Don't Call It A Comeback: 7 Products That Saved Their Companies (And 2 That Didn't)
They say fate's a fickle mistress, but destiny's got nothing on the free market. For every Microsoft-esque success story, there's the burnt out husk of Sun Microsystems (R.I.P.). The really interesting tales have nothing to do with overwhelming successes or overwhelming failures, though; any budding novelist can tell you that a good story needs some tension.
Join us as we take a look back at ten companies that found themselves broken, beaten, and battered, leaning on the ropes and looking woozy. Seven of them were able to summon the strength of Soda Popinksi and roar back to life stronger than ever. Two Glass Joe wannabes tried to put up a fight but found themselves on the mat in short order. The last one's still covering its face and playing rope-a-dope. Can it survive after staring down the face of extinction? Call them good or call them lucky – just don't call it a comeback.
THE CHAMPS
Intel: 386 microprocessor

"Intel?" we can hear you asking. "How do you start with Intel? They're friggin' Intel!" Well, they weren't always – at least not as the chip-slinging microprocessor giant that you know and love. Once upon a time, Intel was known more for its memory-making prowess. And aside from a momentary downward dip in the 1974 thanks to a nationwide recession, things went pretty well for the company.
Flash forward to the early 80s: the majority of Intel's focus remained in DRAM – and things weren't looking so good for DRAM manufacturers. Competitive Japanese suppliers had sucked the profit margins out of the business for companies like Intel. Things got ugly; Intel imposed extra hours on salaried employees and pay cuts on, well, pretty much everybody. Something had to change, and it had to change quickly.
That something ended up being a massive shift in Intel's focus. After striking gold with the 80286 – better known to geeks as the 286 – in 1982, CEO Andrew Grove chose to pull back from the cut-throat DRAM market and focus instead on microprocessors, which didn't have as many up-and-down cycles as other semiconductor components. Intel decided to keep the design of its megapopular 32-bit 386 chip to itself, making it the first single-sourced microprocessor in history – which meant PC makers could only get the chip from Intel. The cash flowed like wine and Intel as we know it was born.
AMD: Am386

Like Intel, AMD maintained a heavy presence in the RAM market throughout the early 1980s, and like Intel, the rise of Japanese competition devastated AMD's bottom line. Then, in 1986, Intel canceled a contract that allowed AMD to build the Am286 as a second-source 80286 supplier, kicking off a legal battle that lasted until 1994. To top it off, the country was in the midst of a recession. Broke and barred from building the popular 286 chipset, AMD was forced to lay off a portion of its workforce.
AMD came to the same conclusion as Intel; the future lied in microprocessors. And if Intel wouldn't hand over the design for the 386, AMD would figure it out itself, dammit! The company's engineers hunkered down and in 1991, AMD achieved its goal: the debut of the speedy, reverse-engineered Am386. Seven months and 1 million Am386s later, AMD was once again on the path to success – a path that would eventually lead to the internally developed K5 processor.
Iomega Zip Drive

In the early 90s, Iomega's Bernoulli Box was nearly 10 years old and starting to show its age (and, um, it was still incredibly expensive) while standard disk drives were plummeting in price and becoming more common in PCs. Unsurprisingly, Iomega was hemorrhaging cash and stock value. By 1993, the company was flat broke and its stock was worth less than $2. CEO Fred Wenninger said enough was enough and jumped ship.
His replacement, Kim Edwards, decided that if the company wanted to pull itself out of the quagmire, it needed a cheaper product with more consumer appeal. The Zip Drive launched towards the end of 1994 with a $200 price tag and reasonably priced 25MB and 100MB disks. Buoyed by a massive pre-launch ad campaign, the Zip Drives sold out immediately, then kept on selling. Six months after the Zip Drive's launch, Iomega's stock rose ten-fold. By 1996, the company was rolling in cash, bringing in over $1.2 billion in revenue. Disaster had been averted, and then some.
Footnote: The Zip Drive saved Iomega, but the company didn't stay on top. By 1998, the Zip Drive's "Click of Death" was a well-known and much-hated sound. The rise of cheap CD burners sealed the Zip Drive's fate. Iomega's still around, but in reduced form.
Razer Diamondhead

Razer got off to a fast start with its highly accurate Boomslang mouse. Before you could say "Boom! Headshot!", Razer was everywhere serious FPS fans gathered, launching the Cyber Athlete Professional League and sponsoring Jonathan "Fatal1ty" Wendel.
Then literal disaster struck: while the company was still reeling from the dot-com bubble burst, a major earthquake completely destroyed Razer's manufacturing facilities in Taiwan. In the blink of an eye, Razer's inventory was wiped out, along with its ability to replenish it.
The launch of the optical Viper 1000 and redesigned Boomslang variants in 2003 couldn't rescue Razer's devastated business, and by 2004, most of the senior management fled the company, leaving co-founders Min-Liang Tan and Robert "Razerguy" Krakoff in charge. They rolled out the 1600 dpi Diamondback towards the end of the year to the delight of reviewers and consumers alike. Scads of Diamondbacks sold – in fact, the initial run of the limited edition Diamondback Plasma sold out in just over half an hour – and Razer follows it up with the widely acclaimed 2000 dpi Copperhead in 2005. Before you know it, Razer bigwigs were lighting their cigars with $100 bills once again.
Nvidia RIVA 128

Flash back to 1995: 3D cards were the hot new high-end thing in PCs, and tons of companies were trying to establish a foothold in the market. Nobody had even settled on a standard way of displaying 3D graphics. Two year old Nvidia threw its young weight behind quadratic texture maps when it released its NV1 graphics card.
Big mistake.
Shortly after Nvidia launched the NV1, Microsoft released Direct3D, which relied on polygons for its 3D effects. Developers ran screaming from the quadratic-rific NV1 and OEMs treated the card like the kiss of death. A Sega-funded NV2 chip never actually materialized. Cue the pink slips.
Nvidia went to work on the RIVA 128 in 1997. After the disastrous NV1 and the vapor-ware NV2, big things weren't expected from the GPU, but big-enough things were delivered. Critic's weren't exactly blown away – both boot, Maximum PC's forefather, as well as Tom's Hardware declared 3dfx's Voodoo Graphics superior to the RIVA 128. But unlike 3dfx's offering, the RIVA 128 offered both 2D and 3D support – a feature OEMs loved. PC manufacturers snapped the RIVA 128 up in droves and Nvidia's been sitting pretty ever since.
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
naxself
August 20, 2011 at 10:31am
RIM's problem is that it's exactly like the guy who lived in Bratislave in "EuroTrip." When asked by the main characters if there was a train nearby by they could take to Berlin, he said, "Yes. They're building it now."
RIM doesn't realize that the it's building a train to nowhere. The PlayBook was a great idea marred by terrible implementation (really? No email on a RIM device?!?). The designs of their phones are not meant for consumers; they're meant for business people desperately trying (and failing) to look cool. In trying to capture the "cool" market, RIM lost itself. It needs to find an industrial designer who will revamp the comsumer end of their products, kinda like when Sterling Cooper hired young people to get in touch with youth in the 1960s. The put out two products: one for the coporate people who love them (and their functionality and email service) and one for consumers, which is a completely different, consumer-friendly design (alternatively, scrap the corporate wing and just redesign the phone from the ground up; I'm not sure how much money RIM has laying around or if they can support two separate groups).
Compounding this problem is the OS. RIM clearly rushed both the PlayBook and OS 6.0 (or whatever it is). They need to either push updates to all the phones or else stop supporting all phones before a certain year. Make sure to offer free upgrades so the consumer doesn't migrate to Apple or Android.
![]()
Neckername
August 19, 2011 at 2:19pm
I remember having a Radeon 9200 128MB PCI card replace my VooDoo3 2000 card. It served very well for its price. I have been an ATI (now AMD) graphics fan since. I still like the way their cards are conservative on power, low heat, and low price. I also work repairing phones at sprint, and between the number of blackberry pda's we need to repair (whether it's software or hardware), and the blackberry OS user interface, they are now a horrible platform with little support for upcoming technology. However, windows phone is getting better (slowly but surely), so there is still hope. Don't get me started on palm devices. I'm glad they're done with.
![]()
dethduck
August 19, 2011 at 1:17pm
Man, that Radeon 9800 Pro was a beast, ran everything I threw at it right up till it finally burned out in early 2007. I was already an ATI convert from my Rage128 but that 9800Pro sealed me in for good. Won't buy anything but now.
![]()
Opterongeek
August 19, 2011 at 11:48am
Just one thing, and it's minor, but I'm a geek, and I knew the 286 was 80286. I think the line should have read "After striking gold with the 80286 – better known to everyone else as the 286 – in 1982..."
Hell, I was only a year old when the 286 launched. Give us some credit ;)
![]()
€-Man
August 19, 2011 at 7:02am
RIM is not on the ropes. RIM cannot be compared to Palm. RIM is profitable and continues to ship record units each quarter. They are on the decline in the US and under powered devices and the delay in new line were part of the problem. QNX is awesome, and even if things actually start looking grim for RIM, they easily can produce Android devices. RIM can easily become a leader in the Android market by producing Android phones and adding the many advantages of a Blackberry.
![]()
Peanut Fox
August 19, 2011 at 8:53am
I don't think Blackberry can succeed pushing Android. Not when the Android market is saturated by manufacturers. Motorola, HTC, Samsung, and LG all make Android phones and there are many more that make devices. Does RIM want to even attempt to step into that market? And even if they do what product do they bring to the table that can shine through the overwelming number of Android devices? Because no one seems to be responding to the things they're making now.
![]()
Browncow8
August 19, 2011 at 8:48am
What could they possibly add to an Android phone to make it any different or better than the current or unreleased Android phones?
Add a screen that clicks? Yeah that was a great idea.... NOT!!!
Scroll Ball? HTC has done that and kinda kicked it by the wayside.
Or maybe a flip phone with a scroll ball... yeah that phone went over well.... :S
Sliding phone? Blackberry took a long time to come out with one of those and almost evey other company that makes Android phones currently make a slider of some sort.
Maybe a native Brick Breaker game, because lets be honest with our selves, that was the best part of a Blackberry.
![]()
chinomon
August 19, 2011 at 12:00am
wow, I really enjoyed this article. I love all the flash from the past stuff you guys do, though I wasn't born yet some of us really enjoy learning things from the past we didn't know.
![]()
Eagle70ss
August 18, 2011 at 10:39pm
If anyone cares...the upper left emblem on the RIVA chip "ST" is ST Microelectronics...Stamped chips here in Big D for years at ST until they shut'em down and moved to Asia...It's French/Italian owned company with sites all over the world, but the USA sites were far and away the most productive and had the highest yields...The Italian side always loved us and the French side always hated us. The French side took over around 2009 and soon after, we got the chop...I guess that's how the crossiant crumbles.
I wonder if we will still be able to make a produce any chips here before it's all over.
![]()
Maktaka
August 18, 2011 at 10:06pm
Man, I WISH Lotus didn't matter to me. Unfortunately, Spain's pretty deep in Big Blue's pocket, and my (American) employer is owned by a Spanish company, which means Outlook is out and the utter piece of trash that is Lotus Notes is in. It takes a pretty godawful piece of software to make you pine for Outlook.
![]()
avenger48
August 18, 2011 at 7:19pm
Really nice job, guys, this is one of the best articles I've seen on MPC in the last year or so.
![]()
jac_goudsmit
August 18, 2011 at 4:37pm
Wow, I would have bet a lot of money that the Apple iPod would be in here somewhere. As far as I remember from the late 90s, PC's were king and Apple was almost dead: all they had were MacIntoshes that no-one wanted anymore; Microsoft and other software makers stopped supporting the Mac. Then came the iPod, followed by all the other iWhatever products and they're not doing so bad right now I think.
![]()
Brad Chacos
August 18, 2011 at 4:52pm
Hi Jac,
The iPod's one of the biggest success stories ever, and very well known -- no joke, my mother was explaining to my grandmother how it saved Apple just last week. Plus we tried to keep a more PC-oriented focus for this article. So, no iPod. You're right, though, in almost any other circumstance it would have been on the list.
![]()
someuid
August 18, 2011 at 4:23pm
I remember using OS/2. I remember moving a program directory and the icon on the desktop automatically updated itself to point to the exe's new location, due to the object oriented design of the OS. That was awesome.
I wish MS and IBM hadn't split, leaving OS/2 to die and MS to go make Win95, which was so simple and clunky compared to OS/2. How different computing would be had OS/2 grew and become the dominant OS.
![]()
OhSoCheesy
August 23, 2011 at 8:06pm
Yeah I couldn't believe MS beat IBM on that one. I guess I was in college at the time, but I never knew why MS won that one. OS/2 was clearly better. Anyone know why?
![]()
DogPatch1149
August 18, 2011 at 3:44pm
<nitpick>
"The future lied in microprocessors"...wouldn't that be "the future lay in microprocessors"?
</nitpick>
![]()
dgrmouse
August 18, 2011 at 3:18pm
lol @ 808286. There was an 8088 and a 80286, but no 808286 AFAIK.
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.


















