gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (10/26/87)
These details about the Apple III and Lisa I/II failure are very
interesting. They explain how apple has stumbled twice but never
completely fallen as a PC design company. Each time they persisted in
trying to market a certain class of machine. Their persistence seems
to have eventually paid off handsomely (apple has gone on successfully
with the IIc, the IIe, and the entire family of 5 Macs).
IBM, I believe, only stumbled with the PCjr (and slightly with the
AT). They killed it any gave up on the market completely. I wonder
what will happen if they stumble with the new PS/2 line (which I think
they will) -- will they get out of the PC business of become a
spectator manufacture?
Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinoisdrc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (10/28/87)
In article <76000032@uiucdcsp>, gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > These details about the Apple III and Lisa I/II failure are very > interesting. They explain how apple has stumbled twice but never > completely fallen as a PC design company. Each time they persisted in > trying to market a certain class of machine. Their persistence seems > to have eventually paid off handsomely (apple has gone on successfully > with the IIc, the IIe, and the entire family of 5 Macs). > > IBM, I believe, only stumbled with the PCjr (and slightly with the > AT). They killed it any gave up on the market completely. I wonder > what will happen if they stumble with the new PS/2 line (which I think > they will) -- will they get out of the PC business of become a > spectator manufacture? > > Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois I seem to recall a PC9000 (a 68000 based machine from IBM) which stumbled quite badly as has their RT. IBM stumbles a lot (a number of their larger systems have been failures); however, their return on investment has been good. The same is true of Apple. Market research and consumer testing can only tell you so much about your target audience. The biggest problem is satisfying the detailed expectations of the market with a _package_ which doesn't satisfy it. Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Glendale Development Center dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed above are my own. I don't know what (if any) opinions my employer might have.
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (11/01/87)
In article <76000032@uiucdcsp> gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >IBM, I believe, only stumbled with the PCjr (and slightly with the >AT). They killed it any gave up on the market completely. I wonder >what will happen if they stumble with the new PS/2 line (which I think >they will) -- will they get out of the PC business of become a >spectator manufacture? Let's not head off on too big a tangent (note: no cross posting), but just because Apple seems finally to be breaking in to the corporate world does not mean that IBM is going under. Yes, it is fair to say that the PS2 is not a wonderful or even particularly good implementation of an i80x86 based design, but the PS2 has some fascinating architectural innovations (micro-channel and such) and, much more importantly, is part of a larger design directed at a world where IBM makes *profits* comparable to Apple's *revenues* of only a year or two back. The PS2 is intended to regularize a section of a larger problem, which is how to have seamless (horrible current buzzword) compatibility of applications from 3090-x00, via 43xx, 9370, 88, 36/38 down to personal workstations (ST, RT, AT .....). In that market there are no current competitors. Remember, we are *not* talking home/personal computing here, we are talking personal workstation in a corporate DP/MIS environment. Additionally, IBM have taken a clone-killing leaf out of Apple's book by building certain key architectural components into custom silicon, which it has proven possible to protect in law against unauthorized replication. We are not going to see oodles of *cheap* PS2 clones (clone = 100% compatibility) if the clone makers have to develop those components for themselves. Never fear, the PS2 may not be a wonder-engine, but it is intended to do things in a larger plan where it is unlikely to find many competitors. Now, with respect to OS2, or the use of the PS2 simply as an MS-DOS machine.... Well, we use 386-based MS-DOS engines (non-IBM) because they were the best tool for the job when we needed one. A preliminary look at OS2 says you have to pay a certain amount of attention; Microsoft's presentation manager may not be the Mac toolbox, but it will provide a standard interface, and the heart of OS2 came from IBM, where they are not unfamiliar with operating systems. In fact, the biggest problem we have with the Mac II right now is the problem of operating systems, and anyone who has had to develop a UNIX-based application for use by non computer-literate end-users knows that A/UX is going to have its work cut out. Fine if you are a hacker at heart, but it is not clear that A/UX will have an undo capable of recovering from "rm * .o", when all you meant to delete was the object files. OS2 bodes well to be a better vehicle for end-user applications than anything yet announced by Apple. Sorry for the length, but just because we love the Mac doesn't mean we have the inside track on the only game in town. Robert_S p.s. with reference to the small screen topic - the reason I refused to swap my Lisa for a Mac was the 12" (768 pixel-wide) screen, on which I can get the full width of an 8.5" page in the window without horizontal scrolling. Once you've used it, there's no going back :-) -- Robert Stanley Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 Voice: (613) 738-1440 (Research: there are 2!) 3755 Riverside Drive FAX: (613) 738-0002 Compuserve: 76174,3024 Ottawa, Ontario uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts CANADA K1G 3Z4