Linked by umad on Thu 25th Aug 2011 22:51 UTC
Apple I thought OSNews would be a good forum to talk about a matter that has been weighing on my mind lately primarily because the site has been so focused on Apple's patents and litigation as of late. The news that HP, the largest PC manufacturer in the world is spinning off or getting out of this business is what really prompted me to write this article.
Permalink for comment 486996
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by phoudoin
by phoudoin on Fri 26th Aug 2011 09:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by phoudoin"
Member since:

Yes, BIOS was not opened by IBM. But they did nothing when Compaq reverse engineered it. IBM let the PC platform be *cloned*. The let it become the open platform.
While Compaq technically allowed 100% IBM compatibles clones, IBM legally allowed it by doing nothing against it.

The Mac was an unloved orphan was almost no useful software when it was first released.

So was Windows 1.0 software ecosystem at start too.

At this time, the simple fact to feature a GUI API was a selling point.
But, true, it's not certain that the Mac API will have bring developers to this operating software more than the Windows 1.0 API.

Maybe just selling a very pro (for this time, that would be a 512x342 monochrome screen!) graphics card only supported by MacOS on a PC clone will have done alone the radical switch too.

What drove Macs sales in the early years were the DTP software that MacOS made possible on a personal computer. What made this impossible on a PC at this time was the lack of a good graphic card and a good GUI, both technology that Apple could have made available on PC if they wanted to. And that would have drove their card and software the same way it did for their Macintosh.

But they didn't want that.
They want a well designed integrated computer.
They got it.
They also got a niche market with it: the niche of well designed integrated computers, while the not-well designed not integrated computers market made Microsoft and PC clones makers rich.

That's a choice which did it, not a fatality, or a trick by competitors.

Ever used DOS? I think not.

DOS was lightning fast on very low powered hardware and remarkably stable. However it needed some skill to use.

Sadly, I must confess I'm old enough to have used DOS.
But the point is that at DOS time circa 86, the Macintosh was offering both a better hardware platform and a better, graphical, operating system.
And still, it lost its market share to an inferior hardware and a inferior software.

Which can't mean anything but that people find something in an inferior hardware and software PC platform that they didn't find in the Mac one.
Which mean that integrated product is not a win solution for everything.

Reply Parent Score: 2