dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (08/13/87)
In article <940@omepd> randys@mipon3.UUCP (Randy Steck) writes: >After due deliberation, I just have to say something. Likewise, I'm sure. > >First, the reason that IBM chose the 8088 in the first place for the PC was >because they could build a PC around it without even trying hard. ... >In other words, they made a good marketing decision. In fact, IBM has NEVER been a technological innovator. Their decision-making has been driven by strategic marketing, and has been successful, IN GENERAL. (Before you flame me about the PCJr or portable fiascos, read on.) DISCLAIMER IN ADVANCE: This is my own opinion, based on having worked in our industry for over 25 years. I have no idea whether the opinion is shared by my present or past employers (which briefly included IBM). Early on in the history of computers, IBM (probably T. J. Watson, Sr) make some excellent decisions that resulted in IBM's dominating the computer market. The decisions resulted from a marketing insight about a new technology, NOT from a technological insight per se. While the other contenders (Remington Rand for one, maybe only) saw scientific number crunching (e.g. - ballistic trajectories) as THE application area for computers, IBM saw stored-program machines as a new-technology replacement for their "Card-Punch Calculators" (card sorters, tabulators, etc. Programmed by wired patchboards). Thus IBM decided to mass-produce computers, while RemRand waited for the industry to order its second Univac I. By the time anybody knew what was happening, the 701 (?) had taken over the market, and IBM's dominance was assured. Since then, IBM decisions appears to have been driven by DEFENSIVE STRATEGIC MARKETING considerations. Each of these three adjectives included intentionally: MARKETING - "Don't bother with telling me what's technically feasible. I won't make it unless it's PROVEN that I can sell it." (Result: other companies introduce new technologies, IBM uses them only when their product line needs them for sales.) STRATEGIC - IBM is not usually an opportunistic, sales-oriented producer of new products. Their product decisions since the introduction of the 360 (about 20 years ago) seem to be based on maintenance of customer base and market share. Their major disasters have tended to be when they "went opportunistic" and violated this rule (e.g. - the PCJr.), to forge their way into a new market. DEFENSIVE - Their decisions are intended to AVOID LOSING market share or present customers, NOT to increase market share. (Improving their already dominant position in this country is PR and political suicide, and they realize that.) The PC is a case in point. They did not intend it as the major money-maker it was; it was a way to counter the small-but-growing threat of the other micro-makers. They wanted an IBM product to be able to put something on business desks before Apple or Commodore or Tandy got a real presence there. (At least they remembered their own heritage, and how they got where they are.) Viewed in this light, the PS/2 is a predictable IBM move. Two things were happening that they viewed as threatening: 1- Clones were chopping away dramatically at their share of the PC market. 2- The MIS manager, IBM's ally in the customer company, felt he/she was losing control of the customer company's computing, because buying/using PCs was a decentralized decision. OK, then. Let's build a PC that (1) was harder to clone, or at least would buy a few years before being cloned, and (2) made the customer (the MIS manager) happy by stressing the mainframe connection to IBM hosts. Give the MIS manager control over the applications again. Think about the resulting synergy in IBM's customer base! Very clever strategic decision, but COMPLETELY DEFENSIVE. Well, that's the history lesson for now, boys and girls. I enjoyed Danielle Bercel's historic review so much I thought I'd try one. Dave +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...ihnp4!mtuxo!mtunb!dmt | | Audible - (201) 576 2442 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+