Once upon a time, IBM was the big cock in the barnyard (pun definately intended). They were the big power in the PC market.
This is of course what caused the term IBM compatible, mostly not used anymore, these days it's usually Wintel or something to the effect of MS or Intel compatible.
Now, what happened, I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember...but IBM started trying to push the Micro Channel Bus, using their clout to try and shove it. It was expensive, and it was proprietary. They had graphics cards and what not that were all Micro Channel specific.
Many of you have quite possibly not even heard of this bus, but I'm sure most of you have heard of it's competitor, the ISA bus. This was a much more open, universal standard that everyone could use equally. IBM tried to use their clout to force Microchannel on us, but the industry moved away from IBM and adopted the ISA bus instead.
I'm not saying that this is the sole reason IBM declined from power, what I am saying is that even though they were totally in charge of the industry, they couldn't use their position to force people to adopt their proprietary architecture.
No, several years later, it seems history will repeat itself. But the circumstances are somewhat different. Microsoft is in a very dominant position in the PC market, much like IBM was all that time ago; however, the market is much larger, and (not trying to give offense to anyone, but it's true) your average PC user is probably much less aware now.
But the situation also is similar in many ways. Microsoft is trying to use their situation to push their own initiatives that will ultimately lead to higher costs and less choice for the consumer, much like the Micro Channel bus would have (non-IBM folk would have had to pay big license fees to IBM, and you can bet your butt those costs would be passed on to the consumer).
I'm not trying to say Microsoft is evil or anything of the sort, they may be or they may not, they are just doing what almost any other company would do in their shoes, and whether or not that makes them evil is beyond the scope this thread.
What I'm wondering is, do you think that Microsoft and all their new software projects, might push them into a position like IBM's, where the consumers start to leave them and go for more open and less restrictive packages?
Or are the modern day consumers to un-aware of what happens to them to notice or care what goes on in that little beige (or whatever colour) box on their desk?
This is of course what caused the term IBM compatible, mostly not used anymore, these days it's usually Wintel or something to the effect of MS or Intel compatible.
Now, what happened, I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember...but IBM started trying to push the Micro Channel Bus, using their clout to try and shove it. It was expensive, and it was proprietary. They had graphics cards and what not that were all Micro Channel specific.
Many of you have quite possibly not even heard of this bus, but I'm sure most of you have heard of it's competitor, the ISA bus. This was a much more open, universal standard that everyone could use equally. IBM tried to use their clout to force Microchannel on us, but the industry moved away from IBM and adopted the ISA bus instead.
I'm not saying that this is the sole reason IBM declined from power, what I am saying is that even though they were totally in charge of the industry, they couldn't use their position to force people to adopt their proprietary architecture.
No, several years later, it seems history will repeat itself. But the circumstances are somewhat different. Microsoft is in a very dominant position in the PC market, much like IBM was all that time ago; however, the market is much larger, and (not trying to give offense to anyone, but it's true) your average PC user is probably much less aware now.
But the situation also is similar in many ways. Microsoft is trying to use their situation to push their own initiatives that will ultimately lead to higher costs and less choice for the consumer, much like the Micro Channel bus would have (non-IBM folk would have had to pay big license fees to IBM, and you can bet your butt those costs would be passed on to the consumer).
I'm not trying to say Microsoft is evil or anything of the sort, they may be or they may not, they are just doing what almost any other company would do in their shoes, and whether or not that makes them evil is beyond the scope this thread.
What I'm wondering is, do you think that Microsoft and all their new software projects, might push them into a position like IBM's, where the consumers start to leave them and go for more open and less restrictive packages?
Or are the modern day consumers to un-aware of what happens to them to notice or care what goes on in that little beige (or whatever colour) box on their desk?
Facebook
Twitter