Ferry wrote:
DaveP wrote:
Your assumption is based on the market conditions remaining static.
I'm not assuming nor guessing nor speculating. I have been a computer salesman for almost 10 years, and I have sold both Amiga and C= PC, amongst other.
You are assuming that the market conditions remained static. Let me show you:
The Commodore PC range was one of the WORST line of computers I have ever seen: they were poorly equipped and very expensive compared to many other brands.
Right. There. Thats a static assumption. The A600 and A500+ were
the WORST Amiga computers I ever used. Complete waste of space - you know
what C= did? Brought out a new version. Now the market conditions
for the PC changed significantly in 1994/5. There the rebranding and
re-using of off the shelf parts in common started to increase and prices dropped.
Dell and IBM ( I happen to know one of those inside out btw ) started
to cut their costs by outsourcing component manufacture. The cost
of producing a GOOD PC compat machine dropped like a stone.
Because C= stopped investing in its line ( because it got burnt ) by
over-reacting and misunderstanding the problem in its PC line they
did the wrong thing. They dropped the PC market which boomed enormously
in the following three to five years which could have cross subsidised
the already falling sales of Amigas.
In the meantime, the Amiga was selling very, very well, with nearly no advertisement.
That might have been true in Spain, it was even partly true in the UK but
you are ignoring the market trend which was away from the Amiga. Again you
are assuming static market conditions.
They took the wrong
gamble ( that the PC business would remain loss making and that the
Amiga business would grow ) and died.
I cannot agree. When they jumped into the PC market wagon, it was already moving, faster and faster. But they did it with the wrong foot...
No you just agreed with me. I said that the PC business was loss making
and they took the gamble that it would REMAIN loss making and were wrong. The
market factors changed within a year of them exiting the PC business
licking their wounds. If they had changed their business approach within
the PC market then they would have ended up cash rich.
And, meanwhile, they let the Amiga market slowly die, with no support and a wrong and late developing of new models. A1200 and A4000 were more a patch than a new development: they were good designs cut down just to reduce costs, since they were already losing money in the PC side.
Hang on. You just said that the Amiga market was doing really well. Now
you agree with me - they let the Amiga market slowly die. In fact the
A1200 and A4000 would never have made inroads into PC magnitude
sales - at best they would have kept even for say 12 months.
The Amiga was NEVER popular as a serious PC contender for
desktop or small office use and sales were dipping in 1993-1994
anyway.
It was in multimedia (graphics, sound) ..
Wrong on one count there - sound was the Atari domain and then
PC solutions took over early 90s in the sales ranks. The second count
graphics. C'mon. Even in 1991 we were using PCs with 24bit graphics
cards that could run rings around the Amigas for image quality.
The specific TINY niche of "multimedia" displays the Amiga had
a small and SHRINKING market in.
and games, which has proved to be the most powerfull market.
The Amiga was practically dead as a games machine that could
contend with the PCs running Doom, Heretic etc in 1994. Akiko was
not powerful enough to reverse that issue and with ID software saying
"there will never be an Amiga port from us" signed and sealed the
death knoll of the Amiga game head apart from the obsessioonal
and delusional.
Even the PC sales fuelled by Doom would not have been hindered by
the A1200, A4000, A4000T trio and there was no way that AAA based
machines were on the horizon as contenders for the games niche
before 1996 based on C=s development to shelf typical lifecycle.
That was one of the main mistakes: too much time between new machines, but they were occupied developing and promoting PCs... :-(
No. I disagree. Their biggest mistake was not including a flicker fixer in
the A1200 and A4000 as standard so even those of us stupid enough
to buy monitors ( increasing the cost of the machines beyond that of a
bog standard PC with a 24 bit graphics card ) got permenant eyestrain
and were laughed at for the ultra-slow display.
For once it would be nice if people could accept the realities of the
situation and the past.
To accept something you have to know it first, and to know it the right way, not with half-truths and misinformations.
Without that they are easy pickings for the
non Amiga zealous and have unrealistic expectations of what
Amiga Inc and co can and should do.
That's why we all should know the truth about the past, if we don't want to repeat it.
You said it. Read it and weep.
