Etydhv

In 1983, Compaq introduced its first product, a portable computer weighing 28 pounds; 128-640K RAM, two 5.25" floppy drives, 9" monochrome CRT for $3590. It was extremely successful in the market, and the company took off like a rocket; the later Plus model added an internal hard drive.

In 1984, IBM released the Portable Personal Computer 5155 model 68, a similar design weighing 30 pounds; 256-512K or 640K RAM, one or two 5.25" floppy drives, 9" monochrome CRT. Wikipedia says it was cheaper, but doesn't give a number. http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5155.html on the contrary says $4225. By all accounts it did not sell well, was considered something of a flop and discontinued relatively early.

I personally have never seen the attraction of a 'portable' that weighs more than many desktop machines, but my feelings on the matter are immaterial; the fact is that the market at the time was hungry for such machines, and the Compaq sold very well.

Which makes it surprising that the IBM portable PC flopped; it looks to me like essentially the same product, only with the IBM nameplate; I would expect this to be an attractive proposition for the business computing market in the eighties.

So why is it that the Compaq portable sold well but the IBM didn't?

I personally have never seen the attraction of a 'portable' that weighs more than many desktop machines, but my feelings on the matter are immaterial; the fact is that the market at the time was hungry for such machines, and the Compaq sold very well.

They were the solution for people without a fixed office, or moving locations. Not the constant moving ones staying just an hour at Starbucks, but anyone who stays for a few days, weeks or month in a location, does his work and moves on to the next site. Think construction, engineering but also lawyers and many other professions who nowadays use laptops.

The advantage is less about being fully portable within seconds, but move your office within like 15 minutes into your car and keep going - including a full PC setup beside all files and whatsoever tools.

Which makes it surprising that the IBM portable PC flopped; it looks to me like essentially the same product, only with the IBM nameplate; I would expect this to be an attractive proposition for the business computing market in the eighties.

It's a bit hard to say it 'flopped' as the sales were quite above expectations and comparable with Compaq.

So why is it that the Compaq portable sold well but the IBM didn't?

Foremost timing. The Compaq could work the market for most parts of a whole year until the IBM was ready. At the time IBM entered that segment (with the bulkier and heavier 5155) Compaq already prepared the Portable Plus with hard disk and full 640 KiB of memory.

The main reason for Compaq's longer-term success in the PC market, in comparison to IBM, is what is commonly referred to as the "First-mover advantage".

In the beginning of the PC market, IBM actually held a monopoly position. As we know, in a couple of years, Compaq and others would challenge this by creating legal PC BIOS clones and bringing compatible machines to the market. This created a new marketplace in which technological leadership was a key marketing advantage for any company that could assert that position.

Compaq was the first notable PC clone maker to assert and maintain first-mover status through technological leadership, using the portable PC form-factor as the major perceived innovation. This gave them significant leverage in marketing their products against IBM's. The same thing that happened with Compaq's success against IBM in portable computers was repeated with the introduction of the Compaq Deskpro 386 in 1986. This repeat success demonstrates perfectly how first-mover status conveys a Halo effect, so long as the association of the brand with technological leadership is maintained.

It's easy in this forum to make discussion about the supposed objective, technical, qualities of one computer over another. In this case, such appeals to rational argument obscure the real history. Simply ask yourself whose name would likely be spotted on a T-shirt or bumper sticker at a users' group meetup circa 1985 - IBM, or Compaq? Brand marketing sells products better than technical specs, in all markets, and at all times.