[inforoots] Open versus Closed Architecture

Sat May 3 16:01:11 PDT 2008

This is a fascinating topic and I have lectured on it many time.  The 
story is too long for an e-mail but I will try to summarize the key 
events that lead up to the introduction of the IBM PC.  There had been 
several attempts by IBM to develop a desk top computer beginning with 
the IBM 5100 in 1975, the 5110 in 1978 and then the 5120 in 1980.  
While moderately successful none of these systems could be built to 
casts that would compete with the emerging Apple II.  In addition the 
products were slanted to the customers and applications that the IBM 
sales force was comfortable with.  The IBM Chairman, Frank Carey, was 
very concerned that what was emerging was an entirely new class of 
product that IBM was not equipped to deal with.  Proposals brought 
forth by the Boca Raton laboratory were shot down by the bureaucracy 
because the costs could not be met or the product was not viewed as 
marketable by the IBM sales force.  In 1980, after a review of the 
latest proposal the Chairman edicted that the product development would 
proceed as a 'skunk works' effort reporting directly to the Chairman 
and without any involvement of the functional divisions.  This meant 
that the technology, manufacturing and marketing arms were outside the 
scope of this project. Standard IBM technology was too expensive for a 
product intended to compete with the Apple II and other emerging 
competitors.  In fact the only IBM component that found its way into 
the PC was the keyboard.  Since the product was aimed at a new, 
emerging, market and a new distribution channel it was not possible to 
anticipate all the devices that would would be attached to the system.  
Therefore the decision to modularize and externalize the primary system 
interfaces.  The decision to develop a new retail distribution system a 
la Computerland was a fundamental part of the product strategy.  An 
understanding of the internal structure of IBM is important to 
understanding the genesis and underlying concept of this disruptive 
product.

Brian Utley
utleyb at aol.com

-----Original Message-----

From: Herbert Kanner <kanner at acm.org>

To: inforoots at computerhistory.org

Sent: Sat, 3 May 2008 3:28 pm

Subject: [inforoots] Open versus Closed Architecture

=======================================

Posts to inforoots at computerhistory.org is information known to or the 
opinions of the poster.  All posts to inforoots at computerhistory.org are 
archived.  By posting to this list you grant a license for use of this 
material to the Computer History Museum located in Mountain View, 
California, USA.

=======================================

Re the IBM PC having an open architecture. This is just a medley of

info that I've heard from other docents.--

IBM was a bit on the fence about going into personal computers. They

were not sure whether the idea would fly. Hence, their investment in

the project was to be minimal compared to other projects. Notably,

this was the only IBM product at the time where major components,

i.e. CPU and OS were not made in house. So, the 8080 chip could be

bought by anyone. Also, the DOS license was not exclusive; Microsoft

was free to sell it to others. I don't know whether this was mandated

by Microsoft, or whether the price for an exclusive license was more

than IBM was willing to pay.

I say again, this is just a hearsay collection, and I will be glad to

see corrections and/or amplifications.

Herb

--

Herbert Kanner

kanner at acm.org

650-326-8204

Do not meddle in the affairs of cats,

for they are subtle and will pee

on your computer!

_______________________________________________

inforoots mailing list

inforoots at computerhistory.org

http://mail.computerhistory.org/mailman/listinfo/inforoots