Author: george petty
Date: 14:49:55 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 16:04:08, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On January 11, 2000 at 09:45:43, george petty wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Look at the antitrust laws, designed to police unequal competition.
>>
>> The case against I.B.M. was filed on January 17, l969. It was one of the
>> longest and most complex court cases in history.
>
>Actually probably not. Don't forget _the_ AT&T suit, which shows what
>happens when government do-gooders step over the boundary and start acting
>like they know something important to everyone... :)
No the AT&T was not as big a suit, as they learned from I.B.M. to make a deal
before it got out of hand.
>
>But back up 10 years. Univac owned the computer market.
True, But I.B.M. used the tie-in tactic. A tie-end occurs when two separate
products are offered only as a package with a single price. Same as microsoft
has done, and has been very successful at also. Too long of a story to go into
here, but in short I.B.M. Switched from mechanical to electronics and with
their power the rest is history. You must not have known anybody in sales
with Univac or C.D.C. I could name you many examples of companies and banks
where the directors would kill a sale because of overwhelming political,
financial, and other power that they welded.
They actually
>had a bigger percentage of total installations than IBM did in their best
>period. But they blundered. CDC did the same, by going after the wrong
>market first, IMHO.
>
No they (CDC) just did not know what they were going up against. Or how the
game
is played. There is a lot of gullible, leading the more gullible.
>
>
>
>>
>> At one point in the early 60's,
>>>Univac had close to 80% of the computer market. They blundered it away
>>>by sitting on an old architecture rather than doing something new. IBM
>>>didn't sit on the 1620 and 7090 type architectures, but went on to better
>>>approaches.
>>
>> Nonsence! You are thinking in a vacuum, You need to be wiser it the ways
>> of the world and the importance of power. The business world is not like the
>> academic world.
>>
I repeat Nonsence! That the surface, you have to look deeper, its
there if you take the time to look for the answers.
>
>At one point in the 1960's, Univac had the largest percentage of educational
>installations as well. During the 70's and 80's, Digital took the university
>marketplace almost completely.
Oh did they! On the Pc market they came out with a machine that would run
circles around the I.B.M. machine. The digital machine came out with chips
(z80 and intel) that would run either 8 bits or 16 bitS and the one that was
not used as the cpu would be the I/O. But not being a marketing company like
I.B.M. they were left at the gate. Their operating system was far better
than I.B.M. also. True they had a mini computer market for a while until
I.B.M. decided to move in on it also. Where is digital equipment today?
But IBM took the _big_ market, commercial
>data processing.
Thats where the big money was at then.
>
>>>
>>>CDC did themselves in by attacking the scientific market, which they pretty
>>>well owned. IBM attacked the business market, which the CDC machines were
>>>poorly suited for. Unfortunately for CDC, the business market was _far_ bigger.
>>>Seymour Cray left CDC after designing the Cyber 176 and formed his own company
He learned that you don't fight a fight you can't win, besides he was not a
good business person, he was a genius at designing computers. Not at how to
run a company and win the big game, just to do his thing, design fast
computers.
>>>to cater to the scientific market. And Cray has done well there ever since,
>>>but they knew up front that their market was much smaller than the business
>>>data processing market.
>>>
>>>What does this all have to do with the deep blue project?
>>
>>
>> Ask Kasparov about that. I am sure He is not as niave today as He once
>> was about I.B.M.
>>
>> Another good book to take a look at by British writer Rex Milik in
>> And Tomorrow...The world? inside I.B.M.
>
>
>This is old stuff. IBM isn't the industry leader any more, unfortunately. They
>are big, but not _nearly_ as big as they were in the 1970's... When IBM chose
>to ignore the PeeCee market, they blundered beyond belief.
Only on not controling the operating system, that was their big blunder.
Gates was there and probably one of the smartest business men the world has
ever seen. And the rest is history.
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.