PDA

View Full Version : The famous "Welcome IBM, Seriously" Apple Ad


MacBytes
Nov 18, 2005, 11:37 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: The famous "Welcome IBM, Seriously" Apple Ad (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051118123734)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Marky_Mark
Nov 18, 2005, 01:40 PM
There are two morals to this particular story:

1. That'll teach Apple to act like smart-arses

2. Never rest on your laurels

kgarner
Nov 18, 2005, 01:54 PM
One point to rememeber is that it wasn't IBM that put the hurt on Apple. It was Microsoft and their agreement with IBM to retain rights to the operating system. This allowed them to license it to whoever they wanted. It was the wealth of IBM-compatible systems that hurt Apple. Still your point about never rest on your laurels is a good one.

nagromme
Nov 18, 2005, 02:19 PM
I know the first personal computer I ever heard of was the IBM PC. I always assumed the Apple II, PET, CBM, VIC-20, Timex Sinclair, TRS-80, TI-99/4A, and other popular monstrosities of my childhood came afterwards :)

Still, did that ad do what it was meant to do? Play off the IBM entry to sell more Apples? If so, it was a successful ad.

Marky_Mark
Nov 18, 2005, 02:23 PM
Still, did that ad do what it was meant to do? Play off the IBM entry to sell more Apples? If so, it was a successful ad.

Not really, no. Hence Apple's market share for about the last 20 years...

cwtnospam
Nov 18, 2005, 02:42 PM
Not really, no. Hence Apple's market share for about the last 20 years...
Yes really. Of all the smaller computer companies, who else from that era is still around?

Apple's market share relative to the rest of the industry is small, but compared to other computer companies, it is significant. What's more, none of the Wintel computer companies are in command of their own fate. They're all me-too companies that can't innovate without becoming incompatible with the rest, so they must always react with the rest to Apple's innovations.

cwtnospam
Nov 18, 2005, 02:44 PM
I know the first personal computer I ever heard of was the IBM PC. I always assumed the Apple II, PET, CBM, VIC-20, Timex Sinclair, TRS-80, TI-99/4A, and other popular monstrosities of my childhood came afterwards :)
Well the Timex Sinclair did come out after the PC, and it was a piece of junk. Even worse than the PC! ;)

shamino
Nov 18, 2005, 03:52 PM
I know the first personal computer I ever heard of was the IBM PC. I always assumed the Apple II, PET, CBM, VIC-20, Timex Sinclair, TRS-80, TI-99/4A, and other popular monstrosities of my childhood came afterwards :)
IBM was the first to use the term "PC", but it wasn't the first "personal computer". Just in case you were not being sarcastic, here's a partial list of popular systems that shipped before the IBM PC:


1975

MITS's Altair 8080 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800)

1976

IMSAI's IMSAI 8080 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSAI_8080)
The Apple I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I)
Processor Technology's SOL (http://www.pc-history.org/sol.htm)

1977

SWTPC's M6800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWTPC)
The Apple II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_family)
Radio Shack's TRS-80 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80) (later known as the TRS-80 Model I)
Commodore's PET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_PET)

1978

The Atari 400/800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_family)

1980

Radio Shack's TRS-80 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80) models II and III
Commodore's VIC-20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_VIC-20)
Sinclair's ZX-80 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_ZX80) (before it was bought by Timex.)

1981

Texas Instruments's TI 99/4A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TI-99/4A)
IBM's PC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC) (model 5150)

portent
Nov 18, 2005, 04:10 PM
The ad may seem short-sighted and arrogant now, but I'm sure Apple knew just how dangerous IBM was. IBM was a huge multinational, billion-dollar company. IBM was synonymous with "computer" before most people had even seen a computer.

Apple could either roll over and die, or thumb its nose at the oncoming freight train. There was nothing else to be done.

One point to rememeber is that it wasn't IBM that put the hurt on Apple. It was Microsoft and their agreement with IBM to retain rights to the operating system.
In the beginning, it was absolutely IBM that put the hurt on Apple. Before the first clones, IBM basically owned the market. Business buyers wanted the IBM name, or at least something that promised 100% compatibility with IBM. Microsoft wasn't even in the picture; just a minor IBM supplier.

Even if IBM had chosen CP/M or some other operating system, Apple would have been up a creek.

Microsoft cleverly played the hand it was dealt, and ended up in a better position than IBM.

cwtnospam
Nov 18, 2005, 04:17 PM
Microsoft cleverly played the hand it was dealt, and ended up in a better position than IBM.
When you're dealt a Royal Flush, you don't need to be clever to play it and win. IBM was just plain stupid to lease DOS instead of buying it or something else.

nagromme
Nov 18, 2005, 04:27 PM
IBM was the first to use the term "PC", but it wasn't the first "personal computer". Just in case you were not being sarcastic, here's a partial list of popular systems that shipped before the IBM PC:
Thanks for the list. (I wasn't being sarcastic: at the time, I thought IBM was first--guess I never saw Apple's ad!--but I know better these days.)

balamw
Nov 18, 2005, 06:53 PM
Business buyers wanted the IBM name, or at least something that promised 100% compatibility with IBM.
I thought what really fueled the IBM PC explosion with business was the release of Lotus 1-2-3 (which almost instantly annihilated Visicalc) and the IBM PC/XT with its hard disk around 1983. But maybe I'm remebering things wrong.

I seem to remember that until ~1983 Apple held its own in terms of market share. Remember that there were plenty of other competitors out there like the C64, Atari and TRS-80 and such at the time. There was much less of a monoculture as there is today.

Of course then at the same time Apple started to stumble after the introduction of the Apple III and the Lisa, and by the time the Mac arrived on the scene it was already too late.

B

iMeowbot
Nov 18, 2005, 09:11 PM
I thought what really fueled the IBM PC explosion with business was the release of Lotus 1-2-3 (which almost instantly annihilated Visicalc) and the IBM PC/XT with its hard disk around 1983. But maybe I'm remebering things wrong.
Yes, you've basically got it, but in its first full year on sale (1982; 1981 is a little skewed because the PC went on sale in August) IBM had already nearly caught up with Apple II sales. 1-2-3 definitely helped its cause; from there on out PCs blew everything else out of the water, except for the far cheaper C64. Handy dandy link. (http://www.pegasus3d.com/total_share.html)

balamw
Nov 19, 2005, 12:55 AM
Yes, you've basically got it
Well I did live through it. ;) Excellent link!

1984 marked the end of my first love affair with Apple as I sold my IIe when I went to college. For a while my only computer was an HP 41CV calculator. I missed my IIe, but could not afford a Mac, so I bought a Commodore 128D in 1986 which lasted me until I broke down and formally joined the ranks of the PC users in 1988 with an 80186 based Tandy CGA machine just before grad school.

The only surprise to me from those stats is the huge number of Atari 400/800s sold during the early 80s. In 1982 they sold twice as many of those as Apple II, IBM PC, Trash 80, and C64! The only thing that came close that year was the Timex/Sinclair, which also sold 600K units. The Atari's certainly were not as popular in Europe where I was living at the time. I remember among my friends we had 2 Apple fanatics, 1 TRS-80 and 1 Sinclair fanatic.

1985 was really the end of that early era of computing since about half of the computers sold were PCs and the "other" category evaporated, and unit sales of Apple computers (IIs and Macs combined) began to slip.

B

kex215
Nov 19, 2005, 09:31 AM
Is it scary that I have 2 of those computers on the list (Vic-20, TRS-80 II) in my basement? Along with a commodore 64?

And only one (the 64) was made after the year I was born? (1980)

copperpipe
Nov 19, 2005, 10:53 AM
"When you're dealt a Royal Flush, you don't need to be clever to play it and win."

Yeah but if you want to take all the other players money, you have to be very clever. Indeed, Microsoft outplayed Apple and IBM with their royal flush. They got Apple and IBM to put all their chips in the pot on that hand.

cwtnospam
Nov 20, 2005, 01:41 AM
"When you're dealt a Royal Flush, you don't need to be clever to play it and win."

Yeah but if you want to take all the other players money, you have to be very clever. Indeed, Microsoft outplayed Apple and IBM with their royal flush. They got Apple and IBM to put all their chips in the pot on that hand.
No they didn't.

IBM bet heavily on the hardware side. That was a stupid move on their part that was unrelated to Microsoft. If IBM had any sense at all, they would have bought another OS, like CP/M. They knew they could have, but they didn't. No credit to Microsoft for cleverness there.

With IBM finally in the personal computer market, Apple did the things they had to do. Microsoft was barely on the radar screen, so no credit for being "clever" with Apple either.

Marky_Mark
Nov 20, 2005, 04:40 PM
It didn't help that the Apple III was supremely badly built too - I remember reading that they had loose chips, and the heat-related expansion/contraction cycles led them to gradually work their way out of the sockets on the main board. Apple's advice, allegedly, was to lift the base unit up a couple of inches periodically and drop it smartly back onto a table top to reseat all the chips!

:eek:

Stinkythe1
Nov 20, 2005, 05:23 PM
1981

Texas Instruments's TI 99/4A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TI-99/4A)



Wow... I have one of those.