Some thoughts on why the Amiga didn't thrive

[grond]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Modern Macs have virtually nothing in common with the original Mac, which really didn't survive.

This is an obvious but nontheless interesting point. The Mac comes from an era where differences between platforms were still based very much on differences in hardware, barely survived because of some important software and thus developed into a platform that is strictly defined by software.

The A1000 was really only an introductory model to attract developers and early adopters, not a polished product suitable the masses.

Another point that prior to this discussion wasn't as clear to me as it should have been. If one looks at the Amiga history really starting with the A2000B/A500 models, it becomes apparent that it came too late to get a better market share.

I bet that if any one of us was put in charge we would have screwed up in one way or another. We like to think that we are all technological gurus and marketing geniuses, but in reality...

[grond]

Originally Posted by coder76

The ECS VGA-like screenmode of 640x480 was painfully slow at the maximum 4 colors, because there was not really enough bandwidth for bitplane data in the OCS/ECS chipset for such screenmodes. AGA made a 4 or 16 colors 640x480 VGA screen actually usable for the first time, thanks to the 4x increase in bitplane bandwidth. So no, the ECS was not good enough for professional users who wanted better screen resolution.

You are talking about the crippled 16bit ECS Commodore put into the A500+ and the A600 and not the full 32bit chipmem bus ECS of the A3000, right?

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Minuous

Productivity mode could certainly have been omitted from AGA though, as there is no reason for anyone to want to use it on an AGA system.

Unless you have a sync dongle and use it exclusively like me

Anyway, Productivity is just a programmed mode like all other modes are on AGA. You can't leave it out unless you leave out the ability to do all other higher rate modes.

[defor]

Interesting reading by Ira J Parlow -- author of Phoenix BIOS, which is, I believe, related to the topic of this discussion.
Who should get more credit for the rise of the PC: anonymous engineers at IBM and Xerox or Wozniak, Jobs, Allen and Gates?
A few excerpts:
"...by December 1983 Compaq was shipping 10,000 units a month, where as IBM was shipping about 100,000 per month"
"Many other companies copied the PC hardware, but when they copied, even a portion, of the IBM PC BIOS, IBM would sue them for copyright infringement, pretty much out of existence."
"The release of the Phoenix BIOS in the Fall of 1984 allowed at least 25 PC compatible (clone) companies (probably many more, I don’t have that data) to come to market."

Amiga 1000 arrived in 1985. When flood gate has just opened.
Did it have any chance to "thrive" in the same "productivity" segment? I doubt.

[grond]

Originally Posted by defor

Interesting reading by Ira J Parlow -- author of Phoenix BIOS

Who'll look up his address while the rest of us go fetch our pitchforks?

[dreadnought]

I'd send him a nice chocolate box and a vintage bottle. The man made People's Computer possible

[Frogs]

I think the talk about market share of the PC in 1984 presumes that the PC dominance was inevitable no matter what.

One can look at the cell phone market when the iPhone launched. The Blackberry and Nokia were dominant. But the iPhone's hardware/software allowed for new and better use cases that applied to enough people for it to thrive.

[Foebane]

Of course the PC was dominant back then... in the OFFICE at least.

I'm much more interested in the HOME market share, and for a long time, everything else dominated there.

[Signman]

Anybody want to talk about VHS versus Betamax?

[robinsonb5]

Originally Posted by Frogs

One can look at the cell phone market when the iPhone launched. The Blackberry and Nokia were dominant. But the iPhone's hardware/software allowed for new and better use cases that applied to enough people for it to thrive.

The thing to remember with the iPhone, though, is that Apple already had a very strong foothold in the MP3 player market with the iPod - so when the two classes of device merged into what we now recognise as a smartphone Apple were uniquely well positioned to take over that market.

Customers finding Apple's phone interface at least partly familiar from the MP3s players was, I believe, a big factor in the iPhone's success. I also believe Windows 8 was Microsoft attempting to recreate those circumstances artificially, leveraging the desktop monopoly to try and give their phone offerings an air of familarity.

[coder76]

Originally Posted by grond

You are talking about the crippled 16bit ECS Commodore put into the A500+ and the A600 and not the full 32bit chipmem bus ECS of the A3000, right?

Well, the ECS chipset cannot use the 32bit chip ram better than 16bit, everything still runs in 16bit, except for CPU access to chip ram. But this will not help much, as the OS renders most of the gfx with blitter, including the fonts on screen. Also, if you use the CPU for screen rendering, it will just get a little faster, as most of the chip ram cycles are still taken by bitplane DMA.

[Pyromania]

@robinsonb5

I agree also, M$ trying to leverage their Windows monopoly to help Windows Phone failed spectacularly and hurt their Windows OS dominance.

[Pyromania]

Originally Posted by Signman

Anybody want to talk about VHS versus Betamax?

Betamax looked a little better but had less record time. VHS beat it because lots of companies made VHS players. Sony still did well in Pro markets with BetaCAM SP.

[activist]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Yes various factors were involved, but it didn't take all of them to seal the Amiga's fate. Just B by itself was enough, and would have needed a herculean effort by Commodore to overcome. But when Commodore bought Amiga Inc. they were not in good shape financially or organizationally. Considering their handicaps and the unfinished state of the Amiga when they acquired it, I think they did quite well to get it out within a year. They then took 2 years to finish the OS, which is line with industry expectations (average time for Microsoft to produce a new version of Windows was 2-3 years).

I think you are overly sympathetic with the Commodore defense. Sure they did some good work but given what they had (the A1000, or even 2 years later) Commodore should have been at least been able to stay alive or relevant with Amiga. Be it games, graphics, business or whatever. But it doesn't seem Commodore had any idea what to target or what to commit to really. Say it was office/productivity for example. Then they failed with distribution, support, volume licensing and all that stuff business and corporations demand. Even software licensing. Just license Lotus 123 and be done with it if that was your market. Isn't it nearly always the software that sells the hardware not the other way round. Regardless of how good it is. They also had a line of IBM compatibles going which sounds like almost the were competing against themselves half the time. It's not just about Commodore though either. There was even still a small chance for Amiga to 'thrive' after Commodore. But the way it was sold off simply to the highest bidder, one who had no idea of the Amiga culture or customer base or with no vision for the product ended all that almost completely.

[TEG]

For the record I had a Windows phone (trough my work), incredibly buggy! Lost of contacts, displaying wrong time, 10 minutes to update, and so on and so on... Just incredible.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by activist

I think you are overly sympathetic with the Commodore defense. Sure they did some good work but given what they had (the A1000, or even 2 years later) Commodore should have been at least been able to stay alive or relevant with Amiga. Be it games, graphics, business or whatever.

I am not saying Commodore could not have a better job if they had better management, better engineers etc., but that's an alternate universe. In reality they had what most other companies had, and they failed like most other companies did. But they did manage to 'stay relevant' for 36 years, which is better than many others.

But it doesn't seem Commodore had any idea what to target or what to commit to really. Say it was office/productivity for example. Then they failed with distribution, support, volume licensing and all that stuff business and corporations demand.

They did quite well with their PC clones. But if it's the Amiga you are talking about then yes, they had a problem because it didn't fit neatly into existing niches. The Amiga was the ultimate hobbyist's computer and the first multimedia machine, but in the US the home market was splitting into PCs and consoles. There was still plenty of life left in the European market, but Commodore was primarily a US company full of Americans who (understandably) were considering the US market first.

However it not true to say that Commodore didn't commit to the Amiga. While other companies shifted to PCs they continued to develop the Amiga's unique character, always trying to make it relevant without turning it into just another PC clone. We could say that was a mistake for their survival as a business, but would they have lasted any longer as just another clone maker? And more importantly, would that have been better for us? I say not. The World would be a duller place if Commodore had had more business sense.

Even software licensing. Just license Lotus 123 and be done with it if that was your market.

"Oh yeah, just license Lotus 123 that's the answer!". Clueless.

The Amiga was never going to make it as an alternative to the PC, and having Lotus 123 or any other existing PC app would not make the difference. People would still ask "But is it IBM compatible?", and get an unsatisfactory answer. Imagine buying an Amiga because it had Lotus 123, then discovering it wouldn't run any other PC programs! That's when you would realize what an idiot you were for not buying IBM.

If there was one strategy that might have worked it would be producing apps that were better than the PC had, and using the Amiga's strengths to make it more desirable than a PC. That's what Apple tried with the Mac, and they almost succeeded.

But Commodore had never operated like that. They always just made hardware and expected it to sell itself. PC clone manufacturers did the same of course, but they were part of an ecosystem that provided the software and support customers needed. Riding on the coattails of IBM and Microsoft made it so much easier for them.

There was even still a small chance for Amiga to 'thrive' after Commodore. But the way it was sold off simply to the highest bidder, one who had no idea of the Amiga culture or customer base or with no vision for the product ended all that almost completely.

It was a shame, but that's what happens when a company goes bankrupt. The receivers were obligated to get the highest price they could to satisfy creditors. If Commodore UK hadn't been scared off by big US companies looking to strip the Amiga's assets the result could have been different.

But don't kid yourself. The PC juggernaut was crushing everything, and nothing could stave off the inevitable for long. When 486 clones hit the UK it was obvious where things were headed, and then Microsoft released Windows 95...

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

People would still ask "But is it IBM compatible?", and get an unsatisfactory answer. Imagine buying an Amiga because it had Lotus 123, then discovering it wouldn't run any other PC programs! That's when you would realize what an idiot you were for not buying IBM.

By early 1984 the software was a killer app for the IBM PC and compatibles, while hurting sales of computers that could not run it. "They're looking for 1-2-3. Boy, are they looking for 1-2-3!" InfoWorld wrote. Noting that computer purchasers did not want PC compatibility as much as compatibility with certain PC software, the magazine suggested "let's tell it like it is. Let's not say 'PC compatible,' or even 'MS-DOS compatible.' Instead, let's say '1-2-3 compatible.'"[18] PC clones' advertising did often prominently state that they were compatible with 1-2-3

Debunking myths which plague your posts could be a full time job, so I'll just make a guest appearance now and then

Of course, eventually PC compatibility became a must, but in the beginning, not so much. There were plenty of companies which required just some specific software to run, not everything. So, many clones got by even when not being 100% compatible. I know it doesn't fit your narrative in which it was the magic of the IBM brand itself which made the clueless masses to buy their rubbish machine, but it was never true to start with (at least not as a sole factor).

[activist]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

"Oh yeah, just license Lotus 123 that's the answer!". Clueless.

Well Commodore certainly had a sort of 'stab' at the business/office productivity market. And licensing someone to develop software for your hardware when you have none yourself is a valid strategy. So why not start with the killer PC app of the day.

I'm not suggesting for a minute though that a strategy of trying to oust the PC from the office would be a good one. Even in 1985. With no hindsight. I would even say madness.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

But Commodore had never operated like that. They always just made hardware and expected it to sell itself.

Yeah I think you may have hit the nail on the head there actually. Sort of answers the why didn't thrive question.

Even the launch of the A1000 (a beautiful looking design I might add). You could hardly buy one if you wanted. They took it off the market early and cancelled all advertising in advance of the incoming 2000 and 500 models. Which were then subsequently delayed until 1987. Talk about taking the wind from your sails.

[Jope]

Originally Posted by Foebane

I'm much more interested in the HOME market share, and for a long time, everything else dominated there.

This is an interesting thing, worth more thought.

What different happened in Europe, where home computing was a thing all the way up until 1994 or so, in comparison to USA, where home computing stopped being a thing quite soon after the 8-bits stopped being state of the art?

In Europe we happily kept on home computing and playing games on the same devices. In USA home computer gaming seemed to become games console gaming and actual computers were for boring business stuff?

[defor]

Originally Posted by Jope

This is an interesting thing, worth more thought.

What different happened in Europe, where home computing was a thing all the way up until 1994 or so, in comparison to USA, where home computing stopped being a thing quite soon after the 8-bits stopped being state of the art?

In Europe we happily kept on home computing and playing games on the same devices. In USA home computer gaming seemed to become games console gaming and actual computers were for boring business stuff?

One reason (certainly one of the many, though): Video game consoles. Thriving business in US, not so thriving in Europe.
Even today when someone nostalgic talks about his/her youth, how spent in front of a flickering screen, the difference is striking. US retro maniac talks about Atari 2600, NES, MasterSystem or Genesis, while European talks about ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, Atari 8bit family or later ST and... Amiga :-)