Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxx.xx) on January 18, 2020 7:42 am wrote:
> 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.
>
> Yes, the IBM name was a big thing that pushed the cloning. The clout of the name should not be underestimated. After the introduction of the IBM-PC there were other PC, that were better PC's that did not move crowds. Best example is Chuck Peddle's Victor 9000/Sirius 1, which was so much better than the IBM-PC, didn't kickstart a new industry. It was so much superior to the PC it's really a pity it did not catch on (8088@5 Mhz, MS-DOS, RAM up to 896KiB, graphics at 800x400, cool keyboard, HD floppies from the get go, etc. It was btw my first contact with MS-DOS 2.0 in 1982).
A propos Z8000, Olivetti had the M20 at that time and it was also superior to the PC, but the uncompatibility and simple pathway from the 8 bit software doomed its success directly. The ease of porting CP/M software to the PC was a big point of its succes.