Post by firstname.lastname@example.org
Another part was that S/360 was very successful and IBM
was unable to meet demand.
Another part was that IBM wasn't cheap. IBM gave full
support, but at a price. Later, after unbundling, IBM
was more competitive.
Of course, a third party company was exploiting IBM's
research and development. But there were risks--they
could make a lot of money, but if IBM upgraded its
hardware, they could lose a lot of money.
Tom Watson Jr initially had the attitude that IBM
was entitled to own virtually the entire DP marketplace.
He enacted policies got IBM sued. Later he woke up
and changed their policies, so when the govt sued, IBM
rise and fall of ibm
article ... mention coutmeasure to clone controllers&devices
IBM tried to react by launching a major project called the 'Future
System' (FS) in the early 1970's. The idea was to get so far ahead
that the competition would never be able to keep up, and to have such
a high level of integration that it would be impossible for
competitors to follow a compatible niche strategy. However, the
project failed because the objectives were too ambitious for the
available technology. Many of the ideas that were developed were
nevertheless adapted for later generations. Once IBM had acknowledged
this failure, it launched its 'box strategy', which called for
competitiveness with all the different types of compatible
sub-systems. But this proved to be difficult because of IBM's cost
structure and its R&D spending, and the strategy only resulted in a
partial narrowing of the price gap between IBM and its rivals.
End of ACS/360, IBM executives worried that it would advance the
state-of-art too fast and they would loose control of the market. Amdahl
leaves IBM shortly afterwards and starts his own clone processor
Note that internal politics during the FS period was stopping/shutting
down 370 efforts (because FS was completely different and was going to
completely replace 370). The lack of new 370 products during the FS
period is credited with giving clone processor makers market foothold.
23jun1969 unbundling posts
future system posts
clone controller trrivia: 3 people from science center installed
(virutal machine) CP67 at the univ. last weekend jan1968.
It had 2741&1052 terminal support with automatic terminal type
identification. The univ. had some number of ascii/tty terminals and so
I extended the support to ascii/tty (including auto-terminal type
identification, using the IBM terminal controller SAD CCW to switch port
terminal type scanner). I then wanted to extend to having a single
dial-up number of all terminal types (hunt group) ... but it didn't
quiet work, while SAD command allowed switching scanner type, all ports
had fixed hardwired port speed (could dynamically connect terminals to
any port with wrong speed).
This was motivation for the univ. to start clone controller project,
building controler channel attach board for Interdata/3 programmed to
emulate IBM terminal controller ... but including support for doing
dynamic line speed. This was then enhanced with a Interdata/4 for the
channel interface and cluster of Interdata/3s for port scanners ... and
Interdata started selling them as IBM clone controllers (later under
Perkin/Elmer logo after they bought Interdata). Four of us get written
up responsible for (some part of) clone controller business
science center posts
clone controller posts
tty support trivia ... I did hack using 1byte field for tty/ascii
terminal lengths. IBM had included the support in standard distributed
system. One of the cp67 installations in bldg. across the court from 545
in tech sq ... somebody got a ascii plotter down at harvard, needing
1200? byte line length. The just change max length field to 1200, but
not the rest of the code ... so the system would crash as soon as tty
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970