jedi@clark-emh.arpa (06/30/88)
In an article I received, Chuck McManis (cmcmanis@sun.com) said >The original suggestion though bears repeating, lets get more colors >even if it is only in the 'high end' machines. ^^^^^^^^ Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the amiga?? Have all these nice capibilities in a 'LOW END' machine??? That's one of the reasons that I'm sure many people picked it. I know that I did. >--Chuck McManis >uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com >These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you don't like what I say, to bad, The people along time ago said I could say it anyway...... Mike Hampton Clark Air Base Jedi @ Clark-EMH.arpa -------------END OF FORWARDED MESSAGE(S)-------------
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (07/01/88)
In a previous article I wrote : >The original suggestion though bears repeating, lets get more colors >even if it is only in the 'high end' machines. In article <3174@louie.udel.EDU> jedi@clark-emh.arpa commented: > Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the amiga?? Have all these nice > capibilities in a 'LOW END' machine??? That's one of the reasons that > I'm sure many people picked it. I know that I did. And the answer in my opinion is no. There is a fundamental tradeoff in the industry between features/price. You or I can easily name a computer and a price that are impossible to meet. Unfortunately, many computer users don't realize when they have done this. If had a nickel for every time someone said "All I want is 16 colors on a 1K by 1K screen for under $2000." not realizing that 19" monitors that can do 16 colors in a 1K by 1K format *cost* $2000, I could buy an A500 by now. Add the computer and you are looking at another two to four kilobucks. Amigas are the same way. Commodore puts the most it can into an Amiga 500 and sells it for the least it can and still provide enough income to fund a relatively small amount of R&D. (Relative to most other computer companies) If they were a 'PC clone' maker they wouldn't need *any* software people because all of the software R&D is "free" from IBM and others. They could beef up their R&D staff if they had some high margin products generating the income, yet they can't get away with charging the prices that Apple charges so they are kind of stuck no? So the basis for my original statement above is as follows. Commodore is driven by low-end users. That is their big market and they cannot ignore it. But they also have a small base of "high end" users who are willing to pay $2,000 to $4,000 for a system if it provides the power they need to stay with the Amiga. So take the following senario; Commodore develops a 'dual Denise' that is part original Denise and part RAMDAC. This pair of chips can be plugged into an Amiga and give it 256 out of 16,000,000 colors (THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL). The cost of this chipset to the end user will be $300. "Acack! Pthpft!" you say, because you only paid $600 for the entire computer ! "I'd never pay that!" you say. Well that seems to be the way Commodore thinks, but they don't take into account that *I WILL* pay that to get more colors. I'm not a starving college student and will continue to invest in my Amiga(s) as long as Commodore is willing to carry them to where I want them to go. (At least one branch of them) So my plea to Commodore to not ignore us high-end users who aren't cheap and are willing to pay the price (within reason) to make our systems as powerful as possible. If I were to guess, I would say this is the *only* thing holding back the Commodore 68020 board. Or more succinctly, Commodore saying to itself "Gee, we're going to need to sell this board for $2000 for it to be any sort of success, and yet most of what we are selling are Amiga 500's for under $1000. Who's going to buy this thing?" And the answer is the power users out there, those people who want to show the Mac II folks what an Amiga can do when similarly equipped, and wipe the smug look clean off their face. This is of course a product marketing issue and Commodore has been rather poor in doing any sort of product marketing. Hopefully, that will improve. Something must be working as their stock was over $13 a share yesterday. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
pds@quintus.uucp (Peter Schachte) (07/02/88)
In article <58591@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >In a previous article I wrote : >>lets get more colors even if it is only in the 'high end' machines. >In article <3174@louie.udel.EDU> jedi@clark-emh.arpa commented: >> Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the amiga?? >And the answer in my opinion is no. >There is a fundamental tradeoff in the industry between features/price. [Chuck goes on to list lots of good reasons for wanting better hardware for high-end purchasers] The problem with having different capabilities on different machines is software. Graphics programs will have to know about the greater number of colors available and use them. If the colors aren't available, programs had better not count on them. The OS should make it as easy as possible to write programs that'll make the most of either configuration. The last thing we want is to divide the Amiga software market into two camps: programs written for the fancy high-end hardware that won't run on cheaper machines, and programs written for low-end machines that don't know how to take advantage of the high-end features. I know it can be done. Lots of IBM software runs on several different graphics boards. But it should be done with great care. The IBM software market is big enough to survive a little fragmentation; the Amiga market is not. -Peter Schachte pds@quintus.uucp ..!sun!quintus!pds
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (07/03/88)
In article <150@quintus.UUCP> pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) writes: > The problem with having different capabilities on different machines is > software. [Peter goes with the "but everyone won't have it argument so it will fragment the market argument] As reasonable as that argument sounds Peter, in reality it is not only untrue but using it as a premise can be financially fatal. If you talk to a zillion Amiga developers (I talked to many at the Developers Conference in DC but not a zillion) you will find two common themes that really depress them. Theme #1: In the USA, Commodore is percieved as a maker of moderately powerful *home* computers that play killer games. Theme #2: The original Amiga market (A1000 owners) was primarily older professional people with a good supply of disposable income, these new A500 buyers are primarily college and high school kids who have no money and pirate software. Now both of these are perceptions and not necessarily true, but like Wall Street, it aint what is, it's what you Believe. So Commodore comes out with a new machine that has more colors and more resolution than their current machines and leave the A500 alone. What happens ? Well hopefully they have provided a way for programs to tell what machine they are on or to get the maximum graphics capabilities, but what really happens is they create a truely "more powerful" machine that costs more. This has two advantages, one it is financially out of reach for the A500 audience so when software developers write programs that depend on the new features *They target the original, professional users*. This is important because they know these people will pay 200 - 300 dollars for a program to get the job done. They are assured that if Commodore can sell these machines (see point #2) then their product will sell. Additionally, these more mature users are less likely to pirate software. This is *very* good for the development community because they themselves don't want to be percieved as writing programs for "home" computers. Point 2 is that Commodore *positions* the product. Now thats marketing speak for separating the two products into categories. This new more powerful Amiga is *upward* compatible with the A500/2000 but many program may run on it that *cannot* run on the A500. Commodore sells this as the "business" machine, that complements their "home" business. The best example I have of how to do this right is Apple, they made sure that the Macintosh was separate and distinct from the Apple II line. Commodore on the other hand seems to promote the 500 as a souped up C64. Now when a business man looks at a product he should say "Commodore, isn't that the company that makes home computers?" To which a salesman will reply, "Yes it is, they also have this very powerful *business* computereee that runs all this great software, while retaining compatibility with their "home" line." In this way the Amiga is the same and yet different there is another Amiga to point at and say "That is the home version" "this is the business version". And simple packaging like the 2000 just doesn't cut it as a distinction (expansion slots almost do but not quite). If Commodore had a group dedicated to Product Marketing this would be clear to them. I can only hope it gets passed along to those who can act on it. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
vkr@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) (07/07/88)
I find all this sterotyping of 500 owners offensive. I bought a 500 but with a clear knowledge of what I wanted. This is why I got a Pacific peripherals subsystem at the same time: I wanted a machine that can have a harddisk, 2meg+ but no need for IBM compatibility or kludged 020 support. Since CBM doesn't make a 1500, I had to settle for the 500. It is false that I don't spend money on software: I ordered AmigaTeX two days before I bought the cpu. I have spent ~$800 on software, both my own and from grants. Now all I can hear on this net is 'there goes the neighbourhood'. Please people, be more sensitive.
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (07/08/88)
In article <660@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> (Vidhyanath K. Rao) writes: > I find all this sterotyping of 500 owners offensive. ... > Please people, be more sensitive. Since this was a follow up to my posting about the high end machines I am making the assumption that I was the one not being senstive. Sorry. There are a couple of realites though, and more importantly, a couple of _perceptions_ in the current Amiga market, that are driving the software developers and buyers of Amiga equipment. When I said that the developers tended to view the typical A500 owner as a cash poor person, I labeled it as a perception. That means that people percieve that it is true without having any true data to back it up. The other perception is that the Amiga 2000 isn't selling very well and thus it is not as valuable to write high priced software for this group as it is for the Mac II say. Again, these are perceptions. Vidhyanath chimed in with some very valuable marketing input to Commodore which was essentially, "I want an Amiga, I don't want to pay for stupid PC board slots, and I have the money to buy what I want even if you don't sell it to me." Now most marketing people go crazy when they discover that if they just modified their product plans a bit they could "capture" those dollars you sent to a card cage maker for the 500. What that does is suggest a product for Commodore, (if they will go with is highly unlikely). I call this the "Mac Plus" killer, or the Amiga 1500. The Amiga 1500, is an Amiga family machine with the extended chip set. It comes with 1 Megabyte of CHIP ram on the motherboard, 512K of Kickstart ROM, a detached keyboard, one built in 3.5" floppy and one built in 3.5" bay which can hold either a hard disk or additional floppy. There is a DMA SCSI interface built onto the motherboard. On the back are connectors for a parallel port, serial port, SCSI disk, RGB video, composite video (color), stereo audio, and the coverplate for the internal Zorro II slot. mouse connectors are on the side and _no_ 86 pin expansion connector. Design is ergonomic with a keyboard "garage" and a tilt/swivel monitor that sits on top. (The monitor is separate but the base is designed to sit squarely on the top of the machine.) The base price of the system unit with one floppy is $995. A complete two floppy system sells for $1495, the hard disk system (w/40 Meg hard disk) sells for $1895. This includes either an RGB "standard" monitor, or a bi-sync greyscale monitor. High resolution color monitors would of course be extra, but not more than another $250. Most people will of course want to expand this thing by plugging in a memory card to the internal slot although the possibility is left open for any Zorro II compatible card. Note the card would be "side" mounted to minimize the elevation of this thing. Well Commodore, you build one, and I'll buy it, I promise. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (07/08/88)
in article <660@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu>, vkr@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) says: > Summary: Please stop stereotyping 500 owners > > I find all this sterotyping of 500 owners offensive. I bought a 500 but with > a clear knowledge of what I wanted. This is why I got a Pacific peripherals > subsystem at the same time: I wanted a machine that can have a harddisk, > 2meg+ but no need for IBM compatibility or kludged 020 support. ^^^^^^^^ Sorry, bub. The A2000 Coprocessor slot was designed specifically with the intent of adding a 68020 card. No kludge necessary. If you want a 68020 or 68030 on an A500, then you might start talking about kludges, but such terminology doesn't apply to the 2000. But I do agree with the point of your message. While the percentage of A500 users who don't buy their software is almost certainly higher than that of A1000 or A2000 owner, it's not fair to say that's what all A500 owners do. The A500 can be just as serious an Amiga as a similarly equipped A1000 or A2000, and it may end up costing less for that configuration. -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
disd@hubcap.UUCP (Gary Heffelfinger) (07/08/88)
From article <59170@sun.uucp>, by cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis): > Vidhyanath chimed in with some very valuable marketing input to Commodore > which was essentially, "I want an Amiga, I don't want to pay for stupid > PC board slots, and I have the money to buy what I want even if you don't > sell it to me." Now most marketing people go crazy when they discover that > if they just modified their product plans a bit they could "capture" those > dollars you sent to a card cage maker for the 500. What that does is suggest > a product for Commodore, (if they will go with is highly unlikely). I call > this the "Mac Plus" killer, or the Amiga 1500. We've had the same dream. Or is it a mass halucination? :-) [Dream system description deleted...] > > Most people will of course want to expand this thing by plugging in a > memory card to the internal slot although the possibility is left open > for any Zorro II compatible card. Note the card would be "side" mounted > to minimize the elevation of this thing. Aw shucks. The ZII cards aren't *that* tall. Stand them up. Put 2 or 3 slots in the baby. (Jack up the price a few bucks if you have to.) Put only one slot in it and you'll have to call it the Amiga SE. :-) > > Well Commodore, you build one, and I'll buy it, I promise. You've got another guaranteed sale here. The time has come for me to consider selling my trusty 1000 so that I can have a box into which I can plug those pretty new chips. I've been wavering between the price of the 500 and the expandability of the 2000. Bring out the 1500 and I'll plunk my cash down on the spot. > --Chuck McManis -- Gary Heffelfinger --- Employed by, but not the mouthpiece of Clemson University. ---=== Amiga. The computer for the best of us. ===---
dave@dms3b1.UUCP (Dave Hanna) (07/09/88)
In article <59170@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: [Stuff about market perception and proposed A1500 system deleted] >The base price of the system unit with one floppy is $995. A complete ^^^^^ >two floppy system sells for $1495, the hard disk system (w/40 Meg ^^^^^^ >hard disk) sells for $1895. That's a $500 delta for addition of a single floppy? I expanded my 2000 by buying a IBM-style 3.5" floppy for $89.95 from Soft Warehouse (local IBM discount house) and dropping it in. Why should it be so expensive? >--Chuck McManis -- Dave Hanna, Daltech MicroSystems | "Do or do not -- There is no try" P.O. Box 584, Bedford, TX 76095 | - Yoda (214) 358-4534 (817) 540-1524 | UUCP: ...!killer!gtmvax!dave |