4 ms·

I don't think it's an accident that the market is on a trajectory toward personal computer (and particularly storage) rental being the only economically viable

I don't think it's an accident that the market is on a trajectory toward personal computer (and particularly storage) rental being the only economically viable game. There are significant players who will profit directly. Indirectly it helps companies for whom end users owning general purpose computers and storage threaten their business models. The industry has little incentive to fix this problem and as the market shrinks so does the incentive. We lived thru the PC revolution. It looks over now to me.

pjmlp 1mo ago
Indeed, also to note something that younger folks keep missing, the PC revolution only happened due IBM's mistake, everyone else was vertically integrated, even with something like CP/M.
- AnthonyMouse 1mo ago
  > the PC revolution only happened due IBM's mistake, everyone else was vertically integrated IBM was extremely vertically integrated. What actually happened was that Compaq reverse engineered their BIOS and made a compatible system and the courts said it was okay. The thing destroying the modern world is DMCA 1201. Adversarial interoperability is fundamental.
  - pjmlp 1mo ago
    That was the mistake, using common components for a cheaper computer versus previous ones, and not being able to take down Compaq's achievement. Rest assured there would be no IBM PC compatibles otherwise, in fact PS/2 and MCA architecture was a failed attempt to regain control.
    - AnthonyMouse 1mo ago
      The common components are irrelevant. Even Apple still has components manufactured by Foxconn, buys RAM and flash from the same vendors as anyone else, uses ARM's ISA, etc. The phones made by Xiaomi et al are perfectly capable of running the same apps as Apple's from a hardware perspective. The difference is that now if someone wants to make a competing store for iOS apps, or a competing client app for Reddit or Twitter, the incumbents use the DMCA and remote attestation and similar anti-competitive levers to lock those competitors out of the market and governments have been letting them get away with it.
- II2II 1mo ago
  Was it a mistake? It is easy to say that IBM had monopolistic tendencies, because they did. On the other hand, the 5100 sounds like a vertically integrated design and it ended up being extremely expensive. The Datamaster strayed away from IBM components, but was still based upon IBM software. One can blame it's failure on the IBM PC being released a month later, but in a way that would prove the point. The Datamaster had such a big head start that the IBM PC borrowed elements of it's design, while the proprietary software of the Datamaster held back its release date. Undoubtedly, IBM wanted more control over the PC. Avoiding a completely proprietary design was probably a calculated bet, an intentional course of action rather than a mistake. It just happens to be a bet they lost.
unsigner 1mo ago
In capitalism, incentive usually is aligned with price. The industry doesn’t have incentive - the incentive arrives with higher prices, which is what we’re discussing in the first place.
- fauigerzigerk 1mo ago
  I agree in general, but the market response can be very lumpy and sometimes substitution happens more quickly than investment in new capacity. Only a handful of companies can make high end memory, semiconductors and semiconductor equipment. And some of them are wary of creating overcapacity down the line. Creating new capacity takes years and creating a competitor to any of these companies takes even longer, even when the incentives (high prices) exist. So it's absolutely possible that consumers change behaviour before a sufficient supply side response arrives. Demand destruction is a market response as well.

pjmlp 1mo ago

Indeed, also to note something that younger folks keep missing, the PC revolution only happened due IBM's mistake, everyone else was vertically integrated, even with something like CP/M.

AnthonyMouse 1mo ago
> the PC revolution only happened due IBM's mistake, everyone else was vertically integrated IBM was extremely vertically integrated. What actually happened was that Compaq reverse engineered their BIOS and made a compatible system and the courts said it was okay. The thing destroying the modern world is DMCA 1201. Adversarial interoperability is fundamental.
- pjmlp 1mo ago
  That was the mistake, using common components for a cheaper computer versus previous ones, and not being able to take down Compaq's achievement. Rest assured there would be no IBM PC compatibles otherwise, in fact PS/2 and MCA architecture was a failed attempt to regain control.
  - AnthonyMouse 1mo ago
    The common components are irrelevant. Even Apple still has components manufactured by Foxconn, buys RAM and flash from the same vendors as anyone else, uses ARM's ISA, etc. The phones made by Xiaomi et al are perfectly capable of running the same apps as Apple's from a hardware perspective. The difference is that now if someone wants to make a competing store for iOS apps, or a competing client app for Reddit or Twitter, the incumbents use the DMCA and remote attestation and similar anti-competitive levers to lock those competitors out of the market and governments have been letting them get away with it.
II2II 1mo ago
Was it a mistake? It is easy to say that IBM had monopolistic tendencies, because they did. On the other hand, the 5100 sounds like a vertically integrated design and it ended up being extremely expensive. The Datamaster strayed away from IBM components, but was still based upon IBM software. One can blame it's failure on the IBM PC being released a month later, but in a way that would prove the point. The Datamaster had such a big head start that the IBM PC borrowed elements of it's design, while the proprietary software of the Datamaster held back its release date. Undoubtedly, IBM wanted more control over the PC. Avoiding a completely proprietary design was probably a calculated bet, an intentional course of action rather than a mistake. It just happens to be a bet they lost.

unsigner 1mo ago

In capitalism, incentive usually is aligned with price. The industry doesn’t have incentive - the incentive arrives with higher prices, which is what we’re discussing in the first place.

fauigerzigerk 1mo ago
I agree in general, but the market response can be very lumpy and sometimes substitution happens more quickly than investment in new capacity. Only a handful of companies can make high end memory, semiconductors and semiconductor equipment. And some of them are wary of creating overcapacity down the line. Creating new capacity takes years and creating a competitor to any of these companies takes even longer, even when the incentives (high prices) exist. So it's absolutely possible that consumers change behaviour before a sufficient supply side response arrives. Demand destruction is a market response as well.