View Single Post
Old 11 May 2017, 01:32   #36
matthey
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelz View Post
Hm, well if we're going to speculate; I think Commodore would have gone the way of the dodo anyway. Commodore began as a typewriting company, and only entered the computer market because Tramiel was afraid of the Japanese strong competition. This is why Commodore entered the calculator business and as a result into the computer business.
IBM had a similar business machine background and also entered the personal computer market (they were very late with an unimpressive but open product even though they were already in the big computer market and had a better reputation than C=). Entering the PC market was a natural progression of business machines as they became more sophisticated and cheaper. Businesses selling business machines either kept up with technology or they went the "way of the dodo". Pressure also came from TI entering the calculator and later PC business but they also survived.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelz View Post
MOS was bought because Commodore was afraid they could be cut of from their CPU source and Amiga was bought later on because they could not innovate enough themselves.
C= was reliant on commodity products which it assembled into its own products. It did not own much technology and was dependent on its suppliers for its future. Acquiring MOS made them vertically integrated for manufacturing and supply efficiency and made them a technology player. They also acquired Chuck Peddle with MOS which allowed them to create the PET (first PC) and the very successful C64. The MOS acquisition was a brilliant move which made C= a leading technology company but they didn't seem to invest enough in R&D and their chip fabs fell behind in technology. The same happened with the Amiga after spotting and taking advantage of a good opportunity again. C= management seemed to be good at finding valuable acquisition opportunities but poor at integrating and developing them. It is easy to say C= management and leadership was a complete failure but they did enough right to put themselves in a fantastic position (IMO, not all luck) only to blow it big time. Some of this was probably because of upper management not understanding the technology they owned while they became complacent over-payed fat cats due to their early success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelz View Post
Just plain simple, Commodore placed sales first, innovation came only when they were afraid to lose their income. This is a too slow reaction to the very fast market of the home computer industry. There is no dishonour though, don't forget the home computer industry was very fast paced at that time, especially when you look at the market where Commodore started.
Yes, C= was very good at mass production but they had to figure out what to mass produce. The marketing part of this is difficult to predict but management successfully killed what little innovation they had with their low R&D budgets and even lower level managers not understanding the technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelz View Post
If a more creative or technical person would have had more control, they would still not go any other road, unless that person would have been firmly at the helm of the company. That might have changed some things, but "geeks" where not really seen as business men to get to that level I guess.
There have been some technology "geeks" get to upper management. I have seen research that many of the people who seek upper management and political positions are borderline psychopaths. Jack Tramiel probably fits this profile not that he was all bad. There are probably geeky borderline psychopaths too. Steve Jobs? He wasn't as good as the legend either.
matthey is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.08054 seconds with 9 queries