4 ms·

'Silicon cowboys': The underdog story of personal computing (2016) [audio]

36 points by jqcoffey 8y ago

benj111 8y ago
This misses the main point for me. The 'openness' is what allowed the pc to succeed. If it had stayed IBMs platform it may well have dominated business for sometime, but something would have popped up to take its place. The 80s and 90s are littered with superior platforms that never got enough traction because the pc was everywhere. I wonder when the same thing will happen to social networks.
- hermitdev 8y ago
  Your comment resonates with me - it wasn't IBM that made the PC special, it was the lower cost alternative clones that made it accessible. Something that Apple shunned at the time and nearly became their death nail had it not been the investment by MS in the mid-90s.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    In fact, that's how IBM lost the PC. They came out with PS/2, which was patent-encumbered, so that they could kill the clone market. But it turned out that "low cost because clonable" beat "best technology but higher price".
    - karmakaze 8y ago
      IBM also marketed OS/2 along with PS/2 in hopes that they would be adopted together, but it wasn't until OS/2 had good support for non-IBM hardware (v1.3/2.x) that it got wider spread adoption before being relegated to checkout computers.
  - spamizbad 8y ago
    I think one thing to also consider was the flexibility of the clones from that period. Upgradability was a bigger selling point back then: A computer was a major financial investment, and the idea that you'd need to buy another one in a few years because it wouldn't run the latest software gave consumers anxiety. So if you could say "Look at all the slots and free drive bays!" you could convince people that, sure, this is $2000 today but I won't be stuck spending another $2000 a year later.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    > their death nail Just FYI, the phrase is "death knell": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_knell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_knell This is a common 'eggcorn' (https://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/1130/nail/ https://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/1130/nail/) because 'knell' is an old-fashioned word virtually unused outside of this one idiomatic phrase.
    - hermitdev 8y ago
      Knew I was getting it wrong...
- tabtab 8y ago
  Indeed. If not for IBM clones, then CP/M would probably control the "clone" business. CP/M-based clones were already expanding rapidly. Sure, they were 8-bit at the time, but bit-ness changes aren't a clone-market-stopper, as x86 showed.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  It's interesting to me that Apple and IBM took opposite approaches during that time, and neither one worked out great in the long term for them. IBM's architecture was a runaway success, but the company itself was sidelined just like Apple was. One wonders what a winning strategy for an original hardware developer would have looked like, in that arena.
  - benj111 8y ago
    Be the software vendor. If you want to stay strictly hardware. Claim the high end. Compare iphone profitability to all other phone makers combined. The problem is your future competition is very often the cheaper option improving enough to take over your expensive solution. Eg big iron being replaced by mini computer replaced by micro computers replaced by ? phones? Tablets? So you have to be very vigilant in identifying the technology that's going to be eating your breakfast in 5 years.
  - howard941 8y ago
    How long does strategy need to win for for it to be winning? Or from a different perspective: How original would it have to be? If not that much then it might have looked like a Commodore C64 or a Radio Shack TRS80. I think originality is worth something though and would rather point at an Amiga or a Sun SPARCstation but come to think of it they're not around anymore either.
  - tabtab 8y ago
    What? Most would call the Macintosh "successful". Apple has focused on graphic-related niches and carefully planned UI's for increased usability, and this strategy has done them relatively well.

36 points by jqcoffey 8y ago

This misses the main point for me. The 'openness' is what allowed the pc to succeed. If it had stayed IBMs platform it may well have dominated business for sometime, but something would have popped up to take its place. The 80s and 90s are littered with superior platforms that never got enough traction because the pc was everywhere. I wonder when the same thing will happen to social networks.

hermitdev 8y ago
Your comment resonates with me - it wasn't IBM that made the PC special, it was the lower cost alternative clones that made it accessible. Something that Apple shunned at the time and nearly became their death nail had it not been the investment by MS in the mid-90s.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  In fact, that's how IBM lost the PC. They came out with PS/2, which was patent-encumbered, so that they could kill the clone market. But it turned out that "low cost because clonable" beat "best technology but higher price".
  - karmakaze 8y ago
    IBM also marketed OS/2 along with PS/2 in hopes that they would be adopted together, but it wasn't until OS/2 had good support for non-IBM hardware (v1.3/2.x) that it got wider spread adoption before being relegated to checkout computers.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  I think one thing to also consider was the flexibility of the clones from that period. Upgradability was a bigger selling point back then: A computer was a major financial investment, and the idea that you'd need to buy another one in a few years because it wouldn't run the latest software gave consumers anxiety. So if you could say "Look at all the slots and free drive bays!" you could convince people that, sure, this is $2000 today but I won't be stuck spending another $2000 a year later.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  > their death nail Just FYI, the phrase is "death knell": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_knell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_knell This is a common 'eggcorn' (https://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/1130/nail/ https://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/1130/nail/) because 'knell' is an old-fashioned word virtually unused outside of this one idiomatic phrase.
  - hermitdev 8y ago
    Knew I was getting it wrong...
tabtab 8y ago
Indeed. If not for IBM clones, then CP/M would probably control the "clone" business. CP/M-based clones were already expanding rapidly. Sure, they were 8-bit at the time, but bit-ness changes aren't a clone-market-stopper, as x86 showed.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
It's interesting to me that Apple and IBM took opposite approaches during that time, and neither one worked out great in the long term for them. IBM's architecture was a runaway success, but the company itself was sidelined just like Apple was. One wonders what a winning strategy for an original hardware developer would have looked like, in that arena.
- benj111 8y ago
  Be the software vendor. If you want to stay strictly hardware. Claim the high end. Compare iphone profitability to all other phone makers combined. The problem is your future competition is very often the cheaper option improving enough to take over your expensive solution. Eg big iron being replaced by mini computer replaced by micro computers replaced by ? phones? Tablets? So you have to be very vigilant in identifying the technology that's going to be eating your breakfast in 5 years.
- howard941 8y ago
  How long does strategy need to win for for it to be winning? Or from a different perspective: How original would it have to be? If not that much then it might have looked like a Commodore C64 or a Radio Shack TRS80. I think originality is worth something though and would rather point at an Amiga or a Sun SPARCstation but come to think of it they're not around anymore either.
- tabtab 8y ago
  What? Most would call the Macintosh "successful". Apple has focused on graphic-related niches and carefully planned UI's for increased usability, and this strategy has done them relatively well.