> Computers are especially path dependent, because their very functioning is
> determined by line-specific formats of their codes. Although Mac was an
> early innovator - or rather adopter of the windows system (initially
> developed by Zenith, if memory serves), it lost to M$ because it created too
> high entry barriers too early in the game for its line of product in the
> formative stage of the industry. Stated differently, it fell prey to its
> own efforts to protect the ownership of its line by copy-protection and high
> pricing in the stage when markets shares were largely up for grabs. At the
> same time, M$-DOS was available virtually for free, and many of DOS
> application could be easily bootlegged, because of weak or non-existent copy
> protection.
>
> As a result, M$-DOS and its application spread out faster than Mac, thus
> creating path dependency.
I think your points are very valid but let me add a few comments.
First, it was Xerox you were thinking of, not Zenith. You were at the right end of the alphabet though!
Second, and more important, Apple lost initially to IBM. Unlike Apple, when IBM introduced the PC in 1982, it published the specifications (open-sourced it if you will), allowing third parties to create parts for and clone it, which people did in droves. Initially, MS just rode IBM's coattails. Later, when it got bigger, it decided it didn't need IBM and blew 'em off (the OS/2 - Windows NT split). IBM eventually lost control of the PC market; Compaq and all the other clones ate its lunch. much to our benefit, but much to the detriment of IBM. In fact, from the latter's point of view, Apple was perhaps smarter. Apple still has a booming hardware business but IBM has sold off its PC manufacturing to the Chinese. So, who the "winner" is partly depends on your perspective.
While I think your point about path dependency with respect to PC buyers is a good one, I wouldn't overestimate this -- and I am sure MS doesn't. The three main modern PC operating systems these days -- Windows, Apple, Linux -- aren't all that different from each other; their interfaces share most of the same basic window-based, mouse-driven concepts derived from the work at Xerox in the 1970s. Microsoft knows this and this is why it uses all its significant might to prevent PC sellers from installing competing offerings (cf, the highly restrictive per-processor licensing deals). I would guess that MS's well-documented monopolistic behavior is as important to the success of Windows as path dependency, along with the file-format lock-in mentioned earlier.
Windows is installed by default on virtually every (~95%) PC made. There is a very real likelihood Vista will be ubiquitous within a couple years largely because of that fact, despite viable alternatives.
--
Colin Brace
Amsterdam