4 Jul
2023
4 Jul
'23
7:57 a.m.
So this evening I've been tinkering with a WECo 2500 I've been using for playing
with telecom stuff, admiring the quality of the DTMF module, and it got me thinking, gee,
this same craftsmanship would make for some very nice arcade buttons, which then further
had me pondering on the breadth of the Bell System's capabilities and the unique
needs of the video game industry in the early 80s.
In many respects, the combination of Western Electric and Bell Laboratories could've
been a hotbed of video game console and software development, what with WECo's
capability to produce hardware such as coin slots, buttons, wiring harnesses for all sorts
of equipment, etc. and then of course the software prowess of the Labs.
Was there to anyone here's knowledge any serious consideration of this market by
Bell? The famous story of UNIX's origins includes Space Travel, and from the very
first manual, games of various kinds have accompanied UNIX wherever it goes. It seems
that out of most companies, the Bell System would've been very well poised, what with
their own CPU architecture and other fab operations, manufacturing and distribution
chains, and so on. There's a looooot of R&D that companies such as Atari and
Nintendo had to engage in that the Bell System had years if not decades of expertise in.
Would anti-trust stuff have come into play in that regard? Bell couldn't compete in
the computer market, and I suppose it would depend on the legal definitions applicable to
video game hardware and software at the time.
In any case, undercurrent here is the 2500 is a fine telephone, if the same minds behind
some of this WECo hardware had gone into video gaming, I wonder how different things
would've turned out.
- Matt G.
6 Jul
6 Jul
2:48 p.m.
On 4 Jul 2023, at 11:57, segaloco via COFF
<coff(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
So this evening I've been tinkering with a WECo 2500 I've been using for
playing with telecom stuff, admiring the quality of the DTMF module, and it got me
thinking, gee, this same craftsmanship would make for some very nice arcade buttons, which
then further had me pondering on the breadth of the Bell System's capabilities and
the unique needs of the video game industry in the early 80s.
In many respects, the combination of Western Electric and Bell Laboratories could've
been a hotbed of video game console and software development, what with WECo's
capability to produce hardware such as coin slots, buttons, wiring harnesses for all sorts
of equipment, etc. and then of course the software prowess of the Labs.
Was there to anyone here's knowledge any serious consideration of this market by
Bell? The famous story of UNIX's origins includes Space Travel, and from the very
first manual, games of various kinds have accompanied UNIX wherever it goes. It seems
that out of most companies, the Bell System would've been very well poised, what with
their own CPU architecture and other fab operations, manufacturing and distribution
chains, and so on. There's a looooot of R&D that companies such as Atari and
Nintendo had to engage in that the Bell System had years if not decades of expertise in.
Would anti-trust stuff have come into play in that regard? Bell couldn't compete in
the computer market, and I suppose it would depend on the legal definitions applicable to
video game hardware and software at the time.
In any case, undercurrent here is the 2500 is a fine telephone, if the same minds behind
some of this WECo hardware had gone into video gaming, I wonder how different things
would've turned out.
- Matt G.
Matt,
An astute question and one that, IMHO, deserves an answer because, if you’re asking, you
never saw AT&T operate as a full throated monopoly.
A caveat, I wasn’t ever at Bell Labs, didn’t work in the USA but have talked to folk.
The short answer would be “Suits and Lawyers”.
Second part is the postscript in Rob Pike’s story / history of Music on the Plan 9 CD.
P.S. No, I don’t have the music any more. Too sad to keep.
<https://www.tuhs.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/tuhs@tuhs.org/message/H2XN5ONL3XAAUFVERXNYKS7QOZAOGBFA/>
<https://fqa.9front.org/fqa0.html>
The people on this list who built software and made hardware would’ve put their case to
‘management’
and we know that the answer was “No”. The same response Ken got in 1969 when 127 asked for
a PDP-10, forcing him to find the PDP-7.
If people haven't responded, it’s because decades later, it’s still too raw.
Rachel Chalmers in her 1999 article on John Lions,
quotes Dennis Ritchie commenting on Western Electric’s control of Unix V7 and after:
"Code Critic”
<https://www.salon.com/1999/11/30/lions_2/ >
"Even though in the 1970s Unix was not a commercial proposition,
USG and the lawyers were cautious.
At any rate, we in research lost the argument.” [ for cheap licences & teaching
& commentaries ]
Chalmers concludes, on Mike Tilson et al at (real) SCO
making ‘legacy Unix’ source available for a nominal fee again. [ ?year?]
[ someone can correct me on versions & conditions ]
"Research, at last, had won."
The Bell Labs researchers were very innovative and ‘curious’ - did a whole bunch of stuff
in many fields.
That management & legal stance of ‘protecting’ all I.P. it could claim and trying to
charge as much as it could,
how did it work out for them?
In 1974, Ken, Dennis et al launched Unix to the world via CACM.
In 1984, AT&T ‘demerged’ in the ‘Baby Bells’ and the new AT&T keeping Bells Labs,
Western Electric (?) and ‘Long Lines’.
This allowed them to compete with IBM et al in Computers and Software (and vice versa, IBM
bought Rolm & tried telephony)
With USL and the large number of Unix licences granted with _zero_ marketing and support,
I’m guessing the “smart managers” thought they’d create another massive fortune.
In 1994, AT&T sold off their Computers (to NCR) and Software (Unix) to Novel, who’d
already paid for some of it.
[ Novel sold on USL and some rights to SCO later, which led to the “new SCO” suit against
The World, ]
[ claiming Linux infringed its I.P. and it was owed gazillions in back payments from
anyone who could even spell Linux. ]
[ smarter people than me will correct this, I’m sure ]
In ~2004, AT&T was bought by one of the Baby Bells, SBC, which kept the name but
changed the business culture.
The Proof is in the Pudding…
AT&T management in the 1960’s & 70’s thought they could ‘milk’ Unix and new
IC-based computers in the same way
they’d milked the telephone business since Alexander Graham Bell invented a working
telephone circa 1875.
Their mismanagement killed the business, causing Bell Labs as we knew it, to eventually
fade away.
I hope that’s somewhat an answer for me, if not correct & complete, it also explains
why the ‘combatants’
aren’t keen to talk about their experiences.
all my best
steve
--
Steve Jenkin, IT Systems and Design
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 38, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA
mailto:sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin
7 Jul
7 Jul
4:29 a.m.
Their mismanagement killed the business, causing Bell
Labs as we knew it, to eventually fade away.
I hope that’s somewhat an answer for me, if not correct & complete, it also explains
why the ‘combatants’
aren’t keen to talk about their experiences.
all my best
steve
Oh I know that struggle all too well, what potential are we on the cusp of vs. what do the
suits want/need. Given WECo's legacy in the audio realm, I find that Plan9 story
particularly disheartening, electrified (audio) signals and the complex manipulation and
supplementation thereof is what one would think is the chief concern of a telecom
behemoth.
I'd never heard the bit about the hardware business winding up with NCR, although I
guess I've never looked in that direction as hard as the USL path through Novell.
That gives me more to study in my nebulous 3B20 and kin research.
I'm glad I wasn't in the know at the time of all the SCO stuff (and was a kid
that didn't care) because I probably would've shoved all sorts of feet into my
mouth in the sorts of debates over software freedom that were going on at the time.
Looking back, that must've been such a frustrating time, I don't blame folks for
coming out of that with battle scars.
Well now I've got this morbid curiosity to see if I can FPGA a WE32000-ish video game
console...but that goes on the endless pile of "eventually"s.
Thanks for the background Steve!
- Matt G.
5:12 a.m.
steve jenkin <sjenkin(a)canb.auug.org.au> writes:
[None of the following really answers the original question, but may be
interesting anyway]
So... I wasn't there for the earlier times, certainly not the monopoly
days, but I was there later and (in my opinion) until Lucent more or
less fell apart (and maybe after that), AT&T and all of the companies it
spawned still acted like a monopoly in a lot of ways (and I include the
Baby Bells in that).
Yes, it was often about "Suits and Lawyers"...
[snip]
On 4 Jul 2023,
at 11:57, segaloco via COFF <coff(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
So this evening I've been tinkering with a WECo 2500 I've been using for
playing with telecom stuff, admiring the quality of the DTMF module, and it got me
thinking, gee, this same craftsmanship would make for some very nice arcade buttons, which
then further had me pondering on the breadth of the Bell System's capabilities and
the unique needs of the video game industry in the early 80s.
In many respects, the combination of Western Electric and Bell Laboratories could've
been a hotbed of video game console and software development, what with WECo's
capability to produce hardware such as coin slots, buttons, wiring harnesses for all sorts
of equipment, etc. and then of course the software prowess of the Labs.
Was there to anyone here's knowledge any serious consideration of this market by
Bell? The famous story of UNIX's origins includes Space Travel, and from the very
first manual, games of various kinds have accompanied UNIX wherever it goes. It seems
that out of most companies, the Bell System would've been very well poised, what with
their own CPU architecture and other fab operations, manufacturing and distribution
chains, and so on. There's a looooot of R&D that companies such as Atari and
Nintendo had to engage in that the Bell System had years if not decades of expertise in.
Would anti-trust stuff have come into play in that regard? Bell couldn't compete in
the computer market, and I suppose it would depend on the legal definitions applicable to
video game hardware and software at the time.
In any case, undercurrent here is the 2500 is a fine telephone, if the same minds behind
some of this WECo hardware had gone into video gaming, I wonder how different things
would've turned out.
- Matt G.
Matt,
An astute question and one that, IMHO, deserves an answer because, if you’re asking, you
never saw AT&T operate as a full throated monopoly.
A caveat, I wasn’t ever at Bell Labs, didn’t work in the USA but have talked to folk.
The short answer would be “Suits and Lawyers”. That management & legal stance of ‘protecting’ all
I.P. it could claim and trying to charge as much as it could,
how did it work out for them?
That persisted until I left in the early 2000s.
I had a account rep say that they had no idea how much anything costed
because each customer was charged something different. More or less it
came down to "Charge the customer as much as you can get away with". As
a developer, we certainly didn't have any idea for what a end customer
was paying.
Maybe an interesting side story.... I was sold as a Value Added Service
once for $40,000 to a end customer. I went on site to two different
locations that the customer had, and performed about 8 hours of work all
told spread out over two days. The sales person who sold this VAS to
the customer was very worried that the customer would be unhappy if I
didn't spend a week on the effort... personally I just wanted to get
the work done and get home, and I knew that the customer would be happy
with it taking only two days...
[snip]
In 1994, AT&T sold off their Computers (to NCR)
and Software (Unix) to Novel, who’d already paid for some of it.
I was there more or less for the NCR thing.... what I remember is that
it was bought to get access to a computer platform outright. NCR was
renamed GIS and later spun back out of AT&T as NCR again (if I remember
it all correctly). My group was forced to port our application platform
to GIS even though we wanted to move to HP instead. When GIS didn't pan
out for us (in the end) we ended up on HP anyway.
[snip]
AT&T management in the 1960’s & 70’s thought
they could ‘milk’ Unix and new IC-based computers in the same way
they’d milked the telephone business since Alexander Graham Bell invented a working
telephone circa 1875.
The management thought that they could milk EVERYTHING. The product I
worked on was ported and ported and ported starting with a VAX running
SVR3 (or maybe something earlier) to an HP (when I left)... I suppose
it makes some sense, as it made money as it was, but it was really hard
to innovate. I managed to do it a couple of times, but my efforts were
really rare. The product I worked on was pure software doing traffic
management on a classic circuit switched phone network. But, as best as
I can tell, products like the 5ESS did the same thing. As I remember
it, the 5ESS-2000 was the 5E software running on a couple of Sun sparcs
in a emulator. Some of the assembly happened at 6200 Broad St. and I
got to observe some of it while walking around the factory floor after
lunch. I recall two sparc servers hooked together with an internal
Ethernet switch. Slap all of that in a 5E cabinet and you were good to
go.
Part of this stagnate nature was the demand of the customer base in the
US, for the product I worked on, at least... they did tend to demand
that nearly NOTHING change about the product at all (at least at the
time).
Their mismanagement killed the business, causing Bell
Labs as we knew it, to eventually fade away.
I agree pretty much with that, but probably have somewhat different
reasoning as to the why. I see it more as the management had little
idea as to what they had a lot of the time. I worked with a guy who had
been there a lot longer then I had... something like 20 years when I
started... and I don't think he had ever worked on a product in the 20
years UNTIL he arrived on ours that ever actually went to market and if
it did ever lasted any great length of time. A lot of the stuff he
worked on was pretty neat, but was either in the wrong place at the
wrong time, or was mismarketed or honestly was just silly (i.e. some
product to stroke the ego of someone in management).
[snip]
all my best
steve
--
Steve Jenkin, IT Systems and Design
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 38, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA
mailto:sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin
--
Brad Spencer - brad(a)anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS - http://anduin.eldar.org
319
days inactive
321
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Brad Spencer -
segaloco -
steve jenkin