Hubbry Logo
Osborne effectOsborne effectMain
Open search
Osborne effect
Community hub
Osborne effect
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Osborne effect
Osborne effect
Osborne effect
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Osborne effect is a social phenomenon of customers canceling or deferring orders for the current, soon-to-be-obsolete product as an unexpected drawback of a company's announcing a future product prematurely. It is an example of cannibalization. The term alludes to the Osborne Computer Corporation, whose second product did not become available until more than a year after it was announced. The company's subsequent bankruptcy was widely blamed on reduced sales after the announcement.[1][2]

Description

[edit]
An Osborne 1 from 1982
An Osborne Executive
An Osborne Vixen prototype

The Osborne effect occurs when premature discussion of future, unavailable products damages sales of existing products. The name comes from the planned replacement of the Osborne 1, an early personal computer first sold by the Osborne Computer Corporation in 1981. In 1983, founder Adam Osborne pre-announced several next-generation computer models (the Osborne Executive and Osborne Vixen), which were only prototypes, highlighting the fact that they would outperform the existing model as the prototypes dramatically cut down assembly time.[3] A widely held belief was that sales of the Osborne 1 fell sharply as customers anticipated those more advanced systems, leading to a sales decline from which Osborne Computer was unable to recover. This belief appeared in the media almost immediately after the company's September 1983 bankruptcy:[4]

To give the jazzy $2,495 Osborne Executive a running start, Adam began orchestrating publicity early in 1983. We, along with many other magazines, were shown the machine in locked hotel rooms. We were required not to have anything in print about it until the planned release date in mid-April. As far as we know, nothing did appear in print, but dealers heard about the plans and cancelled orders for the Osborne 1 in droves. In early April, Osborne told dealers he would be showing them the machine on a one-week tour the week of 17 April, and emphasized that the new machine was not a competitor for the Osborne 1. But dealers didn't react the way Osborne expected; said Osborne, "All of them just cancelled their orders for the Osborne 1."

Osborne reacted by drastically cutting prices on the Osborne 1 in an effort to stimulate cash flow. But nothing seemed to work, and for several months sales were practically non-existent.[4]

Pre-announcement is done for several reasons: to reassure current customers that there is improvement or lower cost coming, to increase the interest of the media and investors in the company's future prospects, and to intimidate or confuse competitors. When done correctly, the sales or cash flow impact to the company is minimal, with the revenue drop for the current product being offset by orders or completed sales of the new product as it becomes available. However, when the Osborne effect occurs, the quantity of unsold goods increases and the company must react by discounting and/or lowering production of the current product, both of which depress cash flow.

Criticism

[edit]

Interviews with former employees cast doubt on the idea that Osborne's downfall was caused solely by announcement ahead of availability.[5][6]

After renewed discussion of the Osborne effect in 2005, columnist Robert X. Cringely interviewed ex-Osborne employee Mike McCarthy, and clarified the story behind the Osborne effect. Purportedly, while the new Executive model from Osborne Computer was priced at US$2,195 and came with a 7-inch (178 mm) screen, competitor Kaypro was selling a computer with a 9-inch (229 mm) screen for $400 less, and the Kaypro machine had already begun to cut into sales of the Osborne 1, a computer with a 5-inch (127 mm) screen for $1,995.

Consequently, after inventory of the Osborne 1 had been cleared out, McCarthy believed, customers switched to Kaypro, causing monthly sales of the Executive to fall to less than 10% of its predecessor.

On 20 June 2005, The Register quoted Osborne's memoirs and interviewed Osborne repairman Charles Eicher to tell a tale of corporate decisions that contributed to the company's demise.[6] Apparently, while sales of the new model were relatively slow, they were starting to show a profit when a vice president discovered that there was an inventory of fully equipped motherboards for the older models worth $150,000. Rather than discard the motherboards, the vice president sold Osborne leadership on the idea of building them into complete units and selling them.

Soon, $2 million was spent to turn the motherboards into completed units, and for CRTs, RAM, floppy disk drives, to restore production and fabricate the molded cases. This was far more money than anybody anticipated, and also more than the company could afford at that time. In his autobiography, Osborne described this as a case of "throwing good money after bad".[6] It was at this time that the company folded.

Other examples

[edit]

In 1978, North Star Computers announced a new version of its floppy disk controller with double the capacity which was to be sold at the same price as their existing range. Sales of the existing products plummeted. The company almost went bankrupt, folding in 1984.[7]

Other consumer electronic products have been continually plagued by the Osborne effect as well. In the early 1990s, TV sets' sales were depressed by talk of the imminent release of HDTV, which did not actually become widespread for another 15 years.[citation needed]

When Sega began publicly discussing their next-generation system (eventually released as the Dreamcast), barely two years after launching the Saturn, it became a self-defeating prophecy. At the time Sega had a history of short-lived consoles, particularly the Sega Mega-CD and 32X add-ons, which were considered ill-conceived "stopgaps". Those console add-ons, along with the early release of the Saturn in spring 1995 in the United States to compete with Sony's PlayStation, ended sales of Sega's own popular and successful Genesis which frustrated players (the early release meant they could not afford the console) and developers (the early release of the Saturn forced developers to rush to finish their games) alike. These factors quickly led to the failure of the Saturn: following the 1997 Dreamcast announcement, sales of Saturn consoles and software substantially tapered off in the second half of 1997, while many planned games were canceled, shortening the console's life expectancy substantially. While this let Sega focus on bringing out its successor, the premature demise of the Saturn in 1998 caused customers and developers to be skeptical and hold out, which led to the Dreamcast's failure as well, and Sega's exit from the console industry in March 2001.[8]

Another example of the Osborne effect took place as a result of Nokia's CEO Stephen Elop's implementation of the plan to shift away from Symbian to Windows Phone for its mobile software platform. On top of this, criticism of existing products was compared to the Ratner effect. Although it was known for some time that Nokia's Symbian phones were no longer competitive against Apple's iOS and Google's Android, they still generated significant profit thanks to Nokia's brand recognition until Elop's "burning platform" memo "effectively transformed the Symbian cash-cow into a dead duck". At the same time, Nokia's first Windows Phone devices would not be ready for a year, and once they were released their sales were not enough to replace the volume and profit of Symbian devices.[9] Furthermore, the announcement that Windows Phone 7 devices would not be able to upgrade to Windows Phone 8 hurt sales of Nokia's Windows Phone 7 phones, plus it was a risky move for Microsoft which "can ill afford to alienate people when there are scores of highly capable and affordable Android phones up for grabs, or years-old Apple iPhones which aren't being prematurely shut out of the iOS playground."[10][11] Poor performance led Nokia to sell its mobile phone division to Microsoft in 2013.[12]

MakerBot also appears to have fallen victim to the Osborne effect, as talking openly about a future product significantly reduced the sales of their current product.[13]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Osborne effect

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Osborne effect is a phenomenon, most commonly observed in the sector, in which a prematurely announces or promotes a new, superior product, leading customers to delay purchases of the existing model in anticipation of the upgrade, thereby causing a sharp decline in current sales and often severe financial repercussions for the firm. This self-inflicted cannibalization, characterized by a high degree of erosion in demand for one's own products, can result in buildup, canceled orders, and even if the successor is not yet available to fill the gap. The term originates from the experience of the Osborne Computer Corporation (OCC), a pioneering American company founded in 1980 by , a British-born publisher of technical manuals. OCC achieved rapid success with the launch of the in April 1981, the world's first commercially successful , priced at $1,795 and bundled with software valued at over $1,500, which propelled monthly sales to 10,000 units by late 1982 and generated $100 million in revenue for the fiscal year ending February . However, in early , amid intensifying competition from IBM-compatible systems, OCC began aggressively promoting the upcoming —a lighter model with a larger 7-inch screen and improved features—before it was ready for market, prompting dealers and customers to cancel thousands of orders and halt new purchases. This triggered a catastrophic sales drop, exacerbating internal issues and overexpansion, and culminated in the company's filing in September , just months after the Executive's release. Since its coinage in the 1980s, the Osborne effect has become a cautionary principle in and , influencing how companies time announcements to balance hype with sustained revenue. Notable later examples include Sega's 1997 preannouncement of the console, which accelerated the Saturn's market decline and contributed to Sega's exit from hardware production; Research in Motion's 2011 reveal of , which depressed sales of existing devices; and Nokia's early promotion of Windows-based phones, hastening the fall of its lineup. In contemporary contexts, such as the industry, speculation about rapid advancements in battery technology has led consumers to defer purchases of current models, illustrating the effect's ongoing relevance. Major tech firms like Apple and now employ strict secrecy protocols for product launches to mitigate this risk, ensuring that announcements coincide closely with availability to avoid undermining ongoing sales.

Origins

Osborne Computer Corporation Background

Osborne Computer Corporation was founded in January 1981 by , a British-born entrepreneur and former technical book publisher, with a focus on developing affordable portable computers for business users. The company, based in , aimed to create transportable systems that combined computing power with bundled , targeting professionals who needed mobility without sacrificing functionality. Osborne, leveraging his publishing background and insights into software needs, partnered with designer to prototype the company's flagship product. The Osborne 1, launched on April 3, 1981, at the West Coast Computer Faire, became the first commercially successful portable computer. Weighing 24 pounds and priced at $1,795, it featured a Zilog Z80 processor running at 4 MHz, 64 KB of RAM, a 5-inch monochrome CRT display capable of 52 by 24 characters, and dual 5.25-inch single-sided floppy disk drives for 91 KB storage each. A key innovation was its software bundle, valued at over $1,500, which included the CP/M operating system, WordStar word processor, SuperCalc spreadsheet, and dBase II database management system—making it an all-in-one solution for office tasks without additional purchases. This bundling strategy not only lowered the effective cost but also appealed to users unfamiliar with assembling hardware and software ecosystems. By early 1983, the Osborne 1 had achieved significant market dominance in the nascent portable segment, with sales peaking at 10,000 units per month and generating approximately $68.8 million in revenue for 1982 alone. The company's rapid growth—from a small startup to over 3,000 employees—reflected the demand for its luggable design, which prioritized practicality over true portability. This success positioned Osborne as a leader in the portable market, outselling initial projections and capturing a substantial share among users reliant on CP/M-based systems. The competitive landscape intensified as rivals emerged to challenge Osborne's position. Corporation, founded in 1982, introduced the Kaypro II, a similar luggable with a larger 9-inch display and comparable specs, directly competing on price and durability with its rugged aluminum chassis. Meanwhile, entered the fray in 1983 with its , an PC-compatible machine that offered greater software compatibility and appealed to users transitioning to the emerging PC standard. These competitors, along with others like and , fragmented the market and pressured Osborne to innovate, culminating in the brief announcement of its successor, the Osborne Executive.

Announcement of the Osborne Executive

In April 1983, the Osborne Computer Corporation, riding the success of its groundbreaking portable computer, announced the Osborne Executive as its next-generation successor. The official introduction took place on April 18, intended to build excitement and secure market positioning ahead of competitors in the emerging portable computing space. The Osborne Executive featured several key enhancements over the Osborne 1, including a larger 7-inch monochrome display capable of rendering 80 columns by 24 lines of text without the need for scrolling, doubled to 128 KB, and dual 5.25-inch single-sided double-density drives each offering about 200 KB of storage. It retained full compatibility with Osborne 1 software via the operating system and Z80A processor running at 4 MHz, while adding ports for modems, parallel, and serial connections, along with bundled applications such as , , dBase II, and worth over $2,000. These upgrades addressed common user complaints about the original model's tiny 5-inch screen and limited 64 KB RAM, making the Executive more suitable for applications. The system was also lighter than its predecessor, weighing approximately 28 pounds, which improved its portability despite still being classified as a "luggable" rather than a true . Priced at $2,495, the Osborne Executive was positioned as a premium upgrade, with shipments planned for the fall of 1983. However, the announcement came well before production was ready, as the company sought to generate buzz and publicity through media previews earlier that year. This premature reveal, orchestrated by founder , aimed to capitalize on the firm's momentum but ultimately highlighted internal production delays.

The Phenomenon

Definition and Core Mechanism

The Osborne effect refers to the unintended decline in sales of a company's current products triggered by the premature announcement of a superior successor product, as customers opt to delay purchases in anticipation of the newer model becoming available. This phenomenon arises when the hype surrounding the upcoming release renders existing inventory less desirable, leading to canceled orders and deferred demand. At its core, the mechanism involves a combination of psychological and economic factors that influence consumer behavior. Psychologically, announcements foster a of among buyers, who perceive current products as inferior or short-lived, prompting them to withhold purchases to avoid regret or financial loss from rapid technological advancement. Economically, the incentive to delay aligns with rational , as consumers weigh the potential cost savings and enhanced features of the future product against immediate needs, effectively treating the preannounced item—often termed a "phantom product"—as a benchmark that shifts preferences away from available alternatives. The term "Osborne effect" was coined in the aftermath of the 1983 of the Osborne Computer Corporation, which exemplified this dynamic through its early promotion of a next-generation , and it has since entered standard usage in business strategy and technology discussions.

Economic and Psychological Impacts

The Osborne effect triggers immediate economic disruptions, primarily through a sudden surplus of unsold inventory as customers defer purchases in anticipation of the superior upcoming product. In the case of the Osborne Computer Corporation, the premature announcement of the Osborne Executive in April 1983 contributed to a sharp decline in sales of the Osborne 1, leading to inventory buildup, price reductions, cash flow issues, and the company's in September 1983. Psychologically, the effect stems from heightened consumer expectations of imminent better value, fostering a "wait-and-see" mentality that erodes immediate demand and undermines brand trust. Consumers perceive the current product as obsolete upon hearing of the upgrade, leading to canceled orders and deferred buying decisions, as they anticipate superior features at potentially similar prices. This shift in perception, amplified by loss aversion—where buyers are more sensitive to perceived quality declines—intensifies the reluctance to commit, further damaging the company's reputation as reliable. Operationally, the causes production halts due to excess , straining supplier relationships as orders are scaled back amid uncertain forecasts. Employee also declines amid the resulting , with internal tensions and financial pressures leading to reduced productivity and higher turnover. In Osborne's scenario, issues compounded by the sales collapse exacerbated these challenges, creating a vicious cycle of operational inefficiency. On a broader scale, the Osborne effect creates market ripples by allowing competitors to capture displaced customer share, as buyers switch to alternative products perceived as more stable or immediately available. During Osborne's downturn, rivals offering IBM-compatible portables gained significant ground, accelerating the original company's market exit and reshaping industry dynamics.

Analysis of the Original Case

Contribution to Company Failure

The announcement of the in February 1983 triggered a rapid decline in sales of the existing model, as customers and dealers anticipated the superior successor and deferred purchases. At its peak in 1982, was shipping approximately 10,000 units per month, generating revenues of around $70 million annually. However, following the announcement, orders for the were widely canceled, leading to a sharp drop in sales that persisted despite aggressive price reductions—from $1,295 in July 1983 to $995 by August. By September 1983, the company could no longer meet payroll or secure financing, resulting in a filing on September 13. This direct consequence left the firm burdened with millions in unsold inventory, exacerbating cash flow shortages and contributing to an overall loss of more than $8 million for the ending February 1983. The Osborne effect's impact was compounded by several indirect factors that accelerated the company's collapse. Legal disputes emerged, including lawsuits from investors against company officers, including founder , and auditors for allegedly misleading financial disclosures, further straining resources amid the sales crisis. Internal mismanagement, characterized by power struggles between and CEO Robert Jaunich II, led to operational inefficiencies and delayed adaptations to shifting market dynamics. Additionally, the market became rapidly saturated, with over 50 competitors entering the space by mid-1983, eroding Osborne's early-mover advantage and intensifying price competition. In the aftermath, underwent liquidation, with its assets sold off to cover debts estimated to result in $30 million in investor losses. , who had stepped down as president in late 1982, departed from the hardware sector following the , though he briefly ventured into software publishing before retiring from the industry in the early 1990s.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Critics have argued that the Osborne effect has been overstated as the primary cause of the company's , attributing the failure instead to a combination of poor management decisions and broader market dynamics. Internal political conflicts, including tensions between founder and CEO Robert Jaunich, along with manufacturing bottlenecks, severely hampered operations and contributed significantly to the collapse. Additionally, the rapid shift in the industry toward PC-compatible systems eroded Osborne's market position, as competitors like and offered more advanced, standards-compliant alternatives that attracted developers and customers away from Osborne's CP/M-based machines. Counterarguments emphasize direct evidence linking the premature announcement to sales declines, including Adam Osborne's own admission that revealing the Osborne Executive was "a big mistake" that halted purchases of the existing model. Sales figures support this correlation, with monthly revenues peaking at $10 million in August 1982 before plummeting after the February 1983 announcement, culminating in price reductions from $1,295 to $995 per unit by mid-1983 amid excess inventory. Debates on often highlight external economic pressures, such as the 1983 recession and a broader shakeout in the sector, which deterred investors and amplified Osborne's vulnerabilities beyond the announcement itself. By the , the Osborne effect is widely accepted as a real phenomenon in literature, though analyses portray it as just one of several interconnected failure points rather than the sole culprit.

Broader Examples

Technology Sector Instances

In the technology sector, the Osborne effect has manifested in several high-profile cases where pre-announcement hype for upcoming products led to deferred purchases of existing offerings, disrupting sales cycles and inventory management. Tesla's 2016 reveal of the Model 3 provides a stark illustration of the Osborne effect in hardware innovation. Unveiled in March 2016 with promises of affordability (under $35,000 base price) and advanced features like , the Model 3 garnered over 180,000 reservations within 24 hours and 276,000 within a week, signaling massive demand. However, production delays—initial deliveries pushed from late 2017 to mid-2018 due to bottlenecks—led to waitlist fatigue, with cancellation rates reaching an estimated 23% by 2018 as early reservation holders shifted to competitors or abandoned the queue. The early announcement cannibalized sales of Tesla's higher-end Model S and X, as potential buyers held off anticipating the more accessible Model 3, contributing to a temporary slowdown in overall vehicle deliveries during 2017. Analysts noted this as a self-inflicted Osborne effect, where the hype generated $20 billion in potential revenue but strained cash flow amid scaling challenges. Sega's preannouncement of the console in 1997 is another classic example. Amid declining sales of the , the early reveal of the more advanced Dreamcast—touted for online capabilities and 3D graphics—led gamers to delay purchases, accelerating the Saturn's market decline and contributing to Sega's exit from hardware production by 2001. Apple's announcement of its transition to in June 2020 similarly evoked Osborne concerns for Intel-based Macs. At WWDC, CEO revealed plans to phase out processors over two years, with the first M1-powered Macs shipping by year's end. This news prompted some consumers and businesses to delay purchases of existing Intel models, such as the 2020 and Pro, fearing in software support and performance. Although overall Mac revenue rose 16% year-over-year in Q3 2020 to $7.96 billion, analysts observed softened demand for Intel configurations in the intervening months, with resale values for used Intel Macs dropping sharply post-announcement. The strategy ultimately succeeded, as M1 launches drove record Mac sales in Q4 2020 (up 80% to $10.25 billion), but the interim period highlighted risks of pre-announcing architectural shifts in a premium hardware ecosystem. Nokia's early promotion of Windows-based phones in the early provides a further instance. As Nokia shifted from its OS to starting in 2011, previews of the superior integration and app ecosystem led enterprise and consumer customers to defer device purchases, hastening the platform's decline and contributing to Nokia's loss of smartphone market leadership to Android and iOS competitors.

Instances Outside Technology

In the automotive sector, the Osborne effect has been observed during transitions to new technologies, where announcements of superior upcoming models lead consumers to postpone purchases of existing vehicles. More recently, ' March 4, 2020, unveiling of the battery platform and flexible EV architecture exemplified this phenomenon, as it signaled a shift toward electric vehicles and contributed to deferred purchases of (ICE) models. This announcement, part of a broader industry trend, accelerated the erosion of ICE sales throughout 2020, with consumers holding off in anticipation of more advanced EV options. Tesla's 2016 Model 3 announcement also triggered the Osborne effect across the broader automotive market, prompting buyers to delay vehicle acquisitions while awaiting the more efficient electric alternative, leading to a noticeable slowdown in traditional car sales as repeated EV reveals amplified consumer hesitation. In consumer goods, Research In Motion (RIM, now BlackBerry Limited) encountered the Osborne effect during its pivot to devices around 2010-2011. The company's insistence on physical keyboards initially clashed with market shifts toward touch interfaces, but the March 2011 preview of —promising a full OS upgrade—caused significant deferrals in sales of existing physical keyboard models running older software. This premature hype for the next-generation platform, which launched in 2013, exacerbated RIM's erosion from a 2010 peak of 43 percent in the U.S. to sharp declines thereafter.

Business Lessons

Prevention Strategies

Companies can mitigate the Osborne effect by carefully timing product announcements to coincide closely with availability, typically within 3-6 months of launch, to minimize customer deferral while building anticipation through vague teasers that avoid detailed specifications. This approach ensures that demand for the new product ramps up without excessively eroding sales of the existing lineup, as premature full disclosures can shift consumer preferences toward the unfulfilled promise of the upgrade. Effective communication techniques further help by emphasizing ongoing support for current products, such as extending warranties, offering bundles, or highlighting unique benefits that differentiate them from the upcoming model. plays a key role here, allowing firms to target announcements to non-overlapping customer groups, thereby preserving sales in legacy segments while exciting new ones. Promotions like discounts on existing inventory can also reinforce perceived value, countering any psychological pull toward waiting. Internal controls are essential to prevent information leaks that could trigger unintended preannouncements; this includes strict non-disclosure agreements, compartmentalized development teams, and phased market testing to gauge readiness before any public reveal. Such measures ensure announcements occur only when production capacity supports immediate fulfillment, avoiding the phantom product trap where hype outpaces delivery. Successful implementations include Apple's strategy of maintaining extreme around product details until launch events, followed by rapid shipping—often within weeks—as seen in release cycles, which sustains current model sales by limiting speculation and deferral. In contrast, early missteps like Osborne's have informed these tactics, but firms like similarly employ timed teasers and segmented to balance innovation hype with stable revenue streams.

Modern Relevance and Applications

In the (EV) industry, the Osborne effect has manifested through announcements of upcoming models leading to deferred purchases of existing ones, particularly evident in Tesla's 2024-2025 sales dynamics. For instance, anticipation of the Model Y "" refresh contributed to a decline in Model Y sales in during mid-2024, as consumers waited for the updated version rather than buying the current model. Similarly, Tesla's soft sales outlook for 2024 was partly attributed to the Osborne effect from hype around future products like the and Cybercab, causing potential buyers to hold off on current EV purchases. Automakers like and have accelerated EV launches toward 2025 targets—GM aiming for 30 models and VW for 30 Audi EVs—to counter risks, but regulatory-driven timelines have intensified deferral behaviors among consumers awaiting more advanced, compliant vehicles. In the AI hardware sector, NVIDIA's early tease of next-generation "" AI chips during its 2024 keynote exemplified caution around the Osborne effect, with CEO expressing hesitation to avoid cannibalizing sales of current Blackwell GPUs. This reflects broader races in AI accelerators, where premature announcements can shorten product lifecycles amid rapid advancements, prompting firms to balance hype with inventory management. Evolving challenges in the 2020s include the amplification of product hype through digital channels, which compresses consumer deferral windows from months to weeks as rumors spread virally, exacerbating sales drops for legacy hardware. Subscription models offer a by decoupling revenue from one-time hardware sales, providing steady income streams even as announcements deter physical purchases—evident in software-centric ecosystems like Adobe's Creative , where updates do not halt subscriptions. From a global perspective, the Osborne effect is pronounced in emerging markets, where longer delays—often 6-12 months due to logistics and import barriers—prolong consumer wait times, leading to steeper sales halts for current models after announcements. Regulatory influences further shape this, as mandates like the EU's 2035 combustion engine ban or China's EV subsidies compel early reveals of compliant products, heightening deferral risks in regions with uneven . Looking ahead, accelerating innovation cycles in AI and EVs will likely heighten Osborne effect risks, as shorter development timelines—now approximately 24 months (2 years) for major GPU iterations—demand agile announcement strategies to sustain revenue without agile pivots, firms without them face amplified inventory overhangs.

References

  1. https://www.utdallas.edu/~rrao/NPP-03.29.2016.pdf
  2. https://www.kornferry.com/insights/briefings-magazine/issue-36/computer-titan-crashed-by-osborne-effect
  3. https://www.thehenryford.org/explore/blog/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-osborne-computer-corporation
  4. https://m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/the-osborne-effect-why-tech-giants-stay-silent-on-their-next-big-thing/articleshow/119654869.cms
  5. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/25/the-osborne-effect-on-the-auto-industry/
  6. https://pivotal.digital/insights/1981-adam-osborne-invents-the-laptop
  7. https://technologizer.com/2011/04/01/osborne-computer/index.html
  8. https://carleton.ca/scs/vintage-computing/item/vin18/
  9. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-mar-25-me-osborne25-story.html
  10. https://www.xda-developers.com/40-years-ago-osborne-computer-bankruptcy/
  11. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/09/business/race-for-smaller-computers.html
  12. https://thisdayintechhistory.com/04/18/osborne-executive-introduced/
  13. https://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/comp1983apr.htm
  14. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/04/22/Osbornes-big-screen-portable-computer-unveiled/9072419835600/
  15. http://www.computercloset.org/OsborneExecutive.htm
  16. https://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v10n3/24_Osborne_Comptuer_Corporat.php
  17. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3124
  18. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/the-osborne-effect-why-tech-giants-stay-silent-on-their-next-big-thing/articleshow/119654869.cms
  19. https://www.thinkbrg.com/insights/publications/nervous-system-the-osborne-effect/
  20. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/15/business/pacesetting-computer-maker-files-for-bankruptcy.html
  21. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/06/business/behind-the-big-collapse-at-osborne.html
  22. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2003/03/30/computer-pioneer-adam-osborne-dies-at-64/d323a194-b50d-4f6b-a030-ca1303f01bf2/
  23. https://www.theregister.com/2014/03/06/happy_birthday_adam_osborne/
  24. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/16/business/as-a-computer-market-frays.html
  25. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2016/04/06/teslas-unbelievable-model-3-pre-order-mirage-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/
  26. https://mondaynote.com/musk-osborning-his-model-3-5e7c76fbaf8b
  27. https://electrek.co/2016/07/26/tesla-model-3-elon-musk-generating-20-billion-revenue-25-gross-margin-tsla/
  28. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/29/apple-ditched-intel-and-it-paid-off.html
  29. https://investor.gm.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gm-reveals-new-ultium-batteries-and-flexible-global-platform
  30. https://thedriven.io/2020/07/07/the-osborne-effect-why-new-car-sales-will-be-all-electric-in-six-years/
  31. https://thedriven.io/2021/08/15/how-teslas-model-3-triggered-the-osbourne-effect-and-caused-the-ice-market-to-melt/
  32. https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-digit/submission/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-again-of-blackberry/
  33. https://www.zdnet.com/article/rims-osborne-effect-course-set-in-march-2011/
  34. https://associationsnow.com/2014/08/blackberry-breakdown-how-a-smartphone-giant-lost-its-way/
  35. https://www.nex-ray.net/en/glossary/osborne-effect
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332083483_New_Product_Preannouncement_Phantom_Products_and_the_Osborne_Effect
  37. https://www.vighneshchavan.in/the-osborne-effect
  38. https://insideevs.com/news/726147/tesla-modely-june2024-china-sales/
  39. https://seekingalpha.com/news/4059356-tesla-may-be-factoring-in-the-osborne-effect-with-its-soft-outlook
  40. https://themobilist.medium.com/in-a-rising-threat-the-osborne-effect-confronts-automakers-with-potential-obsolescence-1b1ea660bf45
  41. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/06/nvidia-jumps-ahead-of-itself-and-reveals-next-gen-rubin-ai-chips-in-keynote-tease/
  42. https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/news/article/the-osborne-effect-why-tech-giants-stay-silent-on-their-next-big-thing-10417
  43. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-19/bmw-joins-volkswagen-in-the-race-for-next-level-ev-batteries
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.