Author: Mark Schreiber
Date: 00:56:53 01/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2003 at 20:22:04, Matt Taylor wrote: >On January 10, 2003 at 17:21:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 09, 2003 at 07:35:41, Mark Schreiber wrote: >> >>>On January 08, 2003 at 20:23:18, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On January 08, 2003 at 19:56:58, Michael Vox wrote: >>>> >>>>>Strangley, by the end of the day, both of the stocks had declined. Meaning that >>>>>potential investors do not foresee earning potential in the deal :( >>>> >>>>People can be dumb, can't they? >>>> >>>>I think it will be something to watch. I'm watching:o) >>>> >>>>Terry >>> >>>That’s because people have learned from history. IBM partners with other >>>companies because they can not develop high technology on its own. IBM supplies >>>the money; the other company does the work. They have tried this before. It >>>always fails miserably. They tried it with Siemens to make phone systems. With >>>Apple and HP to get a GUI OS. Motorola for CPU’s. Toshiba for memory chips. >>>Don’t expect any high technology products to come from this. >>>Mark >> >> >>IBM can't "develop high technology on its own"??? >> >>:) >> >>History sure doesn't support that... > >Nor current events. It has been a little while since I looked into it, but last >I checked IBM held the world's largest (and most coherent) quantum computer. > >-Matt IBM can’t develop high technology products that are more innovative than their competitors. The joint ventures are an attempt at buying innovation. I just remembered 1 more failure. IBM’s and AT&T develop the Multics operating system. The quantum computer isn’t a joint venture. It won’t be practical for many decades. It is strictly for public relations similar to deep blue. Mark
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.