3 ms·

> What a windfall it was for them and how silly of IBM to outsource their OS to another company. Silly in what way? It's hard to underestimate the value of ti

> What a windfall it was for them and how silly of IBM to outsource their OS to another company. Silly in what way? It's hard to underestimate the value of timing, and IBM knew it was a race against the clock to get market share. To Jack Sams credit, he knew that IBM could not get the software done fast enough. Realizing that limitation helped IBM avoid the software tarpit that most of their competitors (think big computer companies from the 60s and 70s) made when they entered the microcomputer market. Those competitors included DEC, TI, Olvetti, HP, Zenith, and many, many others who entered the market with their own hardware and OS who couldn't keep up with the PC industry. Many ended up making clones in the end. There were so many computers in the early 80s that had custom oses, and most all of them were washed away by IBM and as the decade marched on, the clones. IBM didn't lose the initiative in the market until the OS/2 era. Their decision to outsource the OS was brilliant.

pjmlp 5y ago
Their decision to outsource the OS was one of the reasons why they lost to the clones.
- incanus77 5y ago
  Their decision to outsource the OS was the reason the clones had a market.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    We are going in circles here, IBM did not want a clone market all, they were not able to prevent Compaq to go forward with their reverse engineering, although they did try first with the failed lawsuit and then with MCA PS/2 motherboards.
    - incanus77 5y ago
      My point is that without establishing the beachhead in the consumer market that IBM did, the clones wouldn't have had anything to work off of. I'm sure Compaq and others would've been years behind if they had started from scratch, but I'd actually like to know more about that potential alternative history.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        The alternative story is what we are going back today, each OEM sells their vertical integrated experience. In this alternative universe most likely Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes would keep existing in some form and most businesses wouldn't have cared about IBM PC or eventually got sooner into some UNIX workstation clone.
- indymike 5y ago
  IBM couldn't compete with Dell and other direct to buyer manufacturers - but it wasn't because of IP. It was economic. IBM's sales channel had two extra levels of markup, inventory that would go obsolete in warehouses (and have to be bought back by IBM to keep their resellers and distributors happy), it took 4-6 weeks to go from the manufacturer's loading dock to the customer's desktop. Then there was configuration: Dell and the directs custom made each computer - make it once. You had to get an IBM out of the box, rip out what you didn't want and replace it - make it twice - which added even more to the cost. You're not wrong that OS contributed to it, but having no IP moat (proprietary hw/sw) was the cherry on top, but not the entire sundae. IBM could have fixed the IP moat by shipping OS/2 for free, but that still would not have fixed the channel problem. The channel problem made an IBM PC cost 20-30% more than their competitors... regardless of OS.

pjmlp 5y ago

Their decision to outsource the OS was one of the reasons why they lost to the clones.

incanus77 5y ago
Their decision to outsource the OS was the reason the clones had a market.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  We are going in circles here, IBM did not want a clone market all, they were not able to prevent Compaq to go forward with their reverse engineering, although they did try first with the failed lawsuit and then with MCA PS/2 motherboards.
  - incanus77 5y ago
    My point is that without establishing the beachhead in the consumer market that IBM did, the clones wouldn't have had anything to work off of. I'm sure Compaq and others would've been years behind if they had started from scratch, but I'd actually like to know more about that potential alternative history.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      The alternative story is what we are going back today, each OEM sells their vertical integrated experience. In this alternative universe most likely Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes would keep existing in some form and most businesses wouldn't have cared about IBM PC or eventually got sooner into some UNIX workstation clone.
indymike 5y ago
IBM couldn't compete with Dell and other direct to buyer manufacturers - but it wasn't because of IP. It was economic. IBM's sales channel had two extra levels of markup, inventory that would go obsolete in warehouses (and have to be bought back by IBM to keep their resellers and distributors happy), it took 4-6 weeks to go from the manufacturer's loading dock to the customer's desktop. Then there was configuration: Dell and the directs custom made each computer - make it once. You had to get an IBM out of the box, rip out what you didn't want and replace it - make it twice - which added even more to the cost. You're not wrong that OS contributed to it, but having no IP moat (proprietary hw/sw) was the cherry on top, but not the entire sundae. IBM could have fixed the IP moat by shipping OS/2 for free, but that still would not have fixed the channel problem. The channel problem made an IBM PC cost 20-30% more than their competitors... regardless of OS.