When IBM decided to use the new Intel x86 processor (the 16 bit 8086), they needed an operating system for it. IBM were hugely invested in their Mainframe systems and also UNIX, but not really in CP/M, which was the dominant operating system on Mini computers which ran everything else and ran on 8 bit chips. Mini systems were the backbone of the SME computing environments.
So that sets the scene.
Here is the approach difference. Gary Kildall, the owner of Digital Research, didn't see the deal with IBM, for the new 16 bit technology of the Personal Computer ( the IBM PC), as much of a big deal. 8 Bit computing was the world of CP/M and dominated by DR. So Kildall and DR decided to try and use their dominance of the small computer world to strong arm IBM and make as much money as possible.
Bill Gates, on the other hand, didn't have an operating system. Microsoft was a software house and not an Operating System company. However when IBM came calling Microsoft cut a deal with IBM for an operating system they did not have and could not produce. IBM wanted a fixed price for the OS and total ownership, Gates beat them down to a very low cost, per unit, license and ownership of PC/Dos or MS/Dos with Microsoft.
Once the deal was struck Gates then went to Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products and cut a deal to buy their x86 DOS (nicknamed QDOS for quick and dirty OS), as a single purchase with full ownership and license to distribute. Microsoft then took x86 DOS (which Paterson had cobbled together to work with the new Intel boards), and developed it into the first PC/Dos and MS/Dos versions.
Microsoft was very typical of a young and vibrant company. Driving very close to the wind on regulations and using every dirty trick in the book to keep ahead. Microsoft had a saying, early on, "The job's not done till Lotus won't run". This may seem like some kind of fairy story but I actually lived the situation where, over a period of years, Microsoft modified Windows 3.1 so that the (very late to market), DR/Dos from Digital Research, could not be used to run Windows 3.1.
The rest, as they say, is history. Microsoft sailed close to the wind, broke laws, was fined, became anti competitive and monopolistic. It was allowed to do so because IBM had so badly abused their monopoly in the previous decades that nobody wanted to let them do what Microsoft was doing.
The point is that, at this time, the technology of personal computing was moving incredibly rapidly. Incumbents were unable to compete, challengers grew and outlived the incumbents. The world order changed and the quick, flexible companies which challenged the old order and the way things were done survived. Those who did not evolve died.
Tesla, today, is the Microsoft of the EV world. The incumbents are trying to catch up but they have lesser products with premium prices. They have existing business and margins to protect and Tesla only has to focus on what it is doing and driving that to increasing profits and business. The incumbents must always prove to their shareholders that the new path is the only path and that the existing lucrative, tried and tested methods must be abandoned.
Time will tell. But this happens in the tech world over and over again. Witness Google. Who remembers Alta Vista?
Tesla is already blurring the borders and the traditions. Tradition says you buy a car and it is what you bought. It gets older, slower, burns more fuel and, eventually, you buy a new one. Tesla is now telling us you can get updated computers, can upgrade the vehicle to full self driving, can increase and enhance capabilities. A blend of the computer model and the car model.
This gives Tesla an additional revenue stream of upgrades for vehicles already sold. It also sets expectations for owners who can buy low and upgrade as they go instead of always being stuck with whatever the manufacturer punts into the base model because that is all they can ever afford.
There is a message and a story in QDOS and Microsoft. It echoes through the technology world and the Internet. Tesla is bringing this story to bricks and mortar and physical hardware.
That, I believe, fits fully with Tesla "Glory/Failure". It is relevant even if people don't think it is.
It is why I say that if Musk were replaced and a "Traditional" manager were to replace him, then Tesla would slowly fail and be overtaken by the incumbents.
