3 ms·
The legal proceeding terrified IBM to the point the PC became an open system, so they definitely had a market effect. The MS case was different, but some eleme
by yyyk 6y ago
The legal proceeding terrified IBM to the point the PC became an open system, so they definitely had a market effect.
The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
- scarface74 6y agoIBM didn’t open up because of suit on mainframes. They really didn’t care about the personal computer market and just got open source parts and paid MS a little money for the operating system. The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.
- yyyk 6y agoIBM did wish to maintain control, that's why they copyrighted the BIOS. But when Compaq reversed engineer it, it was obvious that there was no way to sue without inviting more legal scrutiny. My other point is that some Apple app store apps can use APIs that every other app would get banned for. People complained about that when it came MS; It's not better when Apple does it.
- scarface74 6y agoThat also isn’t true. Compaq had to do a clean room implementation so it wouldn’t get sued. The anti-trust suit was dropped in 1983 - around the same time that Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-computers-skirted-ibms-patents-and-gave-rise-to-eisa/ https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp... No one could argue that IBM is any more than a bit player in PCs in 1983. iMessage is not an “Apple Store app” any more than the phone app. Text messages and phone calls are kind of vital to be called a phone.