<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Jay Lozier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jslozier@gmail.com" target="_blank">jslozier@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
One question always puzzled me, why would a computer manufacturer IBM<br>
not realize that any computer will need an OS and either write, buy, or<br>
license one from the start? Many of the OS problems of Windows can be<br>
traced to backwards compatibility issues with DOS. While MS catches all<br>
the blame IMHO IBM deserves a large percentage because of their<br>
incompetence and arrogance.<br></blockquote><div><br>I recommend reading "The Innovator's Dilemma" (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Essentials/dp/0060521996">http://www.amazon.com/The-Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Essentials/dp/0060521996</a>) by Christensen to understand this. The short answer is that IBM's entire business interests ran against supporting the personal computer market. When a new product type (with a different customer base) like this enters the market, it is rare that the incumbents can adjust. Digital never did and they are gone.<br>
<br>Actually, I think IBM deserves some kudos for coming in to the market, and actually dominating it for a while. They are now out of the desktop business, but they stuck around long enough to have adjusted to the new computing world well enough to be wildly successful, again. But it was a near thing. I remember when it looked like IBM was dying, just before Palmisano committed the company to using and supporting Linux. He basically bet the company on Linux, and won.<br>
<br>Michael<br></div></div>