Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!gravity!klein
From: klein%gravity@Sun.COM (Mike Klein)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: IBM new 'standard'
Message-ID: <15307@sun.uucp>
Date: Thu, 19-Mar-87 12:00:20 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.15307
Posted: Thu Mar 19 12:00:20 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Mar-87 07:39:37 EST
References: <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: klein@sun.UUCP (Mike Klein)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 39
Keywords: proprietary not upwardly compat. OS is goof...
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:2617 comp.misc:377

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