Okay, let’s break down the validity of the arguments presented in this article about IBM’s calculated PC play and its impact on Apple. The author, Ranga Sankaralingam, presents a compelling and somewhat contrarian perspective, so it’s worth examining each point carefully.

Key Arguments and their Validity:

  1. IBM PC was strategically disruptive, not technologically superior:
  2. IBM’s primary goal was to prevent Apple from dominating the business market:
  3. The Apple II was the primary target, not the Mac:
  4. IBM commoditized Apple through the open architecture:
  5. IBM didn’t capitalize on the PC ecosystem, but that wasn’t the point:
  6. Apple neglected the Apple II and made strategic missteps:
  7. Steve Jobs’ return and the iPhone were key to Apple’s resurgence:

Overall Assessment:

The author presents a compelling and well-supported argument that IBM’s PC strategy was a calculated move to neutralize Apple’s threat in the business computing market. While some points are open to interpretation (like IBM’s primary motive), the overall narrative is highly plausible and supported by historical evidence. The author’s analysis is nuanced and avoids simplistic explanations.

Strengths of the Article:

Areas for Further Discussion:

Conclusion:

The author’s analysis of the IBM PC’s impact on Apple is insightful and persuasive. The article effectively argues that the IBM PC was not just a technological development but a strategic weapon designed to commoditize a potential threat and reshape the personal computing landscape. While some points are open to interpretation, the overall argument is well-supported and offers a valuable perspective on the history of personal computing. The article’s central thesis, that IBM’s primary goal was to prevent Apple from dominating the business market, is plausible and supported by the evidence.