View Single Post
Old 26 June 2009, 13:42   #23
Harrison's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by mfletcher View Post
Wasnt one of the problems that the Amiga faced was rampant piracy? Werent devs moving off the platform to the PC because of falling sales?
A common misconception often stated. Piracy had absolutely nothing to do with software and games developers moving platform to the Mac and PC. It was purely because the hardware sales of Amigas were dropping and the developers could see Commodore was in financial trouble. They moved to the PC to save their own businesses. Not because of piracy.

Pirating software has been just as bad on every platform ever made. The PC especially. And think about it. The more piracy on a platform will increase hardware sales of that platform, not hinder it, as more and more people buy into the platform knowing they can obtain free software. However this also increases software sales, because even those pirating software will still buy some real software during their time using the platform, and so that will still increase sales of the software.

Piracy was huge on the Amiga in the late 80's and yet games developers enjoyed big sales of their games. Piracy can even work as a marketing tool for some software sales. So often people obtain a free copy of a game and enjoy it so much that they then buy the original.

Or in the case of other software, taking Photoshop as the best example, pirated copies are used to learn the software by students, and then when they come to use it commercially the companies they work for buy a real copy, therefore making one more sale for the developer. When piracy is stated as the key reason for the failure of a software company you have to look more closely at the software they were producing and question if it really was the quality of their products that ultimately led to their downfall.

Originally Posted by ImmortalA1000 View Post
Business customers would never adopt a non PC standard EVER, think of the training for engineers and staff and think of the costs of redesigning networks etc. Hell even IBM couldn't crack it with PS/2 architecture and OS/2 operating system.
Actually, you can blame the failing of OS/2 on Microsoft. IBM and Microsoft co-developed OS/2, but Microsoft was only really in it for the OS development technology. They then pulled out of the OS and instead used all the best bits to go on to develop NT. Something which has now become the underlying architecture for XP, Vista and Win7.

And that argument doesn't really hold water. Win9x and DOS were the industry standards. However now NT based OSs are the desktop standard and DOS and a lot of Win9x code doesn't run as standard. Microsoft managed to change the standard that PCs used. And in effect you could say that the legacy of OS/2 lives on because of these NT based OSs.

Originally Posted by ImmortalA1000 View Post
Commodore pissed away their advantage of Daphne Agnus Paula for nearly a decade AND stuck with a 68000 for over half a century.

The A500 and A2000 are essentially the same as the A1000 which is a 1985 design! And the A3000 was not really any better than the A2000 + 16/25mhz 030 C= cpu card inside. FAIL.
Originally Posted by NovaCoder View Post
I think most of it was spent on the CDTV
It is very true that Commodore spent too many years enjoying the fruits of the original A1000 design. Repackaging it into the A500 and A2000 and living off the profits for years. By the time the AGA chipset machines were released the PC was already ahead of the Amiga with dedicated graphics and sound cards that could surpass the capabilities of the ageing OCS chipset. Commodore had just left it too late to catch up and compete against the PC market which had the big advantage of being an open modular design with hardware components made by many manufacturers making up each PC build.

It was purely for this reason, and no other, that Commodore failed in the end.

I'm actually surprised Apple managed to hang on with the Mac and didn't go a similar way. It was eventually only the invention of the iPod that saved them. They don't really make any money on their Mac hardware any more.

I don't believe Commodore were wrong in developing the CDTV. In fact I think it was a very brave move. OK, it was a commercial failure, but they could see the possibilities for the future of home entertainment. The technology just wasn't quite there yet to deliver the full vision they had. And only really now with the PS3 and Xbox 360 are we starting to see the real ideas behind a true multimedia platform being realised. Therefore Commodore were really 20 years ahead in he ideas they had behind the CDTV.

The CD32 on the other hand was a big mistake. It was a last ditch attempt to try and catch up with the games industry, which it could see was quickly moving away from home computers as the main platform for gaming, and into the console market. They should have instead concentrated on delivering an official CD drive for the A1200 and A4000. I think had they done that we would have seen a lot more software and games development for CD on the Amiga. With limited funds Commodore were never going to be able to take on the big players in the console market, and with the arrival of Sony and the PSX it was the end of even some already big in the console marketplace.

Originally Posted by alexh View Post
Commodore UK had $$ in 1994 and it didn't last too long...
Commodore UK was the only profitable part of Commodore at the end and were making money. The UK was probably the most successful location for the A1200, along with some other EU countries such as Germany, because Commodore UK knew what they had in the hardware and how to market it at the right customer base.

Commodore US never really knew how to market the Amiga. With the C64 they had been so successful because it was a great home computer that could easily be marketed at the home computer market for games and education. But with the Amiga they instantly tried to be too ambitious and greedy and tried to take on the PC market, marketing the Amiga as a professional business machine. Something that wasn't its key strength. Yes the Amiga could do anything the PCs of that era could do, but it was so much more and Commodore US just didn't market the Amiga to those strengths, so initially the A1000 didn't sell as well as it should have purely because of bad marketing decisions made by corporate suits who didn't understand what the Amiga was, and aimed it at a price point out of the reach of home users.

If it hadn't been for the A500 I think Commodore would have gone bust a long time before it did. The A500 was the model that really made the Amiga popular as a home computer and games machine, and was responsible for the majority of sales in the 80's (especially in Europe). It was affordable, and it delivered what C64 fans wanted in their next platform.

Originally Posted by Paul_s View Post
Nowadays if the Amiga was still around it'd just turn into a glorified Intel based PC - pretty much like a Mac i'd imagine (the mac went to PPC and then, look at it now.... Intel... ) and that wasn't what the Amiga was about....
I don't think we will ever know what form the Amiga would have taken had it survived.

Had the history of the Amiga been different and proper development happened throughout the 80's and into the 90's the Amiga would have been far more advanced by 1992, and the A1200 wouldn't have been the system we now know. Continued development of the Amiga would have kept it ahead of anything the PC market was developing and we might have seen the computer market place moving in a completely different form or direction.

That is the dream of pretty much all Amiga fans still around. That Commodore had developed the Amiga throughout its lifetime to keep it ahead of the game. Rather than living off the profits of the original Lorraine design.
Harrison is offline  
Page generated in 0.04038 seconds with 10 queries