Anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on January 17, 2020 6:40 pm wrote:
> Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxx.xx) on January 17, 2020 1:59 pm wrote:
> > I see no evidence that MOS has a business master for the 6502 which only made
> > because MOS has a crystal ball and the foresight to realize the 6502 would end
> > up being used in million of personal computers, consoles, kit and caboodle.
> >
> > The 6502 was largely the brainchild of former 6800 designer Chuck Peddle.
> > He though there was some kind of market for a cheaper 6800 and ended
> > up leaving for MOS where the management was more receptive.
>
> 6502 was promoted by giving manuals to nerds, not just giving, allowing them to photocopy manuals to not
> pay for it, chips was show in jars, they had a pretty good idea of what was coming, unlike most of the
> industries, but to be honest, they didn't planned it all that well, adoption was slower than needed.

MOS had no idea.
MOS primary interest were ICs for calculators.
And the company was almost bankrupt and bought by Commodore before any of 3rd party 6502 based personal computers hit the market.

There was no great brilliant master plan at MOS.


>
> > As cheap as it was the IBM PC was sold at profit out of the gate.
> > The off the shelf components were cheap enough for that because the suppliers
> > of said components had volume and market to amortize their costs.
> >
> > If the PC was developed in house by IBM, IBM would have needed either to sell it at much higher
> > price to make a profit OR sell it as a loss leader until volume enables lower production costs.
>
> I am saying this for weeks now, the PC project at IBM had a low budget, they tried to minimize
> development costs, management didn't expect it to sell in high volumes, if they had such a
> crystal ball, they would give the project a much higher budget and do it all in house.

First let me remind you that IBM went from deciding to enter the personal computer market to shipping the IBM PC in about 1 year.
This is not enough time to develop chips and the computer itself.
So you're talking about an alternate universe where IBM foresaw this many years ahead and
committed to the development of the platform in time for a 1981 release.

Secondly you keep brushing aside production costs.
Not only IBM would have had to invest much more money much earlier in the development of the platform but come the 1981 release IBM would also have had to commit to sell the IBM PC as a loss leader until volume allows for lower production costs.

This is actually the business model of modern gaming consoles but this business model only came to be after the gaming console business was well established.

>
> > People cloned the IBM PC because there were lots of users and it was possible to clone it.
> > And the PC had lots of users because soon the clone manufacturers started offering better deals than IBM.
>
> You stay in this chicken and egg paradox...
>
> The only reason to clone IBM PC was the software available to it, not the users,
> events happen in such way that IBM PC was the most advanced architecture at the
> time of software explosion, turning the IBM PC in the industry standard.

There is no chicken and egg paradox.
The first IBM PC clones reached the market a little over a year after the IBM PC.
The value of being backed by IBM and the benefits of the clones were a self re-enforcing virtuous cycle almost from the get go.
The growth of the IBM PC as industry standard platform is inseparable from the IBM PC clones.