The first part of this is off topic, but I'll eventually bring it back to EVs, so hang on.
Many folks here probably know about the part that IBM played in early PCs, but some may not realize that IBM was pretty late to the small computer party. The IBM PC didn't hit the market until the summer of 1981. Apple (1976), Commodore (1977), Radio Shack TRS-80 (1977), and Atari (1979) were all on the market with small computers well before IBM. Even these weren't the first. There were also many much smaller companies that built microcomputers in the mid- to late-1970s, while IBM was busy pushing mainframes. Probably the most famous is Altair (1974). Others I remember are Ohio Scientific, North Star, Cromemco, Morrow, Heathkit, and Compupro. The small companies were definitely the innovators, but other big companies got into micros well before IBM, including Olivetti, Siemens, and Sharp, with some modest success. The way these companies solved the problem of operating systems is interesting and maybe instructive for EVs. Some of them wrote their own, but in the 1970s, quite a few used CP/M from Digital Research. CP/M-86 (ported to the 8086) was also an option for the original IBM PC. However (IIRC), it cost $200 against $80 for PC-DOS, so guess which one won out. At the time, Microsoft was a small operation. IBM chose them to adapt QDOS to the PC, but IBM didn't buy exclusuve rights to the OS. Nor did they lock down their design. They actually published the BIOS source in the PC service manual. It probably would still have happened even if they tried to keep all this proprietary, but in any case, other companies (many overseas) developed work- alike hardware and BIOS code, in many cases with help from their governments. They (or their users) bought generic MS-DOS from Microsoft. The "clones" pretty much buried IBM, which eventually gave up the PC business. Consider: EVs are reportedly given relatively high priority in China right now. Assuming GM keeps building Volts and Bolts, will China do to GM what Taiwan did to IBM? Just a thought. The original IBM PC was a so-so machine, partly because it was rushed to market and partly because IBM's execs didn't really think it would go anywhere. Among other compromises, IBM used the cheap version of the Intel 8086, the 8088, with 16-bit internal architecture but an 8-bit external bus. But even with its weaknesses, the IBM PC caught on. Partly this was brand reputation. The saying in business used to be "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." But the major reason for its success was the spreadsheet Lotus 123, which was a big improvement on Visicalc. The "micro mantra" was "pick your software, then choose the hardware that runs it." Big-bucks execs who were annoyed with their data processing (DP) departments' slow response when they wanted information could have it at their desks. Lotus was the software they wanted, so the PC (and later its clones) was the hardware they bought. It gave them control over the information they needed. So the IBM PC (and later its clones) solved a problem and improved its owners' work lives. (And DP/IT has been clawing back that control ever since, but that's another issue.) In one way the Nissan Leaf, Mitsu Imiev, and maybe the Renault Zoe have parallels to the IBM PC. They're kind of "meh" as EVs go, but they "legitimize" the EV business, or at least try to. Where this parallel breaks down is that microcomputers and PCs solved a problem without having to compete against mainframes and minis. They found a different niche. OTOH, most EVs keep trying to compete against ICEVs head to head. And most of the problems EV solve don't directly and profoundly affect people who buy vehicles. EVs do have the potential to cost less than ICEVs, both to buy and to operate. But so far the automakers aren't trying very hard to make them cost less, and erasing their running cost advantages wouldn't take much, with legislators in the automakers' pockets. Thanks mostly to lobbying by billionaires with ties to petroleum, some US states are already making EV drivers pay extra taxes. (No good deed goes unpunished.) The other parallel you see a lot is Apple to Tesla. I think that one has more foundation. Teslas are fast, high tech cars. They don't exactly solve a vexing problem, but for a particular kind of driver/owner, they do have a distinct and palpable advantage over their ICEV counterparts. Execs happy with your desktop PCs, meet drivers with the EV grin. As it stands, though, if you take away the regulatory incentives that promote EVs over ICEVs as a public good, EVs' competitiveness will weaken even among Tesla buyers. For "family car" EVs, demand could fall off the cliff, pretty much leaving Tesla and the high performance market as the US "EV island." What could prevent or ameliorate that is if one or more of the mainstream manufacturers broke with the rest. Nissan, for example, might decide to forge ahead with their EVs, and arrive at economy of scale where their EVs are as profitable as GM's big ICEV trucks. If EV incentives survive in Europe and Asia, that could help this process. I know one thing for sure. The automakers whining to the US government and abandoning EVs will be left behind. It'll be just like when Nissan and Toyota kicked their butts with small cars in the wake of the 1970s fuel shortages. It would be nice to think that other EV companies could "pull a Tesla," but how likely is that? Note that most of the infant microcomputer companies from the late 1970s and early 1980s are long gone, and so are the EV builders (mostly conversion shops) from the same era. Jobs and Wozniak famously started Apple in a garage with a few hundred bucks. Many of the other computer innovators of the late 1970s and early 1980s started on shoestrings, too. The barrier to entry was low. And still, most of them flopped. The barrier to entry in vehicles is MUCH higher, for many reasons. Unlike Jobs and Woz, Elon Musk did NOT start Tesla in his garage, and he had to invest a chunk of his Paypal fortune to do it. Tesla is the scrappy outsider that is shaking up the auto industry with EVs. But their long term success isn't guaranteed. The more market share they take from the traditional automakers, the more the big guys will fight back. Detroit and Tokyo have a pile of money, which in the US buys political influience. I hope Tesla hangs in there -- I think we all do -- but they still have a tough road ahead. They may look like Apple in some ways, but t's not a given that they'll succeed long-term the same way Apple has. Still, I think they're our best chance to see EVs kept alive here in the US through the next decade. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to "evpost" and "etpost" addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/ Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
