English Amiga Board - View Single Post

Charlie · 09 April 2007, 14:51

Hmmm,
If C= couldn't make an on-going success of the C64 line, they were never going to do it with the Amiga! - it's all about building on the user-base you've got. Clever ( headline grabing ) hardware/software only helps a bit.

IBM stumbled on that formula with the PC, so did Apple. The PC then 'took-over' because IBM lost control of their platform - the rise of the clones!

'The Spectacular Rise & Fall of C=' is a very interesting read, but I can't help feeling that for all the management madness detailed in that book it only hasened C='s demise.
You can't get away with selling new computers to your user base for ever - you'll loose too many to competitors...
You have to @ least sell the illusion of endless upgradeabilitiy so the masses aren't tempted to look further than the end of their noses!

This is why all these new Amiga-like products ( with the possible exception of AROS ) are doomed to failure even in 'sub-niche' markets. Not because of on-going stupid decisions & in-fighting, or because of any lack of merrit, but because even the perception of being tied to a static platform will put the punters off.

For the present: If it won't run on an x86 box - don't bother!
Even Apple gets that. ( sort-of )

Time Machine?
I'd go back & have a word with the engineers + marketing people on the subject of selling a box with lots of expansion + upgradeability above all else. C64 or Amiga based, though by the time the Amiga came out they may have already missed the boat. That was pretty much the design philosophy of the PET ( as Chuck Peddle saw it ) which if developed may well have seen C= becoming IBM + everything else rolled together...
( Bill Gates would probably now be hailed by the likes of us as the plucky underdog who could have saved the home computer from C=, if only... )
.
.
I'd tell them how sucessful IBM are about to be despite a technically inferior platform. Maybe even suggest licensing to Atari etc! ( gasp )

I do go on a bit, don't I?

09 April 2007, 14:51	#17
Charlie . . Mouse . . Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Nowhere Age: 55 Posts: 1,792	Hmmm, If C= couldn't make an on-going success of the C64 line, they were never going to do it with the Amiga! - it's all about building on the user-base you've got. Clever ( headline grabing ) hardware/software only helps a bit. IBM stumbled on that formula with the PC, so did Apple. The PC then 'took-over' because IBM lost control of their platform - the rise of the clones! 'The Spectacular Rise & Fall of C=' is a very interesting read, but I can't help feeling that for all the management madness detailed in that book it only hasened C='s demise. You can't get away with selling new computers to your user base for ever - you'll loose too many to competitors... You have to @ least sell the illusion of endless upgradeabilitiy so the masses aren't tempted to look further than the end of their noses! This is why all these new Amiga-like products ( with the possible exception of AROS ) are doomed to failure even in 'sub-niche' markets. Not because of on-going stupid decisions & in-fighting, or because of any lack of merrit, but because even the perception of being tied to a static platform will put the punters off. For the present: If it won't run on an x86 box - don't bother! Even Apple gets that. ( sort-of ) Time Machine? I'd go back & have a word with the engineers + marketing people on the subject of selling a box with lots of expansion + upgradeability above all else. C64 or Amiga based, though by the time the Amiga came out they may have already missed the boat. That was pretty much the design philosophy of the PET ( as Chuck Peddle saw it ) which if developed may well have seen C= becoming IBM + everything else rolled together... ( Bill Gates would probably now be hailed by the likes of us as the plucky underdog who could have saved the home computer from C=, if only... ) . . I'd tell them how sucessful IBM are about to be despite a technically inferior platform. Maybe even suggest licensing to Atari etc! ( gasp ) I do go on a bit, don't I? Last edited by Charlie; 09 April 2007 at 15:51.