Forgot your password?
Chyist Dec 7, 1998 M
Document Actions
========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 15:47:26 -0800
Reply-To: jahlstro@cisco.com
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: John Ahlstrom <jahlstro@CISCO.COM>
Organization: Cisco
Subject: Re: CM> Winners and losers
X-To: WJMiller@US.IBM.COM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
Wesley Miller wrote:
>What drove the lesser product ahead? The better on behind? It can't always be cost or ease of use. Is there a mindset at play? Did the press bias the public? Bias against IBM?
>
And he wrote a lot more which I will also try to answer. But this cries out for immediate response.
I grew up in this industry in the 60s and 70s when the industry (and I believe media) bias was tremendously pro-IBM, not anti-IBM. This was the time when 'no one was ever fired for buying IBM'.
No, I do not have the study of papers, trade rags, ... of the time to demonstrate this. I do have the memory of continuous discussions like:
If you think IBM doesn't have what you need, you need to rethink what you need.
Whatever the good/better/bestness of the IBM products IBM claimed and actually delivered whatever level of service was needed to solve any immediate customer problem, providing weekend staff, moving customer files and programs to IBM machines, ... whatever was required. Most other companies did not have the wealth, staff to do that.
Let's make this the start of a serious study of the relation of quality (and its definition) vs success.
After we start enumerating where we thing quality has lost, we should read Davidow's *Marketing High Technology* to see one case where this (might have) occurred.
(In several of the cases Wesley cited, I suggest there is a basic principal that to come from behind a product has to be several times better than an entrenched one, while to win a race starting at the same time, a much smaller margin is needed.)
John Ahlstrom
--
Add Simplicity
adapted from
Heinemann's "Add Lightness"
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: jahlstro@cisco.com
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: John Ahlstrom <jahlstro@CISCO.COM>
Organization: Cisco
Subject: Re: CM> Winners and losers
X-To: WJMiller@US.IBM.COM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
Wesley Miller wrote:
>What drove the lesser product ahead? The better on behind? It can't always be cost or ease of use. Is there a mindset at play? Did the press bias the public? Bias against IBM?
>
And he wrote a lot more which I will also try to answer. But this cries out for immediate response.
I grew up in this industry in the 60s and 70s when the industry (and I believe media) bias was tremendously pro-IBM, not anti-IBM. This was the time when 'no one was ever fired for buying IBM'.
No, I do not have the study of papers, trade rags, ... of the time to demonstrate this. I do have the memory of continuous discussions like:
If you think IBM doesn't have what you need, you need to rethink what you need.
Whatever the good/better/bestness of the IBM products IBM claimed and actually delivered whatever level of service was needed to solve any immediate customer problem, providing weekend staff, moving customer files and programs to IBM machines, ... whatever was required. Most other companies did not have the wealth, staff to do that.
Let's make this the start of a serious study of the relation of quality (and its definition) vs success.
After we start enumerating where we thing quality has lost, we should read Davidow's *Marketing High Technology* to see one case where this (might have) occurred.
(In several of the cases Wesley cited, I suggest there is a basic principal that to come from behind a product has to be several times better than an entrenched one, while to win a race starting at the same time, a much smaller margin is needed.)
John Ahlstrom
--
Add Simplicity
adapted from
Heinemann's "Add Lightness"
______________________________________________________________________
