Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Amiga Custom Chips - why hasn't C= made them faster? Message-ID: <1991Apr16.015953.22600@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 16 Apr 91 01:59:53 GMT References: <1991Apr9.171123.21360@news.iastate.edu> <12431@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> <1991Apr12.175631.3173@news.iastate.edu> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 35 In article <1991Apr12.175631.3173@news.iastate.edu> xgr39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU writes: [ bunch of useless figures ] Looks like you included the inital R&D for the Amiga, and left that out for the Sun. Plus, I believe the margin on a Sun is a bit higher than for an Amiga. How about listing R&D as % of net, or something at least *vaguely* rational? > As you can see, compared to SUN, Commodore has never invested much > in their own future, Too busy staving off bankruptcy. The fact that they continued *ANY* R&D in that period is pretty impressive. > you can see from the first table, between 1984 and 1990, Commodore's > total sales steadily declined. Had nothing to do with the slow death of the C=64 in the face of cheap PCs and Nintendos, the effort of staving off Tramiell's lawsuit, and so on. That was just a sideshow, right? > A look at Sun, however, shows a different story. This company is In the same position with Workstations as Apple is in GUI-based PCs: they're the first on the market, and never had a major financial problem because they could always trade on their name. > Commodore is still a much bigger company now than Sun was at that > time Commodore was also bleeding red ink from every pore. Yes, they could have done better: but it's not the self-inflicted injury you keep claiming. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .