chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) (03/19/87)
Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple
made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine
the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs,
that is a completely closed box, and that nobody know anything
about vis-a-vis what's goin' on inside? This seems to me to be
undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Apple
has understood but IBM hasn't. Strange isn't it? I guess now
that we're seeing Compac compatible machines IBM is worried
they're loosing touch.
I'm baffled. Anybody else? Or maybe you've got some insight
as to the why's of IBM product development policy?
Dave Chassin
PS: You can be sure I'll never buy one of those. What for? So
I can throw $3000 of AutoCAD software, and $nK of random other
stuff? Forget it!!!
_____________________
David P. Chassin
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
School of Architecture __+__
Troy, NY 12181 / _ \
USA | | | |
/=======/ = \=======\
(518) 266-6461 | _ | _ | _ |
| | | | | | | | | |
chassin@csv.rpi.edu | = | | | | = |
=======================================================================zrm@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (03/19/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple >made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine I think they are trying to make the same smart move as Apple has. However, IBM's move out of the vanilla MS-DOS arena faces many more pitfalls than the Macintosh ever did. IBM could come out with a clunker of a user interface. IBM faces entrenched competition from the Macintosh at the low and middle range, and from Sun and Apollo at the high end. IBM might find that they have completely overloaded software developers' ability to cope with the MS-DOS, Windows, Top-View, 286, 386 and New-DOS induced Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) factor. IBM also has a poor track record on recent product introductions, with the failure of the PC/RT to make even the smallest dent in the workstation competition. Apple had the luxury of selling a huge number of machines with no direct competition, and enough of a market window to establish a standard with a closed machine, then make a high-end open machine. Even if IBM does everything right, they face tough sledding. Anyone out there betting that IBM has done everything right? Not the stock market, with Apple trading within close range of its recent historic high, and Sun as zoomy as ever. The really interesting thing is that with the impending breakdown of MS-DOS/8086 hegomony, will anyone else, e.g. NeXT, make a move to establish yet another personal-computer/workstation standard? It looks like the near future could be a window of opportunity for someone, perhaps Xerox, or NeXT, or Wang or all of them. They key is that the contenders will have to have comitted at least the resources Apple has to developing a powerful new environment. Apple has built a formidable defense for their market by spending a lot on software technology such as extensions to the Toolbox and MacApp. I would be very, very suprised to see IBM come out with something truely competitive, not because they are incapable of it, but simply because there is no advance sign of it, no leaks from developers, no clues in existing products, etc. We live in interesting times. -Zigurd "Every year I get older and go faster. It's a helluva deal." -A.J. Foyt
klein%gravity@Sun.COM (Mike Klein) (03/19/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple >made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine >the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs, >that is a completely closed box, and that nobody know anything >about vis-a-vis what's goin' on inside? You're making an unstated assumption that a closed system is a mistake. A mistake for whom? There was a flurry of articles a few months ago in Fortune, Business Week, and a number of other magazines bemoaning IBM's unprecedented ill health. One important cause was the poor profit margins on PCs. It's not hard to guess why... clones cost less, are usually faster, and some are even higher quality. Some corporate purchasers are now even specifying IBM *compatibles* only. That's a big problem for IBM. All these articles said that IBM, after an initial wild success with the PC, was moving toward a closed, proprietary system. <My opinion: This will reduce competition and increase profits for IBM. IBM, true to its history, can absorb initial low sales if it means eventually locking many customers in to its hardware and software. It is a big pain for users... but then that's not really what IBM is interested in --- another story of course, and a problem that IBM is also working on. End my opinion.> >This seems to me to be >undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Apple >has understood but IBM hasn't. Strange isn't it? I guess now >that we're seeing Compac compatible machines IBM is worried >they're loosing touch. Apple has not been blown away by any means. In fact, Apple is in great financial shape today. Much of the reason is that there are *no* Macintosh clones that have forced Apple's prices down and confused consumers. -- Mike Klein klein@sun.{arpa,com} Sun Microsystems, Inc. {ucbvax,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!sun!klein Mountain View, CA
cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair) (03/19/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >[...] In other words why are they making a machine >the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs ... "Despite the proprietary changes, most existing software, including that written to take advantage of IBM's Enhanced Graphics Adapter standard, will run on the new machines, [unnamed] sources said. "However, software that is written to take advantage of the capabilities of the new computers will not run on their older siblings." _Computerworld_, 16 March 1987.-- "... ain't nobody's business if I do." ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cjdb -- Billie Holiday PMRCJDB@UCHIMVS1.Bitnet
mwhulls@watlion.UUCP (03/21/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple >made with the Mac? [...] >This seems to me to be >undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Shhh! Don't say it too loud, IBM's peabrains might notice and do something approaching intelligence. Give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves eventually! IBM IS DYING!IBM IS DYING!IBM IS DYING!IBM IS DYING!IBM IS DYING!IBM IS DYING! -steve rapaport, not michael hulls.
gary@percival.UUCP (03/21/87)
I believe the thinking is similar to that done by the person who "invented" Military Intelligence! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wudda yeah mean, I'm gonna get in trouble? I AM in trouble! ________________________________________________________________________________
madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (03/22/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple >made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine >the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs, >that is a completely closed box, and that nobody know anything >about vis-a-vis what's goin' on inside? This seems to me to be >undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Apple >has understood but IBM hasn't. Strange isn't it? I guess now >that we're seeing Compac compatible machines IBM is worried >they're loosing touch. > >I'm baffled. Anybody else? Or maybe you've got some insight >as to the why's of IBM product development policy? This is not a new IBM policy. For proof, I ask you to look at IBM System/3x computers, and IBM System/23 computers. These are the lower end computers that IBM has been manufacturing for awhile (except for the /23, which was IBM's first [sad] attempt at a PC). No program is portable in object code format between any of these machines, even though the assembler code is pretty close between the System/3x machines. Often, the compilers on the upper machines will not accept unaltered source from the others. Also, there are no REAL language compilers for these machines that are offered by IBM. IBM likes COBOL, RPG, and assembler. Take it or leave it. If you take it, pay an ungodly amount for it. (This is not completely true, but I'm speaking of their lower-end lines, not their huge machines). IBM larger machines need to have this thing called maintenance. They're closed box alright. Open it and be shot. This of course means more money for IBM, in both upgrades and simple servicing. It's a fact that IBM makes more money on the maintenance than they do on the actual machine in many cases. Provided they give you a reliable machine, they seldom have to show up at all. The maintenance works out to be pure profit. It almost never costs IBM more to service the equipment than it charges the customer, and on the average they make thousands per year on even the smallest systems. IBM likes closed boxes. The only difference between these machines and the current PC's is cost and competition. The PC was always the low end of the IBM line. IBM didn't care about it so much before the PC's became powerful enough to take hunks out of their System/36 line, which is very profitable right now. Now the masses have the 80386, which performs at roughly the same speed as the System/36 lower ends (and better than the /36 PC) with the potential to be much more powerful (HOW many meg can the 386 address?) The gist of all this is that IBM is about to loose their most profitable line to the cheap PC's. Solution: create a new PC that nobody can clone. Problem: it won't run anything. So what. Neither could their System/3x's when they first came out. People trust IBM. They'll suffer. (You think I'm wrong? How many people are saying "we'll wait 'till we see what IBM does"?) Also, while people wait for an IBM move in the PC market, they're not buying clones. Even if the new IBM PC flops, they've hurt the competition. Odds are good that people will go buy some other IBM product if they don't like the new PC. IBM makes out either way, since the next best thing is a System/36. Either the PC replaces the /36, or it hurts the /36's competition. Personally, I hope IBM loses their shirt. If they come out with a new PC, they'll make it a workalike to their other machines. You'll need to by IBM software. Is there anyone out there who is pleased with IBM-made applications? I've used several. I am pleased with none of them. Look at the IBM-made applications for the PC -- their accounting packages are horrid. Their wordprocessor is a workalike to the one on their mainframes, and it is by far the most difficult to use wordprocessor I've come across on a PC (note: not editor -- there are much worse editors out there). The only packages worth anything were produced by other people and IBM bought the rights. If this sounds like I don't like IBM, you got it. I fail to see why anyone would by IBM, whose PC (not AT) failure rate is one of the highest among PC manufacturers; whose keyboards leave much to be desired, even though they created the standard typewriter keyboard; whose software is terrible and often bug-ridden; whose service personnel can takes weeks to respond; whose products are always drastically overpriced; etc. It is contrary to the spirit of competition. Well, we'll see. >Dave Chassin > >PS: You can be sure I'll never buy one of those. What for? So >I can throw $3000 of AutoCAD software, and $nK of random other >stuff? Forget it!!! My sentiments exactly. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker | UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd H H | ARPA: madd@bucsb.bu.edu H-C-C-OH <- heehee +---------+---------------------------------- H H | "We are strangers in a world we never made"
evan@ndcheg.UUCP (03/23/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: > Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple > made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine > the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs, > that is a completely closed box, and that nobody know anything > about vis-a-vis what's goin' on inside? This seems to me to be > undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Apple > has understood but IBM hasn't. Strange isn't it? I guess now > that we're seeing Compac compatible machines IBM is worried > they're loosing touch. Actually, I find it very ironic that IBM is now developing a closed system and Apple is releasing slotted versions of their Macs. Evan Bauman Chemical Engineering Univ. of Notre Dame ihnp4!iuvax!ndmath!ndcheg!evan
mlandau@Diamond.UUCP (03/24/87)
Enough is enough already. This whole discussion is a little premature
and speculative, don't you think? Or has IBM made some recent product
announcement to Usenet that all of the trade journals and newspapers
managed to miss? I find it amusing, to say the least, to see the amount
of time and network bandwidth expended on discussions and flames of
totally fictional products.
--
Matt Landau BBN Laboratories, Inc.
mlandau@diamond.bbn.com 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge MA 02238
...seismo!diamond.bbn.com!mlandau (617) 497-2429cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (03/25/87)
In article <105@ndcheg.UUCP>, evan@ndcheg.UUCP (Evan Bauman) writes: > Actually, I find it very ironic that IBM is now developing a closed > system and Apple is releasing slotted versions of their Macs. > > Evan Bauman I would speculate that IBM believes they can successfully sell a box with proprietary innards but a public bus, to millions of businesses out there. If you look at the Mac II and the rumored PC-III or whatever it is called (I vote for IBM PC/PT [proprietary technology]) they are exactly the same strategy arrived at by two giants in the PC world. Keep the foreign manufacturers in the Add-in board business and out of the main box business. -- --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/04/87)
> You're making an unstated assumption that a closed system is a mistake. > A mistake for whom? Actually, closed systems done right can be pretty good. Apple's mistake was not in making the original Mac a closed box, but in not making the box big enough. Give the original Mac a lot more memory, an internal hard disk, and maybe a SCSI port on the back, and the Mac would rival the IBM PC by now. (As it is, it's a significant force on a less exalted level.) The trick would have been doing that while keeping the price under control and meeting the same delivery date. Sun sells a whole lot of Sun-3/50's, which are very closed boxes. They really do not have quite enough memory to run Sun's elephantine Berklix- derivative system, but otherwise they are fine machines. I doubt that IBM's new boxes are going to be a tremendous success (the nameplate alone is enough to make them a modest success), but that's because from what I hear, they just aren't very impressive machines. In that sense, IBM *is* repeating Apple's mistake. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry