🚀 go-pugleaf

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> In the 1950s and 1960s, computers were the hot growing thing,
> and a lot of companies got into them.  Some were large, some
> were small.
>
> Two big companies were GE and RCA.  Both had extensive product
> lines that already served industry, so they should've known how
> to market and support complex technical products.  GE, among
> other products, sold power plants.  RCA sold television stations.
>
> Anyone care to comment on what went wrong with them?

I've repeated periodically before ... one of the former co-workers said
his father was (economics professor) involved in the gov. anti-trust
case against IBM. He relates that executives from the other companies
testified that by the late 50s, all the computer makers realized that
product line compatibility was single most important factor (customer
computer uptake was rapidly expanding and increasingly, customers needed
to upgrade). They claimed that only IBM executives were able to force
plant managers (of different models in product line) to conform to
product line capatibility.

because customers were spending so much resources with upgrading
computers to handle increasing wirkload ... IBM had significant
marketing advantage with story about product line compatibility.

a few past refs:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006q.html#60 Was FORTRAN buggy?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#8 what does xp do when system is copying
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#45 360 programs on a z/10
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010b.html#14 360 programs on a z/10
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017h.html#50 System/360--detailed engineering description (AFIPS 1964)

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970