Jack Sams was the engineer in charge of software development for the IBM prototype and had plenty of experience working in BASIC: He had spent months wrestling with the language in an attempt to get it working on a minicomputer (the IBM System/23 Datamaster), delaying the project by a year in the process, and had no desire to repeat the same mistakes this time around.
I've always heard the story of Microsoft being selected to provide PC-DOS from Microsoft's perspective. What a windfall it was for them and how silly of IBM to outsource their OS to another company. It makes more sense in the context of IBM engineers pulling the giant company along to do something they had never done before. They really had to look for solutions wherever they were.
> What a windfall it was for them and how silly of IBM to outsource their OS to another company.
Silly in what way? It's hard to underestimate the value of timing, and IBM knew it was a race against the clock to get market share. To Jack Sams credit, he knew that IBM could not get the software done fast enough. Realizing that limitation helped IBM avoid the software tarpit that most of their competitors (think big computer companies from the 60s and 70s) made when they entered the microcomputer market. Those competitors included DEC, TI, Olvetti, HP, Zenith, and many, many others who entered the market with their own hardware and OS who couldn't keep up with the PC industry. Many ended up making clones in the end.
There were so many computers in the early 80s that had custom oses, and most all of them were washed away by IBM and as the decade marched on, the clones. IBM didn't lose the initiative in the market until the OS/2 era. Their decision to outsource the OS was brilliant.
IBM couldn't compete with Dell and other direct to buyer manufacturers - but it wasn't because of IP. It was economic. IBM's sales channel had two extra levels of markup, inventory that would go obsolete in warehouses (and have to be bought back by IBM to keep their resellers and distributors happy), it took 4-6 weeks to go from the manufacturer's loading dock to the customer's desktop. Then there was configuration: Dell and the directs custom made each computer - make it once. You had to get an IBM out of the box, rip out what you didn't want and replace it - make it twice - which added even more to the cost.
You're not wrong that OS contributed to it, but having no IP moat (proprietary hw/sw) was the cherry on top, but not the entire sundae.
IBM could have fixed the IP moat by shipping OS/2 for free, but that still would not have fixed the channel problem. The channel problem made an IBM PC cost 20-30% more than their competitors... regardless of OS.
We are going in circles here, IBM did not want a clone market all, they were not able to prevent Compaq to go forward with their reverse engineering, although they did try first with the failed lawsuit and then with MCA PS/2 motherboards.
My point is that without establishing the beachhead in the consumer market that IBM did, the clones wouldn't have had anything to work off of. I'm sure Compaq and others would've been years behind if they had started from scratch, but I'd actually like to know more about that potential alternative history.
The alternative story is what we are going back today, each OEM sells their vertical integrated experience.
In this alternative universe most likely Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes would keep existing in some form and most businesses wouldn't have cared about IBM PC or eventually got sooner into some UNIX workstation clone.
IBM's earlier attempts didn't go well, walled gardens that were too expensive and difficult to repair in small shops, so they tried a different approach of outsourcing most of it.
I think it's implied that GP was referring to hardware manufacturers outsourcing their OS. While Microsoft does produce Surface devices, they're a bit player in the PC hardware market (4%). The major players are Dell, HP, and Lenovo, and to a lesser extent, Acer and Asus. Microsoft doesn't even show up on most statistics pages; they're lumped into "others".
Wasn’t Gates mother instrumental to securing that contract because she pitched Microsoft’s Basic directly to the CEO of IBM who was a fellow member of some board they shared?
It helped that there was a personal connection: Bill’s mother, Mary, had served on the board of directors of charity United Way, as had incoming IBM chairman John Opel. “Oh, is that Mary Gates’ boy’s company?” Opel reportedly asked when he heard of Microsoft’s involvement. The deal was signed in November 1980.
Some are pretty certain Mrs. Gates had an affair with Opel, but it is unclear whether the affair occurred just before the deal or long before the deal when they served together on the board of United Way of America together.
I've always heard the story of Microsoft being selected to provide PC-DOS from Microsoft's perspective. What a windfall it was for them and how silly of IBM to outsource their OS to another company. It makes more sense in the context of IBM engineers pulling the giant company along to do something they had never done before. They really had to look for solutions wherever they were.