Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:17:07 +0900

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim O'Reilly <tim@oreilly.com> writes:

    Tim> If IBM had understood what they'd unleashed with the
    Tim> commodity hardware of the PC, they could have become both
                                                              ^^^^
Ah, the joys of conglomerate synergy.

Combatting this "conglomerate fallacy" is part of the motivation for
my advocacy of "boundary definitions."

    Tim> Dell (the company that best realized the low-cost potential
    Tim> of commodity hardware) and Microsoft (the company that best
    Tim> realized the profit potential of monopoly software on top of
    Tim> that commodity hardware platform).  Not to mention Intel.

    Tim> But they turned the genie loose and let someone else realize
    Tim> its potential.

Right.  This is called "concentration."  It's hard to do, it's so
tempting to do a little bit of everything.  Note that IBM is
surviving, as so many other companies did not.  It's not just because
they're living off their fat, either, although that didn't hurt.
Plenty of fat oligopolists have ended up bought out or in Chapter 11
over the last couple of years.

But you can't concentrate without defining your topic of thought.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert c.l.py