[inforoots] Open versus Closed Architecture

[Dick & Joyce Weaver]

Bill Selmeier wrote:
> I always found it curious that IBM with the exception of disks, tapes 
> and some printers, managed to keep most of their internal architecture 
> secret, ended up with the PC design that was so open and replicable by 
> many outside the company.  While conversely Apple started with an open 
> architecture on the Apple II and ended up with the rather closed 
> architecture of the Macintosh.
>
> With an early key development engineer in the IBM PC and the Lab 
> Manager for Boca Raton at the time on this list, maybe we can get the 
> IBM decision making clarified.
>
> Bill
>
> ************************************************************************
I was never part of the PC projects however I recall asking a similar 
question at some meeting with those folks.  My question was why so many 
companies were making add ons to the PC when IBM could have had it all.  
Their answer was that it was deliberate, IBM did the PC in such a way 
that lots of people could make lots of money selling lots of  PC based 
products.

That doesn't clarify the decision making, only that it was deliberate, 
not an accident. Turned out to be a winning, by some measures,  strategy. 

dick w