Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-lcc!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!INGRES.BERKELEY.EDU!hatcher
From: hatcher@INGRES.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: A2000 & Commodore policy (a personal opinion)
Message-ID: <8703120204.AA02451@ingres.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 11-Mar-87 21:04:20 EST
Article-I.D.: ingres.8703120204.AA02451
Posted: Wed Mar 11 21:04:20 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Mar-87 01:16:58 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 92

The following is from a letter that I mailed out. I decided to post it,
along with a few lines of context from previous letters, in the hopes
that it may shed some light on what's going on at CBM. With any luck
it might even get seen by some of those at CBM who are in a position to
make policy. Note that it reflects my own views of things, and I go further
out on a limb with my opinions than I usually would in a posting.

>> A big chunk of what I meant was simply that workbench 1.3 development has
>> been cancelled altogether. Until further notice, future releases will be
>> bug fixes and other small potatoes, whereas the Los Gatos Amiga group
>> had been working on actual new *features*.

>      [...]          S**T!  C-A should definitely keep Los Gatos going, and
>maybe try to hire back some of the people who left.  They built the damn
>machine, they're enthusiastic about it....  I really wonder *why*.

"Why?" Unfortunately, the attitude of top management at CBM is more typical
than not. It is simply a question of how you perceive the world. For instance,
there are certain stereotypes of what engineers are like, what salesman are
like, etc. The stereotypes are not always true in individual cases (e.g.
people are often surprised that I am a professional programmer, because I
am outgoing, social, dress well, etc, etc, etc), but they have a lot of
truth for statistical groups. Programmers, as a class, generally do not
understand marketing issues because that's not where their expertise is.
They generally think that technical wonderfulness is enough to sell a product,
and sneer at, for instance, compatibility. This is in the abstract, mind you,
present company excepted. This is an inaccurate view because compatibility
is often what *does* sell products in the real world. On the other side
of things, marketing people sneer at technical innovation (another gross
generalization), because they realize that most customers are not technically
sophisticated to know nor care about such things. The buyer just wants a
solution to his problem, and compatibility is often the way to provide that.
Besides, people think they want compatibility whether they actually need it
or not.

Now, there are exceptions to these stereotypes, but by and large they fit
more often than not. The sad thing is that both are incorrect, because they
both try to fit the whole world into one approach. The Amiga is an example
of a machine that sold mostly due to technical innovation, unlike machines
like the IBM PC. So the stereotypical engineer is incorrect, because often
technical innovation is usually not enough to sell a product, where sometimes
compatibility is. The stereotypical marketing type is incorrect, because he
does not realize that compatibility is not always enough, sometimes you need
technical innovation.

We are looking at an absolutely classic textbook case here. The original
Amiga in Los Gatos was totally technically driven, and almost failed by 
ignoring other issues (very common in Silicon Valley). In desperation they
sold to Commodore (smart move). Commodore takes the machine to market in
the most expedient fashion possible (smart move, and what you'd expect
from such a company). These expediencies cause some problems (the AmigaDOS
bastardization on top of the clean Exec, for instance). If Los Gatos Amiga
were allowed to, they would fix these problems, due to their orientation.

But Commodore is run by the usual stereotypical marketing oriented people,
who, for expediency, dump Amiga Los Gatos (they're closing March 31, if
you hadn't heard). Dumb move. They further put their future developments
into the classic marketing approach: compatability. This has some good
points, but overall it is kind of dumb to do with a machine that has been
selling due to its technical innovation. But it is exactly what you would
expect from a totally marketing oriented perspective.

So what we can expect is that the 2000's will sell to a broader base of
people, but will not sell as well as CBM expects, because it will be moving
into the most highly competitive market in the world today (IBM PC clones).
This is an extraordinarily dangerous positioning strategy. But as long as
the Amiga is perceived as being in a class by itself, due to technical
features unavailable anywhere for the price, it should still do OK. But the
PC compatibility will be icing on the cake for people with this perception.
Many people will not pay three times as much for something that only gives
them icing on the cake. Hence I expect that 1000's and 500's will radically
outsell 2000's, even after accounting for different market sizes at different
price levels. The only thing that will influence this will be *technical*
capability that is only available in the 1000 (e.g. an addon 68020 board).

Features like that might help the 2000 out immensely. But if they are delayed,
then 2000 sales may well disappoint and surprise top management at CBM.
And they might well misperceive the reason for it. Only the most enlightened
of executives really understand both technical and marketing issues, or
how to market technical features instead of just jumping on a bandwagon.
Let's hope for the best.
	Doug Merritt

P.S. in case it is not clear from the above, I am not talking about our
friends at Commodore who post to the net. I am referring to top level
management like the board of directors who make broad policy decisions.

P.P.S. In case you hadn't heard, the expanded memory blitter is a real
item actually in development, no question about it. But it is unclear when
it will be introduced, or in what product. Jay Miner was not centrally
involved in this development, since "it wasn't necessary for the small
changes needed". (my source shall remain anonymous but is quite reliable)