3 ms·
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 architect
by 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 agoBe 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 agoHow 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 agoWhat? 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.