On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:32:36 +1000 "Paul B. Webster"
<spam_OUTpaulbspamspammidcoast.com.au> writes:
>Pasi T Mustalahti wrote:

>> When IBM noticed how popular Apple II and S100-bus were because of
>> their open architecture,
>
>  Ironic that Apple then went the opposite way - Did they lose
>thereby?



       I've often wondered if we can come up with a cause for Apple's
poor performance in the market.  Some of it MAY be due to the closed
architecture, making all hardware accessories more expensive.  I think,
however, that the problem may have been more in the fact that they were
the ONLY supplier of the Mac.  recently they did try licensing, but it
looks like they're pulling those licenses back.  Looking at IBM, we find
their architecture was adopted by the market, but their products weren't.
Everyone else makes IBM compatible computers leaving IBM with a small
share of the market.  IBM tried, as I recall, another approach with the
Microchannel bus, which I think they licensed out for some fee.  The rest
of the industry went with the ISA bus, then EISA, then PCI.
       It truly looks like a rough business to be in!

Harold

month overview.

new search...