From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: History was made today...
Date: 17 Dec 1992 17:45:44 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec17.170232.14346@netnews.louisville.edu>  
harpe@netnews.louisville.edu (Mike Harpe) writes:
> IBM is definitely dying.  They have made three major mistakes.   
Token Ring,
> the whole Microchannel-OS/2-PS/2 debacle, and the ES/9000 mainframe 
> series.  The motivations behind each were that IBM has always been  
able
> to assume control of a situation by forcing upgrades on customers.   
They had
> built their entire sales strategy around planned obsolescence  
coupled with
> being the only source for replacements.  Customers used to not be  
able to
> walk as easily.  Now they can.  IBM insiders will be the first to  
tell you
> that this is the real failure of their strategy.

I think another thing that hurt them was their attitude of "we can
do what we want" in the PC marketplace, an attitude Apple also
has, but can afford since there are no serious Mac clones.  IBM
got away with this back when IBM-compatible meant compatible with
IBM machines. If they did something to change the architecture, 
other companies had to change to match them, so users felt safe with
Big Blue. Today it's the other way around.  I won't by an IBM PC,
even if they drop their prices to be the same or less than those
of Gateway, Dell, etc.  Why?  Because, I can trust Gateway to be
100% compatible with everything I want to run.  I can't trust IBM
to note fiddle with their architecture (perhaps to make OS/2 run
better, perhaps so they can use some new propriatary gizmo).  If I
use a Gateway, I know that Word for Windows 3.0, when it is released,
will run on the machine.  I'm not so sure the same is true
with the IBM box.

> 
> >When the Apple Macintosh was first introduced, IBM derided this  
computer
> >as "a toy" claiming that mice were too difficult for users to  
comprehend
> >and use.  They laughed at the little toaster of a machine:  "The  
business
> >world will never accept it."  "No one could use this for any  
serious
> >commercial development."
> 

At the time, they were right. The Mac could NOT do much, and did
not have much software available. Things changed, and IBM 
didn't change with them.

> I said at the time that you could almost sense the fear in the real  
brains
> at IBM.  They knew that this was something totally new.  They knew  
that they
> had been whipped.  The only choice was to try to knock it in the  
head before
> it was too late...

But they hadn't been whipped at the time.  Had they continued to
develop and improve the PC, especially the PC interface, in 
substantive ways (instead of sitting back and waiting for 
Microsoft to do so, or, in some cases, hampering Microsoft's efforts,
by insisting, for example, that OS/2 run on existing IBM '286
machines) they may have met the challenge.  The PC marketplace
as a whole HAS met the challenge. Five years ago Macs had
far surpassed PCs. Today, I'd argue that they are somewhat better,
but it's pretty close, and there are a few things I like better in
Windows than on the Mac.   But IBM didn't keep up with 
the market for the product they defined.  Today, PC does not
mean IBM: it means Gateway, or Dell, or Compaq, or Northgate,
or Swan, or Zeos.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc