Commodore couldn't have managed their way out of a hat.
Content to sit back on their money earners, they stopped innovating and, surprise surprise, a few years later they were bust.
Hattig,
I could not agree with you more that CBM could not manage their way out of a hat but I do not agree with the rest of your argument.
The Commodore 64 was their bread winner for a long time and while they did stupid things like the Commodore 16 and Plus/4, the Commodore 128 was a worthy successor to the 64 with some nice features.
I've heard others complain that the 8 bit line should have evolved but I'm not sure where you go from the 128? I too loved the 64 and I also loved the 128. I'm not trying to give you a hard time but I pose this question to you: If you try to evolve the 8bit line, don't you start running into serious problems? For example:
1. When you start adding a more powerful CPU, graphics, etc..., when do you run into the Amiga 500?
2. Cost. Again you start upgrading the CPU/Graphics and don't you run into the Amiga 500 price point?
3. Performance. Again, doesn't the Amiga 500 make more sense given the above? If Commodore could have done a hardware/software emulator like Apple did for the Apple II to Mac folks that might have been better. We all know how poorly the software only emulators ran on a stock 500.
Also, do people care? I remember people wanting to run GEOS on the Commodore 64 emulator for their Amiga 500/2000. Does that make sense? Does using Paperclip make sense on an Amiga with an emulator?
4. In a world of 16/32 bit goodness, would the market support another 8/16 bit machine even turbo-ized? I'm not sure...
Lastly, isn't the Commodore 65 the embodiment of the above issues? Where does the Commodore 65 live? It's cost was close to a 500, not fully compatible with the 64, and not as powerful as an Amiga. How do you sell that to the public in the 90's.
Hattig, I think you ask a great question.
Cheers!
-P
