9 ms·

> IBM's sales centric approach naturally assumed a slower industry cadence than the one that developed in the 80s. Rapid growth in low-end computers reduced the

> IBM's sales centric approach naturally assumed a slower industry cadence than the one that developed in the 80s. Rapid growth in low-end computers reduced the relevance of their competitive advantage in large-scale, long-term deals, … I remember one small incident working for IBM as a very junior employee in 1984. A customer saw the PC and Lotus 1-2-3 in a demo and wanted to buy it there and then - literally got their cheque book out. The experienced IBM salesman stepped in and tried to convince them to buy a System/36. Result no sale. I wonder to what extent IBM never really came to terms with the success of the PC.

ghaff 5y ago
Well, they tried to lock things down again to a certain degree with the PS/2 and OS/2. Of course, pretty much none of the older generation of system companies really got the PC and PC compatibility. (HP probably came closest. Being mostly compatible was still such a dramatic shift from the situation in the minicomputer space that they largely felt that it was good enough.
- klelatti 5y ago
  Indeed. The PS/2 was a symptom of their unease with the PC. Had they really pushed their own true PC compatibles much harder they would have done much better - Compaq had the first 386 I think which is extraordinary. Just not sure that IBM could adjust itself quickly enough. The PC was after all created in a skunkworks.
boilerupnc 5y ago
"Nobody predicted what would happen next. The first shipments began in October 1981, and in its first year, the IBM PC generated $1 billion in revenue, far exceeding company projections. IBM's original manufacturing forecasts called for 1 million machines over three years, with 200,000 the first year. In reality, customers were buying 200,000 PCs per month by the second year." [0] [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-ibm-pc-won-then-lost-the-personal-computer-market https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-ibm-pc-won-then-lost-the-p...
- klelatti 5y ago
  I suspect those sales were made in spite of much of the IBM hierarchy. Another example IBM in the UK where I was working had a headcount limit imposed by Armonk. No matter what their revenues they couldn’t take any more people on. Did this limit their ability to sell lower value systems - seems a distinct possibility.
- bitwize 5y ago
  One of the rationales behind the PS/2 line (and OS/2) is that IBM senior management was trying to put the genie back in the bottle by designing hardware and software to work as thin clients for IBM mainframes. At the time they still thought they had tremendous leverage over the PC market, and were pretty clueless about what customers actually wanted, which cluelessness was relentlessly exploited by the clone makers.

ghaff 5y ago

Well, they tried to lock things down again to a certain degree with the PS/2 and OS/2. Of course, pretty much none of the older generation of system companies really got the PC and PC compatibility. (HP probably came closest. Being mostly compatible was still such a dramatic shift from the situation in the minicomputer space that they largely felt that it was good enough.

klelatti 5y ago
Indeed. The PS/2 was a symptom of their unease with the PC. Had they really pushed their own true PC compatibles much harder they would have done much better - Compaq had the first 386 I think which is extraordinary. Just not sure that IBM could adjust itself quickly enough. The PC was after all created in a skunkworks.

boilerupnc 5y ago

"Nobody predicted what would happen next. The first shipments began in October 1981, and in its first year, the IBM PC generated $1 billion in revenue, far exceeding company projections. IBM's original manufacturing forecasts called for 1 million machines over three years, with 200,000 the first year. In reality, customers were buying 200,000 PCs per month by the second year." [0] [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-ibm-pc-won-then-lost-the-personal-computer-market https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-the-ibm-pc-won-then-lost-the-p...

klelatti 5y ago
I suspect those sales were made in spite of much of the IBM hierarchy. Another example IBM in the UK where I was working had a headcount limit imposed by Armonk. No matter what their revenues they couldn’t take any more people on. Did this limit their ability to sell lower value systems - seems a distinct possibility.
bitwize 5y ago
One of the rationales behind the PS/2 line (and OS/2) is that IBM senior management was trying to put the genie back in the bottle by designing hardware and software to work as thin clients for IBM mainframes. At the time they still thought they had tremendous leverage over the PC market, and were pretty clueless about what customers actually wanted, which cluelessness was relentlessly exploited by the clone makers.