To: Paul Engel who wrote (58270 ) 6/18/1998 3:12:00 PM From: Burt Masnick Read Replies (4) | Respond to
Paul, There was no Silicon Investor back then, but I do recall all the conversations among some Data Processing types that (depending on the speaker) Univac was "better" than IBM, SDS-Xerox was "better" than IBM, Control Data was "better" than IBM, NEC was "better" than IBM, Burroughs was "better" than IBM, etc. My point is that there while there was room in the market for others besides IBM, it was insanely difficult for the investor to earn real profits betting on anyone but IBM from 1955 to about 1980. And what maimed IBM was a near total lack of IBM top management appreciation of the meaning of their own invention, the personal computer with the IBM label (at least at first). (I recall that the CEO of IBM before Gerstner was REALLY proud of the fact that he didn't have a PC in his office and didn't know how to/wouldn't have used it if one were there.) If there had been a silicon investor way back then, the IBM thread would have been full of detailed explanations (from 1955 on) as to why IBM was doomed since the xyz (take your pick) computer was "clearly" superior and cost less to boot.
