What if Microsoft Never Existed, Part 2: A Destiny Destroyed
In 1981 many important events occurred. Moments after Reagan was elected President of the United States, Iran released its 52 American hostages, they had been held for 444 days. After 19 years of hosting the CBS Evening News, Walter Cronkite signed off for the last time. In an attempt to impress Jodie Foster (yes, she was hot, but not that hot), John Hinckley Jr. shoots President Reagan. The first space shuttle was launched by NASA, it was named the Columbia. Maya Ying’s design for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was chosen. The first recorded cases of AIDS appeared in Los Angeles. Lady Diana Spencer wed Charles, Prince of Wales. MTV aired for the first time. Paris Hilton, Eli Manning, Britney Spears, Josh Groban and Jessica Alba were born. Joe Louis, Bob Marley, Will Durant, Anwar Sadat and Natalie Wood died.
And on August 12, 1981 International Business Machines (IBM), after failed negotiations with Digital Research, awarded a contract to a small software company based out of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The contract? Provide an operating system for their new line of personal computers. The company? A small 11-man outfit called Microsoft. The single most pivotal event in the history of modern computing had just occurred, and no one would realize it for almost another two decades.
But what if things had gone differently? They very nearly did. After all, Microsoft was by no means IBM’s first choice. Digital Research was the company that Big Blue was after and it was only following failed negotiations and a looming launch date that IBM turned to Microsoft in hopes that it could provide an adequate OS for their new line of machines. Scenarios like this beg us the question, what if?
What if Digital Research had been chosen instead of Microsoft? What would the modern computing landscape look like? Would DR hold the same position MS does today? Would Apple have been able to increase its market share at IBM’s expense? Could CP/M have rivaled the Mac OS for ease of use? And where would the Amiga be? Or what about Microsoft? Would it have stayed alive by marketing its office suite for Apple’s new Macintosh computers? What if, indeed.
And yet, while those are all very interesting questions, a wider view is needed to fully appreciate the scope of such musings. When one contemplates the non-existence of Microsoft, or otherwise attempts to remove them as a significant factor, one is faced with the realization that for better or for worse, Microsoft has been both the driving and unifying force in this industry for the last 20 years. And so, “removing them” creates an enormous wave of change that requires us to completely rewrite the last 20 years of computing history.
Consider this: Microsoft profoundly affected an emerging industry. It is also clear that without this influence the current state of the computer industry would be radically different that it actually is. Keeping this in mind, and evaluating all likely outcomes based on current trends, would the world be better off if Microsoft had never existed?
While it is obvious that certain companies would be better off if MS never existed, would the world benefit more, or less? And in what ways? It can be argued that without Microsoft there would be considerably fewer security concerns. But it is also possible that hardware and software prices would have remained too high for average consumers, limiting PCs to a niche market of academics, industry, military and the rich.
If IBM had chosen Digital Research it is quite probable that DR would have become very successful. Initially, it seems likely that DR would follow the same path that Microsoft chose. Once the clones of IBM’s PCs flooded the market DR would have chosen (just as Microsoft did) to license its technology to anyone who could pay the fees. But while this would make them successful, and maybe even dominant, it wouldn’t guarantee them the monopoly status that MS enjoys today.
A good way to look at the differences in the two companies is to harken back to the 12th century. It is possible that another warrior could have arisen to lead the Mongols. It is also possible that this counter-factual leader would have seized power over his people. However, it seems unlikely that any leader but Ghengis Khan could come close to being as powerful, as effective and as deadly. From the ravages through Russia and across Europe no other leader since has conquered so much in such a short span of time. And the notion that two such men could have existed is almost impossible.
In the same manner it seems unlikely that Digital Research would reach the current position of today’s Microsoft. Because for that to happen Digital Research would have had to blatantly steal from competitors and partners alike. Digital Research would have had to continually act in an immoral and often times illegal manner to preserve its position. They would have needed to have, as a corporate policy, an attitude of indifference to the anti-trust laws of this country and a willingness to crush anyone who stood in their way. In short, I doubt they had the will, or the leadership, to be so evil for so long.
Thus, if IBM had chosen Digital Research, then they would most likely have become a successful company, but not a monopoly. This would have left the field open for many other companies that offered a wide variety of products. Who would have prevailed?
Part 1: What if Microsoft never existed?
Part 2: A Destiny Destroyed
Part 3: Amiga, Apple, HP, Dell and IBM, Hardware Without the “Microsoft Tax”
Part 4: Apple, Amiga, BeOS, Linux and Unix, how the Other Operating Systems Fared
Part 5: Intel, AMD, Motorola and IBM, Rise of the Machines
Part 6: Where Could We Be?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I’d read somewhere that the key point about the Microsoft deal was that IBM wanted exclusive rights to the operating system but Gates refused (sensing that IBM was desperate).
So even if DR had got the deal then the chances are they wouldn’t have been able to exploit the situation in the way that MS did because they would have been tied in contractually.
Actually, the Vietnam Memorial was designed by Maya Lin, not “Maya Ying.”
After all, Microsoft was by no means IBM’s first choice. Digital Research was the company that Big Blue was after and it was only following failed negotiations and a looming launch date that IBM turned to Microsoft in hopes that it could provide an adequate OS for their new line of machines.
That’s not true. IBM went to Microsoft FIRST, but Microsoft wrote languages, not operating systems, so it was Microsoft who referred IBM to Digital Research. IBM was turned away by Digital Research and then went back to Microsoft.
Because for that to happen Digital Research would have had to blatantly steal from competitors and partners alike. Digital Research would have had to continually act in an immoral and often times illegal manner to preserve its position.
To deny that this would have happened is to deny that DR would have behaved essentially as EVERY OTHER corporation in America reacts to a strong market position. Look at the big four record labels. Look at the oil industry. Look at Bell. And finally look at Apple, which despite not being Microsoft, has managed to gain a monopoly on the portable mp3 market AND the digital music store market. And Apple ain’t exactly got a clean record when it comes to stealing from other companies.
I heard that on a certain day of important negotiations with IBM, the head of DR saw that the winds were perfect and he went hang-gliding.
While I like that attitude… I could see why IBM would be annoyed. Who knows if the story is true?
While I like that attitude… I could see why IBM would be annoyed. Who knows if the story is true?
According to Jack Sams, who was one of the IBM reps at the meeting with DR, basically what happened was that DR refused to sign IBM’s non-disclosure and then sent them away, back to Microsoft. It’s entirely possible that Gary Kildall’s other plans were hang-gliding, but I’m not sure.
And again, it’s important to note that Microsoft was in fact IBM’s first choice (not realizing that MS didn’t make OS’s) and that it was Bill Gates who set up the meeting with Kildall. It was Kildall who let that opportunity slip through his fingers and Gates who was there waiting to pounce.
And again, it’s important to note that Microsoft was in fact IBM’s first choice (not realizing that MS didn’t make OS’s) and that it was Bill Gates who set up the meeting with Kildall. It was Kildall who let that opportunity slip through his fingers and Gates who was there waiting to pounce.
Amazing isn’t it? Bill passed on the greatest opportunity of his life. But as fate would have it, he got a second chance. I wonder how many years he had nightmares for, waking up in terror, having dreamt DR didn’t turn IBM away?
So Bill was once human? A guy who did the right thing? This is such an interesting side story. A whole other Bill we don’t hear much about. I guess that’s where his philanthropic projects stem from.
So Bill was once human? A guy who did the right thing?
I wouldn’t go that far. Microsoft didn’t have anything to give IBM. They wrote languages; operating systems weren’t their business. As Bill Gates tells it, his feeling when IBM came back to him after being rejected by DR was that “someone has to do it, it might as well be us.” Microsoft simply wasn’t in the “operating system” mindset, so there wasn’t any particular reason for them to try and seize that business; until, that is, DR dropped the ball. They then famously bought DOS for $50,000 from a guy Paul Allen knew.
As for “doing the right thing,” I don’t imagine any of these guys, including Steve Jobs (if not particularly Steve Jobs) is all that motivated by moral high ground. After all, Xerox did end up suing Apple for stealing their GUI, and then Apple turned around and sued Microsoft for doing the same thing to them. Jobs has all these fun little quips, like “good artists copy, great artists steal,” until someone does it him, then he whips out the lawyers just like all of them do.
I’m not a huge Steve Jobs fan but when Apple sued Microsoft he was long gone. During the Microsoft suit Steve went as far as to say that the gui was something he felt you could not copyright.
“blatantly steal from competitors and partners alike”
...what a crock of you know what. Haven’t you heard there’s no such thing as true invention. We all create based on what we have already seen and then add our piece to it. Apple didn’t create the mp3 player…only made it better and the mp3 player is really derivative of the original sony walkman. Apple is certainly not above taking someone else’s idea and running with it.
I’m neither pro nor anti microsoft but they’ve done a great job and had Apple somehow assumed Microsoft’s lofty position, Apple would not be much different than they in their market restricting practices. Just look at the iPod. They’re not about to give up their dominant position and will do anything they have to to maintain their defacto monopoly.
Apple might have in fact been more monopolistic than Microsoft and that’s no stretch.
I’m not a huge Steve Jobs fan but when Apple sued Microsoft he was long gone.
Not “long gone” exactly, but you’re right about him not being there. Jobs quit in 1985, the same year Apple sued Microsoft (the first time).
But I don’t think it’s any less true that Jobs, and to a large extent his minions, has clear double-standards when it comes to Apple ripping off its competitors/partners vs its competitors/partners ripping off Apple.
True Beeb. Last year Apple were complaining about countries imposing iPod taxes and then they turned around and imposed their own iPod tax on third-party developers!!