Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tetra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!noscvax!tetra!rupp
From: rupp@tetra.UUCP (William L. Rupp)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: IBM RT: first impressions
Message-ID: <125@tetra.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Mar-86 14:26:58 EST
Article-I.D.: tetra.125
Posted: Tue Mar  4 14:26:58 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Mar-86 03:51:31 EST
References: <1400012@orstcs.UUCP> <6382@utzoo.UUCP> <151@calma.UUCP> <361@utastro.UUCP>
Reply-To: rupp@tetra.UUCP (William L. rupp)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 45

In article <361@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
>> Certain people,
>> many of whom are in the position to make purchasing decisions,
>> would tend to buy anything and everything they can from IBM. ... 
>> ...simply because it has an 'IBM' label on the front.
>> -- 
>> Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage.
>
>Riiiiiiiight.  Just like the PC Jr. had. (Note past tense).
>
>But, by all means, let's keep the theory, and throw away any data that
>don't fit.  We call that "scientific."
>
>-- 
>Ed Nather
>Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
>{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
>nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
 

Well, I must agree with Tim.  It is well known in the business community
that IBM has an overwhelming image advantage with corporate purchasers.
One reason I know is that my brother has been in computer marketing for
years with Northstar, Alpha Micro, Sharp, and others.  He tells me that
with most company purchasers, there is simply no way to counter the IBM
syndrome (called by a friend of mine I['ve] B[een] M[esmerized]).

As for the PC Jr., I think that is the exception which proves the rule
(whatever that means).  IBM did NOT have an automatic lock on the
low-end home market.  IBM had to compete on something approaching even
terms with Apple, Commodore, and Atari.  Which means that the Jr. had to
succeed on its own merits.  The potential buyer, mostly not people
caught up in the IBM syndrome, looked at the Jr. and asked, "What have
you got to offer?"  The Jr., obviously deliberately crippled by its
manufacturer, failed.  

I have two minds about IBM.  Being a good libertarian, I applaud the
company's honest success.  But I am also dismayed at the arrogance of a
firm that would release a computer which was clearly not what is should
have been, all in the expectation that the IBM label would make up for
its shortcomings.  That's what happens when one entity (be it a
corporation or a government) has too much power for too long.  The
problem is, when does a coporation get so big that it no longer has to
worry about offering the best product or service it can in order to
remain profitable?