The Original IBM PC: Lessons Learned
What could have happened had the IBM PC not taken the paths it did to become the prototype stepping stone to modern computing?
![The Original IBM PC: Lessons Learned](https://i.pcmag.com/imagery/articles/06lF5lA6gh0PnpPmLMHt0TH-3..v1656506238.jpg)
The IBM PC was introduced on August 12, 1981. I’ve written about the team who created the PC and why they chose an open architecture, how they ended up with Microsoft’s DOS as the standard OS, and why they picked the Intel 8088 central processor.
Looking back as PCMag turns 40, it’s clear those decisions impacted not just the IBM PC and IBM as a company but also the direction of the entire PC industry. Had IBM not chosen an open architecture but instead gone with something more proprietary, it would have certainly taken longer to get the PC to market, and Apple, Tandy, or Osborne could have become the business standard instead.
Attack of the Clones
Because IBM chose an open architecture, it left the door open for third-party hardware (add-in boards and peripheral vendors) and software, which arguably was a good thing for IBM, because it built an ecosystem that made the PC more valuable. But it also left the door open for other companies to create products that would use those same products, and resulted in dozens of companies making IBM-compatible equipment, from then-startups such as Compaq, Dell, and Gateway to established firms such as Digital Equipment and Hewlett Packard.
That created more competition, as many of those other vendors moved faster to make product innovations, including better graphics and more portable computers. The success of the IBM PC led to IBM’s entry systems division and to the PC group becoming much larger; it would no longer be able to move as quickly as it did in the Project Chess days. In fact, IBM would move to a more proprietary architecture in 1987 with the Micro Channel Architecture, which had some interesting technical advantages. By then, the business community was mostly looking for improvements within an existing compatible architecture.
Had IBM and Digital Research been able to come to terms first on the non-disclosure agreement (which Microsoft agreed to, apparently without a lot of thought), CP/M may well have become the dominant operating system. Microsoft would likely have remained the dominant supplier of languages and was already thinking about applications, but it’s possible the software market would have been more fragmented for many years.
It’s also possible that had Microsoft not kept the rights to sell DOS to other vendors, the IBM-compatible market may never have existed, or multiple vendors selling CP/M could have become the business standard. IBM would famously fail to regain control of operating systems in the late 80s and early 90s with OS/2, but open-source Linux would eventually become a serious contender on the server, proving the value of an inexpensive solution supported by multiple vendors.
Software Is King
None of this would have mattered if the platform hadn’t been successful in attracting great applications. While the IBM PC was successful in its earliest days with VisiCalc and EasyWriter, it didn’t really take off until the “killer applications” showed up—specifically the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet (which proved how much more a 16-bit application could do than an 8-bit version) and later word processors such as WordPerfect and MultiMate.
Had IBM not chosen the 8086 architecture, it’s likely another company would have been first to market with a popular 16-bit personal computer. Any of the other 16-bit choices would have taken more time, and an 8-bit computer would likely have been seen as not much different from what was already on the market. Here, Intel’s decisions to make a 16-bit chip early and to keep it somewhat compatible with the earlier chips on the market (thus making it easier to get applications quickly) proved crucial.
Indeed, Intel and rival AMD have kept to the formula of adding more features but retaining compatibility for the past 30 years. When they’ve moved away from that, they’ve been less successful, as was IBM when it tried to create a new architecture with its PowerPC (although that later found a home in gaming machines.) The x86 architecture today comprises almost the entire market for desktops and laptops and the vast majority of servers, although ARM-based products dominate in phones and tablets and in the past year have made small but growing inroads into PCs (mostly through Apple's M1-based machines) and servers.
Hindsight Is Always 20/20
It's also true that the open design of both the hardware and software set the stage for many of the technology companies that have started since then and for the tech ecosystem that we now take for granted. IBM's openness in hardware led to an explosion of "PC-compatible" makers, though business realities have now consolidated that market to a handful of big companies—Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Microsoft (Surface)—and several niche suppliers, all of which now sell more laptops than desktops. While phones haven't followed the exact same model (they typically don't have components you can swap in or out), the concept was followed in terms of standardized instruction sets (ARM-based) and connections such as USB-C.
While the IBM PC was not the first machine to allow for third-party software—every personal computer since the Altair offered this—it was so game-changing that it created opportunities for all sorts of software companies, from productivity apps to games.
We’ll never know for sure what would have happened had IBM made different decisions about the original IBM PC. But we do know that those early choices had repercussions that lasted far beyond the dreams of anyone involved at the time.