Quote:
Originally posted by fastpat
Conversely, IBM, arguably the largest computer corporation on the planet when microcomputers began; didn't have any real method to regulate the startups out of existence. Apple flourished, and others, because it took IBM a long time to get a handle on this issue. by the time they did, attempting to get legislation on pollution caused by computer manufacturing, it was years too late, and the manufacturing had largely moved offshore negating their leverage.
Just two examples among thousands.
|
Fastpat, I don't generally follow all of the references that you alude to, but in this case it really resonated with me since I've so far spent my 20 year professional career in the electronics industry. Your statement is such a gross simplification as to be complete useless as an example. But somehow I'm not surprised.
1) You are correct, IBM was the indisputedly the largest computer company in the world in the 60's and 70's. It was entirely built on the room filling main-frame computer type product.
2) Apple -- in spite of the attractive innovation and marketing of their product have never been able to do anything about it. They did develop the "PC" product, but IBM and friends (read Microsoft and Intel) were able to collectively push themselves down the learning curve faster then Apple, not just in the product technology, but also and more importantly in the manufacturing process technology that many laymen don't appreciate.
3) There used to be a very large segment of the industry for mid-sized computers (DEC, DG), work stations (HP, Sun, Prime, Compugraphic) and Word Processors (Wang). These markets disappeared as the increasing functionality and decreasing cost of the PC (see my comments about IBM and friends above) made these mid-sized solutions unattractive for customers compared to desk-top PCs. As a result, with one exception all of these companies are now gone or moved out of the hardware market.
4) Compac developed the original portable (luggable?) PC. But because of their superior process technologies, IBM and friends were able to jump into that market after the fact and develop a model that was as good or better then Compac's, but with better manufacturing efficiences. Compac is now gone too and the world has moved to lap top PC's. In many respect's IBM's original market (mainframes) is largely gone -- replaced by products which are essentially or physically networks of desktop computers.
5) Ultimate, what did in IBM's PC business was a start-up company with better process technology. That company was Dell, started by a college drop-out in his dormatory (as well as a resurgent Compac for a while). His process technology? Outsource most of the manufacturing process to his suppliers and focus on the order management and full-fillment process. Once again, IBM was the dinosaur with it's billions of dollars of investments in factories. In order to compete, they did the only thing that they could and sold their PC manufacturing business since it was no longer a competitive advantage.
6) Curiously (or maybe not), Apple is still with us and doing OK by leveraging their traditional strengths -- Innovative products and strong marketing. While they still make PCs, the future of the company appears to be based on other unexpected and innovative products such as the Ipod.
So your analogy was just flat wrong on at least a couple of counts:
1) " Apple flourished, and others, because it took IBM a long time to get a handle on this issue." -- Not true. Where are they now? Except for Apple, and consolidated HP/Compac/Dec, they're all gone.
2) "by the time they did, attempting to get legislation on pollution caused by computer manufacturing," -- Wrong again. IBM has as much or more to lose by this regulation. Generally these regulations are driven by European countries and more recently the EU. In fact, in addition to the enviromental benefits which always play well in Europe, I suspect that they were also partially concieved as barriers to IBM to protect the European PC market which included companies like Siemens, Ericsson and Nixdorf. Needless to say, that particular part of the strategy didn't work.
The predominant factor that has influenced this market was largely unfettered competition. Even when market barriers were put in place, the creative capabilities of entrepaneurs, engineers and managers in the marketplace quickly embraced (in the case of green inititives) or side-stepped the changes. As a side note, Unions have played little if any part in the micro-electronics and PC market environment.
Putting the IBM example next to the automotive example and I'm completely baffled what point you were trying to make. The two industries are on completely different portions of their lifecycles and have very different levels of government involvement.