This is a minor point, but rumors of IBM's demise are greatly exaggerated. Last I checked it had a market cap of more than $160B.
One could argue that IBM's PC business is what died, but I'd say Dell did more to kill that than Microsoft (my guess is MS doesn't care whose hardware they run on.) The other companies the author described, Xerox and Bell Labs and Apple, only one is still kicking around in the consumer technology space, and it almost died along the way too.
The "MS is managed into the toilet" comments seem like the other side of the "Apple is destroying openness/hobbies" or "Google kills privacy" memes. I read it as people wishing a particular company was different, more like how the authors want them to be... open, friendly, innovative and awesome. Like a digital Santa Claus. Fact is, all of these companies are successful, with weaknesses and strengths. I'd like a more level-headed comparison of those, personally, rather than nostalgia.
All of these companies are shifting, like IBM did. Google is really going after mobile, MS is really going after businesses (with a side quest into the living room), and Apple is doing it all. It's just interesting to see who's big bets will pay off.
I'd give Microsoft credit for killing IBM's OS/2.
What really created the PC-compatible market was the creation of "clone" BIOS. I'd give Phoenix credit for that.
Dell gets credit for being a pretty efficient if not innovative box builder, first with a major online store (ironically it ran on NeXT software) to sell over that thing called the World Wide Web which was developed on NeXT computers.
IBM deserves some blame, if not credit, for allowing Microsoft the foot in the door with licensing which led to their excessive enrichment. If IBM has insisted on buying an OS outright, or developed their own, we probably wouldn't have had the widescale mess known as DOS and Windows. Microsoft basically bought DOS outright from someone else, so they didn't even innovate that.
DOS/Window success wasn't based on quality, but on licensing and taking away consumer choice (through dealing with manufacturers and bundling) as the article points out.
IBM was on the precipice of destruction in the 90s; it nearly broke up into several smaller companies in an act of desperation. I think this is what the author is referring to. It was only through an awkward shift from software/hardware development to services that they kept their neck above water.
I think "IBM's demise" is refering to when they were the in place monopolist, and ruling the computer field completely. Which was way before Dell selling PCs
One could argue that IBM's PC business is what died, but I'd say Dell did more to kill that than Microsoft (my guess is MS doesn't care whose hardware they run on.) The other companies the author described, Xerox and Bell Labs and Apple, only one is still kicking around in the consumer technology space, and it almost died along the way too.
The "MS is managed into the toilet" comments seem like the other side of the "Apple is destroying openness/hobbies" or "Google kills privacy" memes. I read it as people wishing a particular company was different, more like how the authors want them to be... open, friendly, innovative and awesome. Like a digital Santa Claus. Fact is, all of these companies are successful, with weaknesses and strengths. I'd like a more level-headed comparison of those, personally, rather than nostalgia.
All of these companies are shifting, like IBM did. Google is really going after mobile, MS is really going after businesses (with a side quest into the living room), and Apple is doing it all. It's just interesting to see who's big bets will pay off.