Why did IBM’s Microchannel architecture fail commercially

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Of course, my answer to this is a matter of opinion. The IBM PC’s original bus (called the IBM AT bus or ISA bus) was typical of its time. That is, it was designed for a relatively low?performance system with a poor bandwidth and limited expansion capabilities. It was, essentially, an extension of the CPU’s own bus. IBM developed the MCA (microchannel architecture) to replace its earlier bus. This was too little too late. It offered considerable improvements but suffered a number of limitations.
However, the main problem with the MCA bus was that it was a proprietary architecture; that is, it was owned
(patented) by IBM and users had to pay a license fee. As a response to MCA, a consortium of companies
developed another bus to replace the AT bus, called the EISA (Extended Industry Standard Architecture). This was
an open architecture that did not require licensing and could be freely used by any manufacturer. Independent PCclone manufacturers adopted the EISA bus and that effectively killed the MCA bus. If EISA killed the MCA bus, the
next development in bus technology, the much more sophisticated PCI bus, buried it.