Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD
Okay, I'll bite. So the A600 was and the A500+ wasn't? Or they both were part of their 'product strategy'?
|
Yes.
The original A500 had a 512k Agnus and 16 256kx1 DRAMs onboard. Then the rev 6 A500 was introduced with a 1MB Agnus and 4 256x4 DRAM chips. Finally the A500+ came out with a 2MB Agnus and the whole 1MB onboard with real-time clock - equivalent to an A500 with A501 RAM expansion. The A500+ also had the latest Kickstart 2 ROM, which set the stage for the A600.
Each step involved not only enhancements but also cost reductions. In 1987 the A500 debuted at £499, dropping to £399 in 1988. The A500+ sold for the same price but with double the RAM and onboard RTC. The A600 was introduced at the same price as the A500+, but with an internal modulator, IDE port and PCMCIA slot.
However there was some resistance to the A600 at £399, so they dropped the price. By 1993 it was selling at £255 for the base model and £325 with a 20MB hard drive -
much cheaper than an A500+ with A590, but not (officially) as expandable - as befitted a cost-reduced 'end of line' model.
The only big 'oversight' in the A600's design was the lack of an official path for upgrading the CPU. However considering the target market this is understandable. The A600 already well exceeded the specs of the 'standard' 1MB A500 that games targeted, and with a 2MB PCMCIA RAM board even matched an A500+ with A590. Not bad for a machine that was both cheaper and more portable.
In 1992 there was only one 'official' CPU expansion for the A500, the very expensive
GVP A530. All the other A500 turbo cards were hacks that plugged into the 68000 CPU socket. Commodore could have put a CPU socket in the A600 too, but that would have raised the price and perhaps compromised reliability - which was one of the reasons for going surface mount (Agnus's PLCC socket was a major cause of reliability problems in the A500).
But of course Amiga fans were hanging out for more. They already
had an Amiga 500 and wanted something better. The A1200 was that machine - everything the A600 was but with a full-size keyboard, 14MHz 68020 CPU, 32 bit expansion bus and next generation graphics. And this is where Commodore misstepped. They didn't appreciate how fast the PC market was changing and how important it was to keep existing users by giving them a worthwhile upgrade path. Instead of just continuing down the road of 'cost reduction with small enhancements' while taking their time introducing the 'next generation', they should have prioritized getting the A1200 out ASAP.
For many Amiga fans the A600 was the last straw that proved Commodore would never give them what they wanted, and as usual Commodore did nothing to disabuse them of that notion because they didn't want to be hit by the
Osborne effect. But in this case it didn't matter, since Amiga fans looking to upgrade wouldn't buy the A600 anyway. They could have pre-announced the A1200 while it was still in development and not hurt A600 sales at all. Even better would be if they had started development of AGA a little earlier and announced both the A600
and A1200 in April 1992.
Bill Sydnes got dissed for stopping development of the A3000+ and designing cost-reduced models instead. But this was the strategy Commodore had generally adopted in the past which up until now had been successful. The A3000 was an anomaly, an engineer's wet dream that didn't translate into sales because it was overpriced and yet didn't offer much more than an A500 or A2000 for most users. Putting the AGA chipset in it was another mistake. What they really needed was an AGA machine like the A1200, a quantum leap over the A500 without compromising compatibility too much and still cheap enough to be attractive. This should have come out while most 'consumer level' PCs were still 286's and 386SX's with similar or worse specs (ie. early 1992 or before).
The high end could have been serviced by upgrading the A2000's expansion bus to 32 bit and going RTG, while applying cost-cutting measures to it too. This should have come out in 1990 instead of the A3000. IOW, they screwed up by
not following their standard strategy of 'cost reduction with small enhancements' when they should have. The A3000 was the opposite - cost
inflation without a quantum leap to justify it. People talk about how the A600 was a mistake because it cost more than they expected, but the A3000 was way worse - and I say that as someone who bought one at full price.