[Gllug] RE: Gates to get Knighthood!!!

[Mike Brodbelt]

On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 17:44 +0000, David Abbishaw wrote:
> I have a question - If the Dos didn't make the PC sell so well why didn't
> the IBM 5100 that was released before the PC and for most purposes very
> similar sell?

After all that has been said about computing systems over numerous
years, I'd have thought it should be crystal clear by now that the
market does not buy computers because of operating systems. OS's are a
necessary piece of infrastructure, and of no interest whatsoever to the
majority of users.

People bought the PC because a) it was a growing market anyway, b) it
was cheap c) it had IBM's name on it and people trusted IBM, and d) it
had applications they wanted (Visicalc being an obvious example).

In 1984 the Macintosh was a vastly superior system, but the lack of apps
and more expensive hardware formed a vicious circle that made sure it
never reached critical mass. In contrast, IBM slapped the PC together in
a desperate hurry so as not to miss out on the growing market. Because
of the rush they were in, they used off the shelf components, only the
BIOS was proprietary. Compaq cloned the BIOS with clean room reverse
engineering techniques, and became the first clone maker. The clones
made sure that hardware prices stayed low, and the resulting volume of
sales made sure the app developers developed for the PC.

IBM thought the OS so unimportant that they bought one from a small
startup, rather than write their own. When they licensed MS-DOS, it was
so poor that they had to re-write chunks and fix bugs, which is why for
years later, you got MS-DOS with most PCs, but IBM PC-DOS with IBM
machines. Microsoft did such a bad job that they had to let IBM re-sell
under different license conditions. This was all the more amazing when
you consider that Gates didn't own DOS when he licensed it to IBM. It
was only after the deal was in place that he bought QDOS from Tim
Patterson for peanuts, then used that as the core of MS-DOS.

Gates was (and is) a ruthless and viciously effective businessman. He
capitalised on a market that was about to explode, took advantage of
IBM's entrenched blindness as to the importance that software would play
in this new market and contrived to erect his toll-booth on the path to
every microcomputer sold in the last 20 years. He has been phenomenally
successful in making his company, his shareholders and himself a lot of
money. He has done this at the expense of consumers and the industry.

Firefox has made it obvious that IE's 90%+ market share has stifled
innovation on the web for years. Where might we be today if Microsoft
hadn't been stifling innovation in the industry for decades?

Mike.

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug