus 1-2-3 version 2.2 still dominated the spreadsheet market, with sales more than twice that of rivals. Microsoft and Borland's products lacked Lotus's ecosystem of hundreds of third-party add-ins, consultants, trainers, and books. Even Lotus could not persuade most customers or add-on developers to move to 1-2-3 version 3, or 1-2-3/G, because of their need for more hardware, mutual incompatibility, and lack of compelling new features.<ref name="stinson19910416">{{Cite magazine |last=Stinson |first=Craig |date=1991-04-16 |title=Building the Perfect Spreadsheet |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_OEk1QOJYw0C&pg=PT112 |access-date=2025-03-14 |magazine=PC |pages=101–164}}</ref>

Microsoft's early spreadsheet application Multiplan eventually gave way to [[Microsoft Excel|Excel]], which debuted on the Macintosh in 1985. It arrived on PCs with the release of Windows 2.x in 1987, but as Windows was not yet popular, it posed no serious threat to Lotus's stranglehold on spreadsheet sales. However, Lotus suffered technical setbacks in this period. Version 3 of Lotus 1-2-3, fully converted from its original macro assembler to the more portable [[C (programming language)|C language]], was delayed by more than a year as the totally new 1-2-3 had to be made portable across platforms and fully compatible with existing macro sets and file formats. The inability to fit the larger code size of compiled C into lower-powered machines forced the company to split its spreadsheet offerings, with 1-2-3 release 3 only for higher-end machines, and a new version 2.2, based on the 2.01 assembler code base, available for PCs without extended memory. By the time these versions were released in 1989, Microsoft had eroded much of Lotus's market share.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2015-08-14 |title=Antitrust Division {{!}} U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings Of Fact |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact |access-date=2023-07-14 |website=www.justice.gov |language=en}}</ref> During the early 1990s, Windows grew in popularity, and along with it, Excel, which gradually displaced Lotus from its leading position. A planned total revamp of 1-2-3 for Windows fell apart, and all that the company could manage was a Windows adaptation of their existing spreadsheet with no changes except using a graphical interface. Additionally, several versions of 1-2-3 had different features and slightly different interfaces.

Lotus 1-2-3's intended successor, [[Lotus Symphony (MS-DOS)|Lotus Symphony]], was Lotus's entry into the anticipated "[[integrated software]]" market. It intended to expand the rudimentary all-in-one 1-2-3 into a fully-fledged spreadsheet, graph, database and word processor for DOS, but none of the integrated packages ever really succeeded. Lotus 1-2-3 migrated to the Windows platform, as part of [[IBM Lotus SmartSuite|Lotus SmartSuite]].

IBM's continued development and marketing of Lotus SmartSuite and [[OS/2]] during the 1990s placed it in direct competition with [[Microsoft Office]] and [[Microsoft Windows]], respectively. As a result, Microsoft "punished the IBM PC Company with higher prices, a late license for [[Windows 95]], and the withholding of technical and marketing support."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.cnet.com/Full+text+of+Judge+Jacksons+findings+of+fact+-+page+23/2009-1001_3-232571-23.html |title=Full text of Judge Jackson's findings of fact |publisher=[[CNet]] |date=January 2007 |at=Section 116 |access-date=3 July 2014 |archive-date=9 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200509201927/https://www.cnet.com/topics/tech-industry/ |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Full text of Judge Jackson's findings of fact |url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/full-text-of-judge-jacksons-findings-of-fact/ |access-date=2023-07-14 |website=CNET |language=en}}</ref> Microsoft did not grant IBM the [[Original equipment manufacturer|OEM]] rights for Windows 95 until 15 minutes prior to the release of Windows 95 on 24 August 1995. Because of this uncertainty, IBM machines were sold without Windows 95, while [[Compaq]], [[Hewlett-Packard|HP]], and other companies sold machines with Windows 95 from day one.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.cnet.com/Full+text+of+Judge+Jacksons+findings+of+fact+-+page+25/2009-1001_3-232571-25.html?tag=st.next |title=Full text of Judge Jackson's findings of fact |publisher=[[CNet]] |at=Section 125 |date=January 2007 |access-date=3 July 2014 |archive-date=8 December 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191208033143/http://news.cnet.com/Full+text+of+Judge+Jacksons+findings+of+fact+-+page+25/2009-1001_3-232571-25.html?tag=st.next |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2015-08-14 |title=Antitrust Division {{!}} U.S. V. Microsoft: Proposed Findings Of Fact |url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-proposed-findings-fact |access-date=2023-07-14 |website=www.justice.gov |page=section 208 |language=en}}</ref>

On 11 June 2013, IBM announced it would withdraw the Lotus brand: IBM Lotus 1-2-3 Millennium Edition V9.x, IBM Lotus SmartSuite 9.x V9.8.0, and Organizer V6.1.0. IBM stated, "Customers will no longer be able to receive support for these offerings after 30 September 2014. No service extensions will be offered. There will be no replacement programs."<ref name=11june2013lotus123>{{cite news |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/goodbye-lotus-1-2-3/ |title=Goodbye, Lotus 1-2-3 |publisher=ZDNet ZDNet |first=Steven J. |last=Vaughan-Nichols}}</ref>