Re: Irving Gould
- From: "commie" <bo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Oct 2005 12:02:08 -0700
Payton Byrd wrote:
> The PC business was never lost to Apple or IBM. They both lost to
> Microsoft. Commodore had the same problem that Apple does today: they
> did not want to make their hardware designs commoditized. The fact that
> a judge allowed Compaq and Microsoft to commoditize the PC market led to
> the end of Commodore, Atari, and TI as computer makers moreso than
> anything those companies did to themselves. If the Amiga architecture
> had been an open-book system that Commodore had licensed to willing
> manufacturers then we would have been using multi-threaded 32-bit
> systems in 1989 instead of 1995.
>
> --
> Payton Byrd
> Homepage - <http://www.paytonbyrd.com>
> Blog - <http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/visualbasic/dotnet/>
> Auctions - <http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZpaytonQ2ebyrd>
I certainly respect this opinion, but never understood it. I just
can't see 12 year old kids putting the PC on their Christmas list
because of their respect for the commodity nature of the construction.
Plus, doesn't this view stand in utter opposition to the "killer app"
theory? I mean, they can't both be right can they?
Although I can't really presume to understand why, I do agree that
Commodore lost to Compaq, Sperry, and Dell, long after IBM became
irrelevant to the home market. I would also say that Apple lost to
them also, but remained and remains afloat only because of management
unwilling to drive the company to bankruptsy.
- Bo
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Irving Gould
- From: Michael J. Schülke
- Re: Irving Gould
- References:
- Irving Gould
- From: dunric
- Re: Irving Gould
- From: Marc Walters
- Re: Irving Gould
- From: Payton Byrd
- Irving Gould
- Prev by Date: Re: C65/C64 CHIP INTERNALS
- Next by Date: Re: C65/C64 CHIP INTERNALS
- Previous by thread: Re: Irving Gould
- Next by thread: Re: Irving Gould
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|