Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!oliveb!amiga!boing!dale
From: dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AM(iga un)IX
Message-ID: <694@boing.UUCP>
Date: 2 Apr 89 01:59:01 GMT
References: <1366@hub.ucsb.edu>
Reply-To: dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck)
Distribution: na
Organization: Boing, Milpitas, Ca.
Lines: 32

In article <1366@hub.ucsb.edu> hbo@nobbs.ucsb.edu writes:
>In article <2421@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (root) writes...
>>	Sam, the other side to your argument is this: what if, god forbid,
>>	Commodore continues to undercut and screw their developers by
>>	bringing any profitable product in house because it is
>	(Stuff deleted)
>>					Rick Spanbauer
>>					Ameristar Technology
>					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   While I recognize that Ameristar has made significant contributions to
>what success the Amiga 2000 enjoys in the low end workstation market, and 
	< stuff deleted>
>it always bothers me to hear a hardware vendor complain about how competition
>is going to screw up their business. There are quite a few third party disk
	< stuff deleted >

This is true in an industry where the main mother company (like cbm) does
not consider third party developers as competitors. I have personally
seen and heard through second sources though that this is not the case
with Commodore.  Let me assure you that this is not the attitude of all the
people at Commodore, just some that are in the wrong positions, like
working there at all.
   Rick S. spoke right about the products cbm needs to be developing. In my
opinion, Commodore should be developing products that no third party
developer can develop. Like a 68020 based A500; (Would make a killer
X terminal for GfxBase) or a 68030 based a2000 with a real 32 bit highspeed
bus; A middle line product with 2 slots, video slot, smallish footprint
AND DETACHED KEYBOARD; a real portable/transportable amiga (maybe beat
Apple to this market).
-- 
Dale Luck     GfxBase/Boing, Inc.
{uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale