3 ms·
It seems to be an ongoing truism that companies that see themselves as fundamentally hardware-oriented inevitably make terrible, terrible software. IBM saw its
by stcredzero 7y ago
It seems to be an ongoing truism that companies that see themselves as fundamentally hardware-oriented inevitably make terrible, terrible software.
IBM saw itself as a hardware company when it came out with System/360. From what I've seen, System/360 was a good OS for its time.
- jimbokun 7y agoCan you elaborate on that? Did they see themselves as a "hardware company", or as a "computer company" at a time when the hardware and the software all came together, and there wasn't really a separate software industry? Which would make them the Apple of their time, where they built and sold the hardware needed to deliver the software?
- stcredzero 7y agoDid they see themselves as a "hardware company", or as a "computer company" at a time when the hardware and the software all came together, and there wasn't really a separate software industry? I think they did see themselves as a hardware company. Software was something they had to make to make their hardware work, but they didn't think of it as a major part of their business. I happened to work for the "world's first software company" which was founded by a star IBM salesman. (Cincom Systems Inc. in 1968.) The Smithsonian has a write up on it. It was the first time that a company was intended to make all of its money from the sale of software, and succeeded in doing so.
- sjwright 7y agoMy response to that is to say that IBM belongs in a third group—the fundamentally systems-oriented company. Systems-oriented companies are capable of understanding and delivering the whole product without either the hardware or software seen as more important. This would include the likes of 1970s IBM, Apple, Sun, Atari, Commodore, etc.