23 Dec
2013
23 Dec
'13
1:07 p.m.
I think you're trying to lump together 20 to 30 years of industry trends,
and doing it with one single question. You're probably going to have a hard
time.
Individual computer companies for specific brand computers don't start to
become the anomaly until the middle to late nineties. Once commoditization
takes hold with regard to computer parts, boutique brands don't stand a
chance. By the early 2000's, pretty much every single component of a wintel
system can be purchased from a massive variety of vendors. From there is a
race to the bottom, and an effortless process who have one specific system
dominate the landscape.
Apple, you might recall, nearly died in the process. Their profit margin
was always legendarily high, and this floated them. But like I said,
companies that were holding a sliver of the world with a superior yet not
ubiquitous architecture find themselves either niche markets or
exterminated.
This is all, by the way the most rough napkin sketch of what happened. A
number of excellent books have been written over the years studying the
computer industry from the 1960's onward.
On Dec 23, 2013 12:09 PM, "BE Arnold" <bearnold at outlook.com> wrote:
I think I'm missing something.
For the sake of differentiating between, I'm going lump the Altair's,
SWTPC, etc. into the Microcomputer group, Apple II's Atari's etc. in Home
Computers, and IBM PC and compatibles in IBM PC group.
I have a question.
Why did microcomputers die off?
I've been thinking about that this morning and I seem to be missing
something.
To my experience, the microcomputers started to really fade out around the
time home computers got big. But to me these are two different market
segments with some, but not a whole lot of overlap.
Had the microcomputer market hit saturation by that time? That's the only
thing I can come up with.
But then what sustained business until the IBM PC steamroller came along?
I guess it was mostly the unglamorous and unreported on microcomputers, as
I don't think the Apple II got /that/ deep into businesses (other home
computers had next to no penetration).
Ah, hmm, maybe I am over generalizing the microcomputer group. Maybe it
should actually be split into two, the hobbyist micros and the business
micros?
While they tended to use the same machines, the focus was different I
think.
That would tend to agree with my supposition above that the hobbyist micro
market hit saturation, and the business micro market quietly chugged along
until steamrolled.
And that would imply that the home computer group had next to no impact on
either of the microcomputer groups.
Or am I missing a piece, or two, to this puzzle?
Thanks,
Brad