[no subject]

In this enviroment, IBM had little choice but to join the revolution,
hoping that they could get out in front of the parade and lead it.

And, with their unparalleled reputation with corporations, lead it
they did--until their BIOS was clean-room reproduced, opening
their "open architecture" wide up, and eventually leading to their
loss of control of the PC architecture and industry.

Remember Micro-Channel?  That was IBM's attempt to put the
genie back in the bottle by making the "true" PC bus be licensed
from IBM.  The industry, by that time, was already strong enough
to make a go of it independent of IBM, by introducing the EISA
bus (pretty much a committee effort, and showing it), and then
Microsoft and Intel decided to assert some leadership to produce
a more coherent extension, the PCI bus.  By that time, all major
limitations of the PC implementation had been cleared (which
then focused attention on the deficiencies of MSDOS, leading
to Microsoft's investment in NT, but that's another story).

>As for the design of the machine, clearly IBM was not unaware of the overall
>features found in the Apple II and other machines being produced, and it
>would have been purely idiotic of them not to look at all aspects of those
>in making their own design decisions.  When attempting to introduce any
>product into a market where there is any sort of competition, one must
>assess that competition's strengths and weaknesses to have any real
>expectation of success.  Such features as the Apple II's expansion slots
>were included in the design of the PC because they were a good idea in the
>first place, and there is nothing wrong with incorporating a design concept
>found in another design into your own, so long as no copyrights or patents
>are violated in the process.  Improving upon someone else's implementation
>of that concept in your own design is not only natural, but it is essential
>if you wish to gain a competitive edge.  That IS how the game is played.  I
>for one would never criticize IBM for having "copied" Apple's expansion slot
>idea, but I would certainly have criticized them for having omitted it.

Certainly, any product should incorporate all the best of whatever
products have preceded it.  Occasionally, intellectual property law
is an impediment from putting all the best into a product, but that is
always the objective (for the desired price point).

It is significant that a principal exemplar of the best features to be
included was the Apple II--and not a bad exemplar, either.  ;-)

>Once the IBM PC came out, Apple and IBM went in different directions.  Due
>to IBM's established business relationships, they had a natural advantage
>which they took advantage of as best they could.  Apple still sold some
>machines to businesses as well, though in smaller numbers.  Their market
>continued to primarily consist of schools and hobbyists.  The real force
>that drove the IBM PC and it's descendants to market dominance over the
>years though was the development of the PC clone.  While Apple refused to
>allow clones of it's own machines for years, this was not the case with the
>IBM PC.  This created competition among companies seeking to have the best
>PC clone, with buyers benefitting from the rapid improvements of the
>machines and from lower prices due to "price wars" among manufacturers.
>Ironically, this simultaneously caused IBM to lose market share, while their
>"platform" (meaning the IBM-PC and it's clones) rapidly gained market share.
>Lacking this sort of competition from clone makers, the Apple II line
>steadily fell behind in capabilities relative to the PC clones, and
>continued to lose market share.  The Apple III and the Lisa both were viewed
>as failures from a competitive standpoint, and by the time the Mac came out,
>the battle for market dominance was essentially over.

They did, indeed, go in different directions.  Of course, the PC legacy
continued
its open tradition, while the Apple Mac abandoned its open heritage (Steve Jobs
is no engineer).  By the time that Apple had rediscovered the value of
extensible
hardware, the game was pretty much over.

But then, realistically, Apple never had a chance against IBM in the corporate
world of the 1980's.  What manager could defend a decision to buy a "hippie"
machine from a counterculture company when the alternative of gray flannel
IBM was present?  (Answer: a counterculture manager of a counterculture
department, like the "art department".  ;-)

-michael

Check out amazing quality 8-bit Apple sound on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/