Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!xanth!manes
From: manes@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Can Amiga reach for the Sun?
Message-ID: <6558@xanth.cs.odu.edu>
Date: 2 Nov 88 17:41:02 GMT
References: <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu> <613@quintus.UUCP>
Reply-To: manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 58

In article <613@quintus.UUCP> pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) writes:
>In article <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu> manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes:
>>... does it make good marketing sense for Commodore to develop a 
>>Amiga 3000?
>...
>>Perhaps the Amiga 500 needs to be renamed, or the 2000.  A clear seperation
>>must exist in order for the people to seperate game machine from 
>>business system (no offense 500 owners!).  Business people do not want to
>>buy a computer that has the same name on it as a machine that would be
>>available at Toys-R-US.  They want a "elite" feeling.
>
>This is just why there should be an A3000.  The businessperson will sure
>get that warm, fuzzy "elite" feeling running a 25 MHz 68030.  Especially
>since he or she can run the same programs his kids do on their A500 at
>home.  And he or she can use the same programs at home as a work (if
>more slowly).  I don't think it would be good for this machine to have a
>different name; the name should say "the same, only better."  "Mac II"

A warm fuzzy feeling?  Not sure.  I doubt that most "business" folks know
or care about the speed of a CPU.  They care about the applicatinos that
are available, how easy is it to use, if it takes a 68030 to do it, then
so be it.  The hardware is not the problem, 68020 should be more than
adequent (I would even argue that a 68000) to handle busisness tasks.
 
I said "rename" the machines, create a distinction.  I did not say make the
A500 incompatible with the A2000 (A3000?).  Mac II?  compared to Mac?   
Granted that Mac II is a good name, but, the situation is different, you 
do not have the game aura around any of the MACs.  The marketing problem
does not exist.  People assume that it is better because you called it 
the MAC II.


>is a good name in this way.
>
>The only problem with the 2000/500 distinction is that the differences
>don't seem all that convincing to the average businessperson.  After
>looking at both, he or she might think "well, the 2000 doesn't seem all
>that much flashier than the 500, and I know the 500 is a game machine*,
>so maybe I should stick with a Mac."  Having a fast, sexy 3000 should
>help that problem.

Exactly my point, why is there even a comparison?  The educated user
can look and see if there were compatible, but it should not be so
readly noticed.

>
>* Not my opinion, that of a mythical businessperson.  Don't flame me
>  about this.
>
>-Peter Schachte				"Clean water?  I'm for clean water."
>pds@quintus.uucp				-George Bush
>..!sun!quintus!pds

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Manes                                          "In Amiga We Trust"  
Programmer of Fortune, have compiler will travel

"Her SCSI was a fuzzy place, a place where my SEEK could find no perch"
===========================================================================