a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) (12/11/90)
In article <F03D042028BF0067CD@ISUVAX.BITNET> WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU
(Marc Barrett) suggests that magazines ignore the Amiga because of
its small percentage of market share. This might well be true, but
is that really the point? We're trying to do a bit of consciousness-
raising here. After all, because so many installations still use
COBOL (I do all week long) why should we consider any new languages?
For that matter, when the Mac first came out it didn't have a very
large share of the market either; what if nobody fought for it then?
Besides, don't you think we should counter with the truth when
people make claims (or even imply things) such as "IBM/Microsoft
invented desktop multitasking"?
I'm not advocating the sort of fanaticism that leads to such
things as the Amiga-vs-NeXT wars that most of us are now so sick of.
But what's wrong with trying to at least make people aware that
there are alternatives out there? Isn't that what advertising
is all about?
I like my Amigas, and I'm not about to crawl off into a corner
and die just because it hasn't taken over the whole marketplace.
Just my two cents' worth.
Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP
Intel put the "backward" in "backward compatible."WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) (12/11/90)
It seems that I can never scan through more than a screenful of
message titles in this newsgroup without coming across at least a
couple of messages from people complaining that yet another magazine
article on multimedia ignores the Amiga.
Whenever I read these messages (which inevitably suggest some kind
of letter-writing campaign, as if we haven't done enough for Commodore
already, and now we have to do their work for them), one question
always pops into my mind: why should these magazines mention the
Amiga?
Remember that the Amiga is NOT a serious influence on the computer
industry, especially in the U.S. The installed base of Amigas in the
U.S. is only slightly above 500,000 units, compared to an installed
base of 3 Million Macintosh computers and over 10 Million IBM-
compatible systems. Magazine authors and editors always write for
the largest audience, and the Amiga audience is totally insignificant
compared to the audience of Mac and IBM users.
Another thing to remember is that over 2/3 of the Amiga systems
currently being used in the U.S. are A500 systems. Most of these
systems are being used for less professional uses, such as games.
I would estimate the installed base of Amiga systems in the U.S.
that are currently actually being used for video, multimedia, and
other professional uses to be somewhere around 100,000. This
compares to the fact that nearly all Macintosh systems sold are
being used for professional purposes, and much of the installed
base of IBM-compatibles is being used for professional and
business purposes.
In summary, the installed base of Macintosh and IBM-compatible
systems in the U.S. already outwighs the Amiga's installed base by
a factor of 6 for the MAC and 20 for the IBMs. Add to this the
fact that most Amigas are being used in homes, while most MACs
are being used in schools, universities, and corporations.
Together this all points to the conclusion that the audience of
people actually using MACs and IBMs for professional purposes
outweighs the audience of people using Amigas for professional
purposes by perhaps 100-to-one. It is no wonder that these
publications ignore the Amiga -- it is not a significant influence
on the computer industry.
-MB-a596@mindlink.UUCP (Terry Palfrey) (12/11/90)
gadzooks....how many pc magazines?
carumba.....how many mac rags?
oihvey......amiga monthlies?
please get real...amiga isn't a clone or a ... a .... well anyway to
wish to be in the ibm/clone arena is just a little silly...you want
pournelle writing about how he brought his files through old zeke onto
the amiga and then through amax into a format for the lino ??????
what exactly do all you cryers of doom want....I am happy...well maybe
if I was richer....comp.sys.amiga has the top two articles on
usenet.news for volume ... take it away from here...
o o o>
/|\ <|\ /|/
/ \ / > > snap kick - AsciiMation
= o
= _ /- _
= (_)> (_) we'll never catch up now bobo.........dsherif@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu (Darin D Sheriff) (12/11/90)
In article <F03D042028BF0067CD@ISUVAX.BITNET> WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) writes: > > It seems that I can never scan through more than a screenful of >message titles in this newsgroup without coming across at least a >couple of messages from people complaining that yet another magazine >article on multimedia ignores the Amiga. > > Whenever I read these messages (which inevitably suggest some kind >of letter-writing campaign, as if we haven't done enough for Commodore >already, and now we have to do their work for them), one question >always pops into my mind: why should these magazines mention the >Amiga? > > Remember that the Amiga is NOT a serious influence on the computer >industry, especially in the U.S. The installed base of Amigas in the >U.S. is only slightly above 500,000 units, compared to an installed >base of 3 Million Macintosh computers and over 10 Million IBM- >compatible systems. Magazine authors and editors always write for >the largest audience, and the Amiga audience is totally insignificant >compared to the audience of Mac and IBM users. > > Another thing to remember is that over 2/3 of the Amiga systems >currently being used in the U.S. are A500 systems. Most of these >systems are being used for less professional uses, such as games. >I would estimate the installed base of Amiga systems in the U.S. >that are currently actually being used for video, multimedia, and >other professional uses to be somewhere around 100,000. This >compares to the fact that nearly all Macintosh systems sold are >being used for professional purposes, and much of the installed >base of IBM-compatibles is being used for professional and >business purposes. > > In summary, the installed base of Macintosh and IBM-compatible >systems in the U.S. already outwighs the Amiga's installed base by >a factor of 6 for the MAC and 20 for the IBMs. Add to this the >fact that most Amigas are being used in homes, while most MACs >are being used in schools, universities, and corporations. >Together this all points to the conclusion that the audience of >people actually using MACs and IBMs for professional purposes >outweighs the audience of people using Amigas for professional >purposes by perhaps 100-to-one. It is no wonder that these >publications ignore the Amiga -- it is not a significant influence >on the computer industry. > >and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... > > -MB- Sigh. I could answer him and point out the flaws in his argument but I need to work on a programming assignment for class on my under-represented, misunderstood, poor doomed game machine and don't have the time. Anyone care to oblige? -- Darin Sheriff. Just a College student with an Amiga. "The Most dangerous thing in the world is to leap a chasm in two jumps." -unknown- Disclaimer: Wasn't me.
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (12/11/90)
In article <F03D042028BF0067CD@ISUVAX.BITNET> WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) writes: > one question >always pops into my mind: why should these magazines mention the >Amiga? Because there is also a competition between magazines. And one good argument for a magazine is that it shows COMPETENCE. If the magazine and its writers show that they know the state of the art then they are much better at comparing and judging. And to not mention the Amiga in articles about Multimedia simply shows the ignorance of the writer and the editors, they plainly DON'T KNOW what they write. THEY'RE DUMB. And you might conclude that such dumbness not only appears regarding coverage of the Amiga. I suspect that in such magazines also other very important topics are forgotten, because those dumb authors don't know about what is going on in real life. They are computer illiterate. So one should write them and give them a hint that they should improve their computer knowledge reasonably, because else they could be subject to lose competition in this market. > Remember that the Amiga is NOT a serious influence on the computer >industry, especially in the U.S. I guess this WILL change :-). > Another thing to remember is that over 2/3 of the Amiga systems >currently being used in the U.S. are A500 systems. Most of these >systems are being used for less professional uses, such as games. But they have all the power of an Amiga, do spread the word, and build a reasonable basis to build on and to earn the money Commodore needs to develop even nicer things. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) (12/12/90)
From article <F03D042028BF0067CD@ISUVAX.BITNET>, by WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett): > > Remember that the Amiga is NOT a serious influence on the computer > industry, especially in the U.S. The installed base of Amigas in the > U.S. is only slightly above 500,000 units, compared to an installed > base of 3 Million Macintosh computers and over 10 Million IBM- > compatible systems. Magazine authors and editors always write for > the largest audience, and the Amiga audience is totally insignificant > compared to the audience of Mac and IBM users. > So, only computers with a large installed base should be talked about in the press. Wow, I guess the Mac and IBMs should never have gotten any press in the first place. Since the only computer to ever have started off with a large installed base was the first one made (don't remember which one, since it is not written about much these days) I guess that is the only one that should have ever gotten any writeups. > Another thing to remember is that over 2/3 of the Amiga systems > currently being used in the U.S. are A500 systems. Most of these > systems are being used for less professional uses, such as games. > I would estimate the installed base of Amiga systems in the U.S. > that are currently actually being used for video, multimedia, and > other professional uses to be somewhere around 100,000. This > compares to the fact that nearly all Macintosh systems sold are > being used for professional purposes, and much of the installed > base of IBM-compatibles is being used for professional and > business purposes. Yeah, nobody would even bother writing a game for IBMs or for the Mac. Nobody would ever buy such a thing. You better tell Sierra, Electronic Arts, etc, etc... to just give up and file for bankruptcy since NOBODY would buy their silly software for use on such a serious PROFESSIONAL platform. Again since the first computer made had 100% of the market and it was used 100% of the time for REAL work it should have been the only computer to ever be written about. > > In summary, the installed base of Macintosh and IBM-compatible > systems in the U.S. already outwighs the Amiga's installed base by > a factor of 6 for the MAC and 20 for the IBMs. Add to this the > fact that most Amigas are being used in homes, while most MACs > are being used in schools, universities, and corporations. > Together this all points to the conclusion that the audience of > people actually using MACs and IBMs for professional purposes > outweighs the audience of people using Amigas for professional > purposes by perhaps 100-to-one. It is no wonder that these > publications ignore the Amiga -- it is not a significant influence > on the computer industry. Get real. To have an influence on industry you don't have to have a huge installed base. If that were true we would never get anywhere and Apple should have given up long ago (before it got its huge installed base) and NeXt, Commodore, Sun, etc aren't going to give up because they don't have 10 million users yet. They will just keep innovating and influencing the computer industry until (and hopefully after) they get their huge installed base. IBM does not have as much influence now, with a larger installed base, than they did 5 years ago. They have been pushed aside by Compaq. At least in the clone world. In summary - what a bad argument for the Amiga not getting any press. P.S. I now own an IBM clone, work on Apollo (HP now) workstations and will be buying an Amiga within the next coupla months. So C= has had at least some influence. john gay. No fancy sig.
WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) (12/12/90)
In article <629@cbmger.UUCP> Peter Kittel GERMANY <peterk@cbmger.UUCP> writes: >In article <F03D042028BF0067CD@ISUVAX.BITNET> WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) writes: >> one question >>always pops into my mind: why should these magazines mention the >>Amiga? > >Because there is also a competition between magazines. And one good >argument for a magazine is that it shows COMPETENCE. If the magazine >and its writers show that they know the state of the art then they >are much better at comparing and judging. And to not mention the Amiga >in articles about Multimedia simply shows the ignorance of the writer >and the editors, they plainly DON'T KNOW what they write. >THEY'RE DUMB. And you might conclude that such dumbness not only appears >regarding coverage of the Amiga. I suspect that in such magazines also >other very important topics are forgotten, because those dumb authors >don't know about what is going on in real life. They are computer >illiterate. >So one should write them and give them a hint that they should improve >their computer knowledge reasonably, because else they could be subject >to lose competition in this market. I did not get my point across very well in the original message, so I will restate it here. Magazines do not write for computers. Magazines write for PEOPLE. The people that most computer industry publications in the U.S. (such as InfoWorld, PC World, etc.) write for is the community of people who use computers for professional purposes. Unfortunaly, Amiga users make up only a tiny fraction of that community. Until this changes, these publications will continue to not mention the Amiga in their articles. For all of the Amiga's capabilities, it is not of most interest to 95% of the readers of these magazines. These magazines, therefore, do not mention anything that is not of much interest to their readers. All the bundled multimedia software in the world, and all the multimedia capabilities in the world, will not make these publications notice the Amiga. Amiga users need to become a noticeable percentage of the community of professional computer users. Unfortunately, this has not happened yet, and at the current rate that Commodore is selling 'professional' (non-A500) Amigas in the U.S., it likely never will. >-- >Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... >Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk -MB-
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (12/12/90)
MB say: "Magazines do not write for computers, they write for PEOPLE." I think this is not completely true. Magazines also write for their advertisers. Even if magazines wrote entirely for PEOPLE, it would help if a magazine that claimed to cover 'all markets' covered them completely. 2 million Amiga users, even 100,000 is nothing to shrug off. Well, lets just kill this thread. I could care less about PC World covering the Amiga. I'd rather read a magazine DEDICATED to the Amiga with accurate data, rather than a PC mag that prints 4 line tidbits of false data on the Amiga. Its those small error-ridden comments in PC mags that may hurt the Amiga even more. So rather than have NO coverage, or very little/non-complete. I think i'd take none.
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec11.041707.29818@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dsherif@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu (Darin D Sheriff) writes: >In article <F03D042028BF0067CD@ISUVAX.BITNET> WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) writes: >> [ Why publications don't write about the Amiga, boils down to ] >> ...the Amiga is NOT a serious influence on the computer >>industry, especially in the U.S. The installed base of Amigas in the >>U.S. is only slightly above 500,000 units, compared to an installed >>base of 3 Million Macintosh computers and over 10 Million IBM- >>compatible systems. Magazine authors and editors always write for >>the largest audience, and the Amiga audience is totally insignificant >>compared to the audience of Mac and IBM users. >> >> [ ...and how most Amigas are A500's in homes. ] >> >> -MB- > >Sigh. I could answer him and point out the flaws in his argument but I need >to work on a programming assignment for class on my under-represented, >misunderstood, poor doomed game machine and don't have the time. Anyone care >to oblige? Nope. I think he's got it right on the money. The only exception, the single profession market for the Amiga is video production, where it has made a name for itself. Read the video magazines and you'll see that they cover the Amiga quite heavily. The Amiga has not made the smallest dent in the business market, which is where the money is, and where all the focus in the USA is. The business desktop has been taken by the PC. It's not even a marketplace anymore, it's an institution taken completely for granted by everyone involved. The Amiga has no chance there, and therefore will never receive any better press in the business and PC trade rags. It may penetrate new markets, perhaps the A3000UX will create a new view of desktop Unix machines. All this remains to be seen. -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) (12/12/90)
I thought that the purpose of the magazines was to inform the
readers? Isn't that the whole idea of the press anyway? If
newspapers and magazines just gave the reader what he/she
wanted to 'hear', then the entire paper would be the funnies-no
deaths, no rape, no big-business takeovers.
I realize as that from an economic point of view, the magazines
have to fulfill their debt and make some money. But it should
be their second objective to inform the public of the news, including
the Amiga. There is no way that the computer magazines such as
PC(IBM?) world, Byte, etc. give the Amiga the coverage it deserves. Other
wise we would see more Ami articles. They are either grossly biased,
or just plain ignorant - actually I think that it is a lot of both.
Chadekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) (12/12/90)
cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) writes: - I thought that the purpose of the magazines was to inform the - readers? Isn't that the whole idea of the press anyway? If - newspapers and magazines just gave the reader what he/she wanted to - 'hear', then the entire paper would be the funnies-no deaths, no rape, - no big-business takeovers. - - I realize as that from an economic point of view, the magazines - have to fulfill their debt and make some money. But it should be - their second objective to inform the public of the news, including the - Amiga. There is no way that the computer magazines such as PC(IBM?) - world, Byte, etc. give the Amiga the coverage it deserves. Other - wise we would see more Ami articles. You almost got it at the beginning of the second paragraph. In order to make money, the magazines must receive it from advertisers who pay the magazines to place thet ads. An advertiser for an MS-DOS product doesn't want to put an ad in an MS-DOS magazine that has praises about the Amiga. The advertiser wants MS-DOS buyers to see his product and buy it, not an Amiga user or future Amiga user to see the ad and just turn the page. Therefore, the magazines write articles about the MS-DOS systems to attract the MS-DOS readers, the MS-DOS advertisers, and the MS-DOS money. There are a couple of free (gee, some stuff is still free these days :^) computer magazines called MicroTimes and Computer Currents in the San Francisco Bay Area and some other select places. MicroTimes caters to the MS-DOS, Mac, Amiga, and Atari ST crowds. The magazine is filled with MS-DOS and Mac ads, yet opposite the pages of the Amiga and ST columns are the Amiga and ST ads, because the advertisers know that the Amiga and ST owners will read the column and hopefully see the ads. They're not going to place their ads opposite MacFocus, because they fear they will waste their advertising bucks since the Amiga and ST owners won't see them. Some advertising trivia: Guess what gets placed first in a newspaper, the news or the ads? The ads are placed first and then the news stories are placed around it. The newspapers don't give a damn about the news. They just want to make sure that their advertisers are happy because that's who gives them their paychecks. -- Ed Krimen ............................................... ||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico ||| INTERNET: ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu FREENET: al661 / | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261 FIDONET: 1:119/4.0
dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) (12/12/90)
In article <EF73892CBBBF006453@ISUVAX.BITNET> WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) writes: > >In article <629@cbmger.UUCP> Peter Kittel GERMANY <peterk@cbmger.UUCP> writes: > >>In article <F03D042028BF0067CD@ISUVAX.BITNET> WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) writes: >>> one question >>>always pops into my mind: why should these magazines mention the >>>Amiga? >> >>Because there is also a competition between magazines. And one good >>argument for a magazine is that it shows COMPETENCE. If the magazine >>and its writers show that they know the state of the art then they >>are much better at comparing and judging. And to not mention the Amiga >>in articles about Multimedia simply shows the ignorance of the writer >>and the editors, they plainly DON'T KNOW what they write. >>THEY'RE DUMB. And you might conclude that such dumbness not only appears >>regarding coverage of the Amiga. I suspect that in such magazines also >>other very important topics are forgotten, because those dumb authors >>don't know about what is going on in real life. They are computer >>illiterate. >>So one should write them and give them a hint that they should improve >>their computer knowledge reasonably, because else they could be subject >>to lose competition in this market. > > I did not get my point across very well in the original message, so I >will restate it here. Magazines do not write for computers. Magazines >write for PEOPLE. The people that most computer industry publications in >the U.S. (such as InfoWorld, PC World, etc.) write for is the community >of people who use computers for professional purposes. > > Unfortunaly, Amiga users make up only a tiny fraction of that >community. Until this changes, these publications will continue to not >mention the Amiga in their articles. For all of the Amiga's capabilities, >it is not of most interest to 95% of the readers of these magazines. >These magazines, therefore, do not mention anything that is not of much >interest to their readers. > > All the bundled multimedia software in the world, and all the >multimedia capabilities in the world, will not make these publications >notice the Amiga. Amiga users need to become a noticeable percentage of >the community of professional computer users. Unfortunately, this has not >happened yet, and at the current rate that Commodore is selling >'professional' (non-A500) Amigas in the U.S., it likely never will. > There are several things in the above that makes me choke. The amiga has a large following among computer literate people. There is NO way you can make people who don't wish to learn about new concepts learn in just a few months. You have to work at it for years. Needless to say I consider computer journalists among the most reactionary people around. There is another thing also, the magazines don't write for people. They sell readers to advertisers. As long as the readers let them get away with paid misinformation they will continue to cover only paying customers. You mention that 95% of the readers aren't interested in the Amiga. I don't agree with that estimate but if it were true it is due to the magazine targetting the mac or ms-dos users to the exclusion of anything else. Lets compare different articles. When new and revolutionary software is released the article is of interest to a great many people beyond the primary group of would be buyers. When new hardware is released it appeals to a wider audience too. It is only run-of-the-mill type stuff that is of no interest to a wider audience. I can understand that magazines won't cover yet-another-WP for a small platform but not to review stuff like Real3D, Caligari Broadcast and similar products is a crime. This is true for more machines than the Amiga though. Why do you think professional equals non-500 systems. The A500 is technically superior to serious macs and pc-clones. I own an A500 and though I use it for games I would chose it any day over the mac for instance. ( better keyboard, faster utilities, multitasking etc. works just as well without expansion slots) Come to think of it I play more games on the Sun than on my amy at present. /Jorgen -- ******************************************************************************* email dvljhg@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time. Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality. "Credo, quia absurdum est."
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (12/12/90)
In article <EF73892CBBBF006453@ISUVAX.BITNET> WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) writes: > >In article <629@cbmger.UUCP> Peter Kittel GERMANY <peterk@cbmger.UUCP> writes: > >>In article <F03D042028BF0067CD@ISUVAX.BITNET> WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) writes: >>> one question >>>always pops into my mind: why should these magazines mention the >>>Amiga? >> >>Because there is also a competition between magazines. And there is a real-world example right before my eyes. As I already told here, the best and biggest general-computer magazine in Germany is "c't". It's mainly PC oriented, but it also KNOWS the Amiga (and, well, ST and Mac). So when it is appropriate, they also mention the Amiga (e.g. talking graphics, multitasking, multimedia). And the result: They have totally outgrown some competing magazines that cover PC and Mac only. So: Competence sells, this is my opinion and experience. > Magazines do not write for computers. Magazines >write for PEOPLE. Yes, and readers demand from the magazines to get informed fully and correctly. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec12.054959.21185@ecst.csuchico.edu> ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) writes: > > The newspapers don't give a damn about the news. They just want >to make sure that their advertisers are happy because that's who >gives them their paychecks. I disagree a little here: The magazines also must ensure the advertizers that at least SOME people READ those ads. And I always believe that people and especially computer magazine readers are not as dumb as always stated. So they also choose the magazines they read after their impression of how competent and informative a magazine is. And when it turns out and becomes public conscience that one magazine simply doesn't konw about an important part of the market, then this magazine will be sold less, fewer people read the ads, and the advertisers will turn to magazines that know better. Well, sounds perhaps a bit idealistic. But at least here in our place it works this way as I told in another posting. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) (12/13/90)
This shows the signs of a group of threads (is there a reason why some threads end up being ten or twelve separate messages?) that's gonna go on and on... Folks, think about something: how much coverage of Nexts or Suns do you see in those same magazines? The Amiga doesn't get a heck of a lot less coverage than those other machines. Please go on with your ranting and raving... /**************************************************************** * All of the above copyright by the below. * * Bill Cavanaugh uunet!tronsbox!bleys * * "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." * ****************************************************************/
jsd@moray.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (12/13/90)
In article <23958@grebyn.com>, ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: |> |> The Amiga has not made the smallest dent in the business market, which |> is where the money is, and where all the focus in the USA is. |> The business desktop has been taken by the PC. It's not even a marketplace |> anymore, it's an institution taken completely for granted by everyone |> involved. The Amiga has no chance there, and therefore will never |> receive any better press in the business and PC trade rags. It may |> penetrate new markets, perhaps the A3000UX will create a new view of |> desktop Unix machines. All this remains to be seen. |> One thing that would help Commodore capture the business market is to shead its name. And possibly even the Amiga name. Why? When you mention Commodore to a person, the must likely thing that he/she will think of is 'game machine' or the 64 (that's assuming he doesn't know much about the Amiga. If you still don't beleive me, look at Atari. At one point they really had some good computers. Supposedly the new Atari TT is suppose to be good (I don't know. Even if it isn't, please get your mouth closed.) Mention a Atari computer to most people and they'll respond, 'Atari makes computers?' Its true. Most business people don't like chances and when a company has a game-machine reputation, chances are they arn't even going to look at that make. One last thing, I know several people w/ Amigas and I've never seen any of them running business-related applications, ie. word-pro., spread-sheets, etc. -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r ___ _ "...but then there was the r r /__ | \ possibility that they were r r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (12/13/90)
In article <EF73892CBBBF006453@ISUVAX.BITNET> WHE46@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU (Marc Barrett) writes: > I did not get my point across very well in the original message, so I >will restate it here. Magazines do not write for computers. Magazines >write for PEOPLE. The people that most computer industry publications in >the U.S. (such as InfoWorld, PC World, etc.) write for is the community >of people who use computers for professional purposes. > > Unfortunaly, Amiga users make up only a tiny fraction of that >community. Until this changes, these publications will continue to not >mention the Amiga in their articles. For all of the Amiga's capabilities, >it is not of most interest to 95% of the readers of these magazines. >These magazines, therefore, do not mention anything that is not of much >interest to their readers. If these arguments held any truth at all then there would be zero articles about the NeXT printed. This has not been the case, so there must be someother underlying reasons for the lack of Amiga articles. I suggest that it is fear! The Amiga has been ridiculed from the start by MAC and IBM magazine types because they fear to lose Advertising money from MAC/IBM sources. It was a terrific machine from the start (with an immature OS 1.0) that shook up a lot of people. The defense against it was fueled by CBM and the orginal Amiga corp.. The Amiga was protected from pre-introduction discovery by being a "killer game machine". Every feature that the Amiga has had from the start has since been "re-invented" by Apple and IBM since (i.e multi-tasking OS, multimedia, NTSC compatability the list goes on...). As the gap narrows the amount of articles has increased. Amiga is now getting fair press coverage (fair as in not negative,but still unequal) along with a better rep for support (thanks CBM). Things are leveling out but that is a problem in it's self. CBM needs something NOW to push ahead, as to what that is who knows? Maybe the 040 board for the A3000, maybe an A4000 (but I doubt it), maybe bundled Ethernet...... something needs to break and break big. Enough of my two cents worth, send all flames to MB--he's used to it by now :) Monty Saine
lag@pawl.rpi.edu (Jose Raffucci) (12/13/90)
Ok, so maybe the magazines of the world *are* ignoring the amy to a degree,
but what about C= ignoring it's potentially life-saving market? The way I
see it, the student market is the only thing that's going to really save them,
especially schools like mine, i.e. engineering and tech schools. You say that
the business market is everything and that we have not even knicked it. What
would happen if highly specialized graduates trickled into the business world,
and their companies would depend on them as advisors on computers, and say,
they just *happend* to know what the amiga could do, and the price vs.
performance stats? It just might change things a little. Sadly, all I see
at fairs around here are Mac's, IBM's, a few SPARC's, and now, some NeXT's.
Even if those same people goggled at the output on the next, what would
happen if there were some 3000UX's sitting nearby so that they could compare?
The people here know what a computer is capable of doing, and how to make it
do what they want. True, we are not the general public, but we're the ones
that will be developing for large companies in the future. Anyone following
this?
I was pretty disappointed when I saw the NeXT here the other day, and everyone
(including myself) was goggling over them. I sat down and tried to max it,
and unfortunately for them, I bogged it down rather easily. People saw that
and they knew exactly what was going on, it's SLOW. Now, before you start
flaming, let me say that I'm not getting into the war, i'm only pointing out
what many of you already know. Educational discounts are NOT enough. We need
a little more support and initiative. I hate to whine, but I feel rather
envious that here I am, watching inferior machines get supported by their
companies, and people who would probably end up buying an amy if given the
chance, not doing so...tis sad, tis true. I think that we, the users have
done a whole hell of a lot to sell this machine, C= is getting their act
together, but I really want this machine to keep going...
-laggie
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
I will not encourage others to fly... L.A.G.N.A.F.
// The Amigoids from hell, lag@pawl.rpi.edu
\X/ Renssepolytechnitute lagnaf@mts.rpi.edu dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) (12/13/90)
In article <636@cbmger.UUCP> peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >In article <1990Dec12.054959.21185@ecst.csuchico.edu> ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) writes: >> >> The newspapers don't give a damn about the news. They just want >>to make sure that their advertisers are happy because that's who >>gives them their paychecks. > >I disagree a little here: The magazines also must ensure the >advertizers that at least SOME people READ those ads. And I always >believe that people and especially computer magazine readers are >not as dumb as always stated. So they also choose the magazines >they read after their impression of how competent and informative >a magazine is. And when it turns out and becomes public conscience >that one magazine simply doesn't konw about an important part of >the market, then this magazine will be sold less, fewer people >read the ads, and the advertisers will turn to magazines that >know better. > >Well, sounds perhaps a bit idealistic. But at least here in our >place it works this way as I told in another posting. > It sounds a lot like utopia to me. People are stupid. Don't take that personal unless you have to :-) Look at this net for instance. My impression of the net is that it must be the most computer-literate information system available. Still we have a LARGE number of people claiming that you can't use the amiga for anything but games and that IBM invented multimedia just to take some examples close to this group. Other groups have similar problems with people talking about things they know little or nothing about. Yes, I know, I am one of those people who like to see my voice in print no matter what I say. That also makes me sort of an expert on the subject though :-) The majority of postings on the net are just rehashing old facts and fiction. The same holds true in an even higher degree for computer magazines. After reading a couple of PC rags I have come to the conclusion that people don't buy them to get information but to get as much paper as possible. /Jorgen -- ******************************************************************************* email dvljhg@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time. Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality. "Credo, quia absurdum est."
rwm@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca (Russell McOrmond) (12/13/90)
In a message posted on 13 Dec 90 01:05:19 GMT,
lag@pawl.rpi.edu (Jose Raffucci) wrote:
JR>envious that here I am, watching inferior machines get supported by their
JR>companies, and people who would probably end up buying an amy if given the
I think there is something to be said about tha Amiga in all this. It must be a
pretty awsome system. Do you know of any OTHER system that has survived as long
without any marketing ;-)
:Later
---
Opinions expressed in this message are my Own. My Employer does not even
know what these networks ARE.
Russell McOrmond rwm@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca {fts1,alzabo,...}!atronx!rwm
FidoNet 1:163/109 Net Support: (613) 230-2282
Amiga-Fidonet Support 1:1/109cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) (12/14/90)
Ed, If they want MS-DOS ads, then call the magazine MS-DOS world. Its just a disguise that they put on, calling themselves PC WORLD when they only cover about 1/10 of the globe. Yes, I know about the ads and news mixing--I've read computer shopper a few times. If they don't give a damn, they should get outta the business. I just tire of seeing computer magazines that only show a few systems and claim to be system-wide reports. I am sure that there is a link between the sales of a computer and its advertising in the magazines, correct? If I were computer illiterate and looking for a system, I would pick up PC WORLD not AmigaWorld. After all, it should have the most unbiased report among all of the periodicals, right?........ Chad
jsd@moray.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (12/14/90)
In article <3JF^8$-@rpi.edu>, lag@pawl.rpi.edu (Jose Raffucci) writes: |> |> I was pretty disappointed when I saw the NeXT here the other day, and everyone |> (including myself) was goggling over them. I sat down and tried to max it, |> and unfortunately for them, I bogged it down rather easily. People saw that |> and they knew exactly what was going on, it's SLOW. Oh, I`ll bet you 500 does circles around the NeXT 040. -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r ___ _ "...but then there was the r r /__ | \ possibility that they were r r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) (12/14/90)
dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) writes: [various bits deleted] > >I disagree a little here: The magazines also must ensure the > >advertizers that at least SOME people READ those ads. And I always > >believe that people and especially computer magazine readers are > >not as dumb as always stated. So they also choose the magazines > >they read after their impression of how competent and informative > >a magazine is. And when it turns out and becomes public conscience > >that one magazine simply doesn't konw about an important part of > >the market, then this magazine will be sold less, fewer people > >read the ads, and the advertisers will turn to magazines that > >know better. > > It sounds a lot like utopia to me. People are stupid. Don't take that persona > unless you have to :-) Look at this net for instance. My impression of the ne > is that it must be the most computer-literate information system available. > Still we have a LARGE number of people claiming that you can't use the amiga > for anything but games and that IBM invented multimedia just to take some > examples close to this group. Other groups have similar problems with people > talking about things they know little or nothing about. Yes, I know, I am one > of those people who like to see my voice in print no matter what I say. That > also makes me sort of an expert on the subject though :-) > The majority of postings on the net are just rehashing old facts and fiction. > The same holds true in an even higher degree for computer magazines. After > reading a couple of PC rags I have come to the conclusion that people don't > buy them to get information but to get as much paper as possible. Well, seeing as comp.sys.amiga is already turning into rec.autos... :-) I am one of those poor souls who punishes themselves by buying car magazines. (It's a punishment because I can't afford them!) If I saw a car magazine which neglected certain brands, I wouldn't bother buying it. Let's face it, can you see any general purpose car magazine leaving out articles on the latest Ferrari because they sell about 4000 a year compared to Fords xx million vehicles?? The same applies to reading about the Amiga in magazines. I buy some specialist magazines - but I also buy one or two general magazines in an attempt to keep up with what's happening in the rest of the business. -- Official Signature for Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer)! Mail : sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz Disclaimers are for sick societies with too many lawyers.
fhwri%CONNCOLL.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (12/14/90)
While hoity-toity Mac and IBM flack publications like Info World and their ilk
are studiously avoiding mention of the Amiga, it must be noted that the four
page color ad in PEOPLE Magazine is (gasp!) actually SELLING Amigas to REAL
WORLD people, who are buying them for their kids, or to play games, or to
do WP, or whatever. And those 500Cs are becoming the next C64 in terms of
market saturation, and that cannot be ANYTHING but GOOD.
BTW, I got my first computer to play games on. These days, I do DTP mostly.
I'm not all THAT unusual as a computer user goes...
--Rick Wrigley
Usual disclaimers applyjsd@spotted.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (12/15/90)
In article <0bO1DBe00VQC43NlRU@andrew.cmu.edu>, cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) writes: |> Ed, |> If they want MS-DOS ads, then call the magazine MS-DOS world. Its just |> a disguise that they put on, calling themselves PC WORLD when they only |> cover about 1/10 of the globe. ^^^^^^^^ You forget: An MS-DOS machine and an IBM PC clone are two different machines. MSDOS is the dos that most PC's run. A IBM PC can run many different op-sys. To me, the title "PC WORLD" refers to the ibm "PC" and its clones, not every personnal computer in the world. If they wanted every personnal computer instead of just the "PC", then they could have called their mag "MICRO-COMPUTER WORLD." Think about it before you say or do or post. -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r ___ _ "...but then there was the r r /__ | \ possibility that they were r r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
johnhlee@piccolo.cs.cornell.edu (John H. Lee) (12/15/90)
In article <1990Dec14.174951.1555@rice.edu> jsd@spotted.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >In article <0bO1DBe00VQC43NlRU@andrew.cmu.edu>, cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) writes: >|> Ed, >|> If they want MS-DOS ads, then call the magazine MS-DOS world. Its just >|> a disguise that they put on, calling themselves PC WORLD when they only >|> cover about 1/10 of the globe. ^^^^^^^^ [...] > To me, the title "PC WORLD" refers to the ibm "PC" and its clones, not > every personnal computer in the world. If they wanted every personnal > computer instead of just the "PC", then they could have called their > mag "MICRO-COMPUTER WORLD." > > Think about it before you say or do or post. One should take one's own advice... It wasn't too long ago that "PC" meant Personal Computer, not a specific microcomputer, until IBM decided to corrupt computer jargon with the IBM PC. Yet even today, many people associate "PC" with Personal Computer. How many people do you know will talk to you about "your PC" even when they know you have an Amiga, MacIntosh, or 3b1? Hence "PC World" connotes more general coverage than actuality. "PC World" is a nice way to project encompassing coverage without lying about its true audience. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DiskDoctor threatens the crew! Next time on AmigaDos: The Next Generation. John Lee Internet: johnhlee@cs.cornell.edu The above opinions of those of the user, and not of this machine.
jsd@boreal.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (12/16/90)
In article <49754@cornell.UUCP>, johnhlee@piccolo.cs.cornell.edu (John H. Lee) writes: |> |> It wasn't too long ago that "PC" meant Personal Computer, not a specific |> microcomputer, until IBM decided to corrupt computer jargon with the IBM PC. IBM corrupted computer jargon? How? They called their machine the "IBM PC," not just "PC". Its is the IBM Personal Computer. |> |> Yet even today, many people associate "PC" with Personal Computer. How many |> people do you know will talk to you about "your PC" even when they know you |> have an Amiga, MacIntosh, or 3b1? Hence "PC World" connotes more general |> coverage than actuality. |> Yes, even I associate "PC" with a personal computer. However, "PC" *can* mean either one. So "PC World" is either for all pc's or just IBM PC's. Which name do you think sounds better, PC World or IBM PC World? -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r ___ _ "...but then there was the r r /__ | \ possibility that they were r r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
labb-2ae@e260-2d.berkeley.edu (Joe C.) (12/17/90)
In article <1990Dec15.215451.23153@rice.edu> jsd@boreal.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >In article <49754@cornell.UUCP>, johnhlee@piccolo.cs.cornell.edu (John H. Lee) writes: > >|> >|> It wasn't too long ago that "PC" meant Personal Computer, not a specific >|> microcomputer, until IBM decided to corrupt computer jargon with the IBM PC. >IBM corrupted computer jargon? How? They called their machine the "IBM PC," >not just "PC". Its is the IBM Personal Computer. IBM may not have corrupted the name, but nowadays when people say PC, they usually mean an IBM PC, or more likely, an IBM PC clone. This is because the "PC's" have such a large piece of the market pie. Everyone I've met who has told me, "I have a PC," or "I'm gonna buy a PC" has always meant the IBM clones. This is not the first time that a trademarked name has become a common everyday word; remember Xerox? That trademarked name has become both a noun and a verb in today's society. Why? Because everyone was using Xerox's copying machine. >|> >|> Yet even today, many people associate "PC" with Personal Computer. How many >|> people do you know will talk to you about "your PC" even when they know you >|> have an Amiga, MacIntosh, or 3b1? Hence "PC World" connotes more general >|> coverage than actuality. >|> > >Yes, even I associate "PC" with a personal computer. However, "PC" *can* >mean either one. So "PC World" is either for all pc's or just IBM PC's. >Which name do you think sounds better, PC World or IBM PC World? 1. PC World is dedicated to all PC's 2. PC World only talks about IBM and the clones, from 8088 to 486. 3. Therefore, all PC's are either the IBM or its clones! If you say 1, then you will end up on 3. In conclusion Mark Barret, the originator of this thread, does have a point when he states that the computer industry is ignoring the Amiga. The "Other machine", the MAC got a small piece of the computer pie because of two reasons: 1. They were the first to sport a Graphic User Interface, not that they were the inventors, but they were the first to make it available to the end user. 2. They had a large company (APPLE), with a large enough budget to launch a fierce ADVERTISING campaign. That original spot they got in the one of the Superbowls literally had their sales department phones ringing off the hook! -jc --- labb-2ae@web.berkeley.edu
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (12/19/90)
In article <1990Dec16.224728.19247@agate.berkeley.edu> labb-2ae@e260-2d.berkeley.edu (Joe C.) writes: >In article <1990Dec15.215451.23153@rice.edu> jsd@boreal.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >>In article <49754@cornell.UUCP>, johnhlee@piccolo.cs.cornell.edu (John H. Lee) writes: >IBM may not have corrupted the name, but nowadays when people say PC, they >usually mean an IBM PC, or more likely, an IBM PC clone. [...] >This is not the first time that a trademarked name has become a common >everyday word; remember Xerox? That trademarked name has become both a noun >and a verb in today's society. Why? Because everyone was using Xerox's >copying machine. And they also used Band-Aids. But with "PC", it's different. Nobody covered their wounds with Band-Aids or made Xeroxs before those products were introduced. But people had computers they called Personal Computers or PCs long before IBM came along with their original clunker. >1. PC World is dedicated to all PC's >2. PC World only talks about IBM and the clones, from 8088 to 486. >3. Therefore, all PC's are either the IBM or its clones! Equally circular reasoning can lead you to believe that PC World is misnamed. The real question is, does anyone really believe that the magazine covers all computer systems? I figured it out the first time I saw PC World, up there on the newsstand with Macworld and Amiga World. Now, if something called Computer World or MicroWorld or Personal Computing or the like only covered Clones, I would consider it misleading. PC World, despite it's generic name, wasn't, since based on IBM's use of the PC letters, no one would call their rag PC World anymore unless they covered IBM and clones of IBM systems. >In conclusion Mark Barret, the originator of this thread, does have a point >when he states that the computer industry is ignoring the Amiga. If a rag like PC World is equal to "the computer industry", then it can be rightly said that the computer industry is not only ignoring the Amiga, but Macs, Acorns (hey, VLSI claims to have sold over 150K ARM chips), all workstations, minis, mainframes, supers, parallels, etc. >labb-2ae@web.berkeley.edu -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "I can't drive 55" -Sammy Hagar
kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu (12/24/90)
jsd@moray.rice.edu writes: > Its true. Most business people don't like chances and when a company > has a game-machine reputation, chances are they arn't even going to > look at that make. > > One last thing, I know several people w/ Amigas and I've never seen > any of them running business-related applications, ie. word-pro., > spread-sheets, etc. I am an MBA student, and I use my Amiga occasionally for spreadsheets, but I have to admit I am gradually moving my work over to Macintosh because the software is a lot more powerful and looks much nicer when printed. I used to use Amiga WordPerfect, but after seeing Mac Microsoft Word I saw there was no comparison. Pro Write and all the rest are toys by comparison. The reason for this is a catch-22: people buy the Amiga for the areas that it is strong in (games, programming, video, etc.). These people are often not interested in application software power. So why should software companies write a powerful word processor for the Amiga when they know the market is small? Once a company writes a great word processor and a program like Adobe Type Manager, I'll use my Amiga more for work and less for fun. If you were a businessman, would you buy an Amiga for your company (this question is not directed solely at the person who posted the message)? I would like to say yes because the Amiga is my favorite machine, hands down, but I know that, in all fairness, I wouldn't. I would probably buy IBM clones and a couple Macs. No one hates IBM clones more than I do (it's only because I use them and have come to hate them!), but they are familiar to many people (less training) and most business people have clones at home on which they do work. Imagine filling the office with Amigas loaded with Amiga WordPerfect, Maxiplan, and Superbase Pro. The employees would hang you by your tie once they found out that the work they do at home won't work on the computers in the office. Clones are the standard in business because business likes standards. There is some apt Murphy's Law about standards, but I can't recall it. The Amiga is a great computer in many other areas, though, especially with the new 3000UX. There is a saying: You'll never get rich playing another man's game. This is very true, so the Amiga should be a "niche player," as we business people say it. Niche players can become rich players if they do it right--look at Sun. How many people people use Suns? Yet Sun is a far richer company than 99% of the clone manufacturers. But I think many people don't care how much money C= makes; they just want to see fields of Amigas as far as the eye can see. This is not possible, and C= knows it, so they are pursuing their goals that lead to profit maximization (or at least they are trying). So maybe they aren't so dumb after all by leaving business alone. Note to all: I welcome comments, but TYPE flames >nil:. I don't bother to even read them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Krueger | BITNET: KKRUEGER@UNOMA1 | //\ MBA student | Internet: KKRUEGER@ZEUS.UNOMAHA.EDU | \X/--\ M I G A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I always shop a week before X-mas for next year's X-mas to avoid the rush. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------