The IBM Personal Computer, commonly known as the IBM PC, is the original version and progenitor of the IBM PC compatible hardware platform. IBM developed their first PC in 1981. It was created by a team of professional computer engineers and designers under the direction of top engineering management from IBM Entry Systems Division in Boca Raton, Florida.
IBM completely missed the fast-growing minicomputer market during the 1970s and devoted their efforts to the main frame market. IBM management saw the potential of the products like the Commodore PET, Atari 8-bit family, Apple II, Tandy Corporation's TRS-80s, and various CP/M machines. IBM did not want to be shut out of the new personal computer market, then dominated by the small computers from startup companies. Pushed by this competition from these small startup companies, rather than going through the usual IBM design process, a special team was assembled with authorization to bypass normal company restrictions and get something to market rapidly. This project was given the code name Project Chess at the IBM Entry Systems Division in Boca Raton, Florida. The team consisted of twelve people directed by Estridge, with Chief Designer Lewis Eggebrecht. At the time, this new product was not considered a threat to the main IBM product lines, but the PC turned out to be a mainframe killer. IBM had the clout to impose hardware and software standardization into the PC marketplace. Instead of proprietary components, the team decided to speed development by building the machine with "off-the-shelf" parts from a variety of different original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and countries. This open product development approach was a fatal mistake. To avoid the same fate that befell IBM, the unwritten law of corporate behavior is to insure that the corporate product line is ALWAYS proprietary. Open source standardization is vigorously resisted by corporate management. Proprietary product development is the key to corporate acceptance of the LENR paradigm. As is true on the internet today, open standards minimize profits through the support of unlimited cut throat competition. The capital equipment owned by corporations provides capital flow. It is this profit margin that comes with this revenue that must be protected and the equipment that produces it. Corporate finance is required to optimally develop LENR technology. To guarantee optimum R&D capital funding levels that corporate profit incentives support, LENR must retain its proprietary standing for the 20 years of intellectual capital protection that patent law provides. After that, LENR will become ubiquitous, widely understood, and widely applied throughout industry and business. When you remove the means for making a profit, you destroy the motive for new product development and the revenue that supports that development. The definition of obsolete equipment is equipment that can no longer make a profit. Detroit was abandoned because it could no longer make money. If 1980s IBM mainframes and DEC minicomputers could still make money with good margins, this equipment and the people that ran them would still be in use. On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > I have often read the argument that we cannot "afford" to abandon our oil > production facilities, or we cannot afford to replace all automobiles. This > is wrong because we do abandon and replace all oil refinery equipment over > time, probably 20 or 30 years. We replace nearly every car on the road in > about 9 to 12 years (depending on the economy). > > We also abandon hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure, > buildings, houses and so on before it wears out and has to replaced. > > Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The systems that have developed over the centuries cannot be overturned >> in a shocking overnight revolution of disruption. >> > Here are some photos of Detroit, MI.: > > > http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2011/jan/02/photography-detroit > > They show billions of dollars worth of buildings and infrastructure that > have been abruptly abandoned. Libraries with thousands of books, schools, > hospitals . . . all rotting away. It has all gone to waste. > > In any rural district in Japan you will find depopulated areas with > abandoned roads, collapsed houses, abandoned factories and schools. > Billions and billions of dollars worth of stuff. > > No one claims that we cannot afford to abandon Detroit. On the contrary, > we cannot afford to maintain it, because fewer people want to live there. > > When cold fusion replaces a third of gasoline powered cars, the others > will soon be abandoned the same way Detroit has been. Yes, it will be a > waste of still-useful equipment, but that is what always happens when > technology changes. Not only can we afford it, it is actually cheaper than > trying to maintain obsolete equipment. If it was not cheaper to abandon > obsolete but still serviceable machines, we wouldn't abandon them. We would > still be cranking up 1980s IBM mainframes and DEC minicomputers. I am > pretty sure most of them would still work if they existed intact. (Most > have been recycled.) > > - Jed > >
