View Single Post
Old 09 March 2013, 03:19 AM
diddy diddy is offline
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928

Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Frankly, they just did it better than anyone else, where "better" is not necessarily something that I personally care for but the consumers voted with their wallets.
It's not as simple as that. MS got really lucky with IBM - linking DOS to IBM computers and the early IBM clones made PC's much more affordable. Back in the old days the business mantra was "nobody got fired by buying IBM".

Trouble was IBM thought that their name alone was good enough to keep buyers. Once IBM compatible systems came on the market and you can get DOS it was basically game over for everyone else. Microsoft then started its OEM agreements once they realized that they had something making it very difficult to get any traction. It wasn't so much that people voted with their wallet - MS got lucky with IBM missing the boat big time and giving them a huge advantage in the market. MS might have not gotten so big without cloning.

Of course there were other factors and "cheap computers running the same OS that the office uses" did play a factor in it, but MS did get very lucky with IBM which is what people were really attracted to. That and some pretty predatory licensing. Eventually consumer wallets went with MS since there was nobody left with any real advantages going for it.

ETA: That is all my recollection of what I have read from some brief history about MS dealings with IBM. I may have some facts wrong but my understanding is that without IBM, things could have been very different IMHO.
Reply With Quote