Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cbmvax!bpa!burdvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!aero!foy
From: foy@aero.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: A2000 & Commodore policy (a personal opinion)
Message-ID: <8531@aero.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 12-Mar-87 17:08:39 EST
Article-I.D.: aero.8531
Posted: Thu Mar 12 17:08:39 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Mar-87 09:12:14 EST
References: <8703120204.AA02451@ingres.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: foy@aero.UUCP (Richard Foy)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 59

In article <8703120204.AA02451@ingres.Berkeley.EDU> hatcher@INGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Doug Merritt) writes:
>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.
......
>
>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).
>

I would like to add my thoughts to this in the form of my personal experience
with the TI-99\4A computer. I purchased one because it was a technically 
superior machine at the time. It was weak in a marketing sense, in that its
keyboard was not standard and several other design factors. For what ever
reason TI got into a headon price competition with Commodore (which at the
time was run by Jack Tramiel). The TI was inherently more expensive to build
than the Commodore than the TI. The end point of this story, of course, is
that TI home computers folded because of the humdreds of millions they were 
losing. 

I was disappointed becuase I had an excellent but orphaned machine. I used
it for not much more than a word processor and a phone book, until I bought
my A1000 last DEcember again because of technical excellence, primarily in
the sound and video areas. The A2000 offers me not much more than a memory
upgrade. I would hate to become the owner of another orphan. However:

I don't know, and don't expect to know the marketing, development, or any
other strategy that Commodore management is following. I would doubt that
they expect the A2000 to capture much of the real IBM or IBM clone market.
Perhaps they are using it as a means of developing a broader base of 
interest in the overall Amiga line. Perhaps they like Doug expect the A500
to outsell the A2000, perhaps theyeven expect the A1000 to be a major
seller. My hope is that they will sell all three versions well so that 
I will be able to use and upgrade my machine. 

However, if they expect to compete in the IBM and IBM clone market I suggest
they read the detailed report of the TI-99\4A disaster ( I believe it was in
Forbes). That strategy would be very similiar to the TI-99 stategy that
failed so spectacularly.

Richard Foy with my own opinions and no one else's.