hatcher@INGRES.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (03/12/87)
The following is from a letter that I mailed out. I decided to post it, along with a few lines of context from previous letters, in the hopes that it may shed some light on what's going on at CBM. With any luck it might even get seen by some of those at CBM who are in a position to make policy. Note that it reflects my own views of things, and I go further out on a limb with my opinions than I usually would in a posting. >> A big chunk of what I meant was simply that workbench 1.3 development has >> been cancelled altogether. Until further notice, future releases will be >> bug fixes and other small potatoes, whereas the Los Gatos Amiga group >> had been working on actual new *features*. > [...] S**T! C-A should definitely keep Los Gatos going, and >maybe try to hire back some of the people who left. They built the damn >machine, they're enthusiastic about it.... I really wonder *why*. "Why?" Unfortunately, the attitude of top management at CBM is more typical than not. It is simply a question of how you perceive the world. For instance, there are certain stereotypes of what engineers are like, what salesman are like, etc. The stereotypes are not always true in individual cases (e.g. people are often surprised that I am a professional programmer, because I am outgoing, social, dress well, etc, etc, etc), but they have a lot of truth for statistical groups. Programmers, as a class, generally do not understand marketing issues because that's not where their expertise is. They generally think that technical wonderfulness is enough to sell a product, and sneer at, for instance, compatibility. This is in the abstract, mind you, present company excepted. This is an inaccurate view because compatibility is often what *does* sell products in the real world. On the other side of things, marketing people sneer at technical innovation (another gross generalization), because they realize that most customers are not technically sophisticated to know nor care about such things. The buyer just wants a solution to his problem, and compatibility is often the way to provide that. Besides, people think they want compatibility whether they actually need it or not. Now, there are exceptions to these stereotypes, but by and large they fit more often than not. The sad thing is that both are incorrect, because they 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. But Commodore is run by the usual stereotypical marketing oriented people, who, for expediency, dump Amiga Los Gatos (they're closing March 31, if you hadn't heard). Dumb move. They further put their future developments into the classic marketing approach: compatability. This has some good points, but overall it is kind of dumb to do with a machine that has been selling due to its technical innovation. But it is exactly what you would expect from a totally marketing oriented perspective. So what we can expect is that the 2000's will sell to a broader base of people, but will not sell as well as CBM expects, because it will be moving into the most highly competitive market in the world today (IBM PC clones). This is an extraordinarily dangerous positioning strategy. But as long as the Amiga is perceived as being in a class by itself, due to technical 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). Features like that might help the 2000 out immensely. But if they are delayed, then 2000 sales may well disappoint and surprise top management at CBM. And they might well misperceive the reason for it. Only the most enlightened of executives really understand both technical and marketing issues, or how to market technical features instead of just jumping on a bandwagon. Let's hope for the best. Doug Merritt P.S. in case it is not clear from the above, I am not talking about our friends at Commodore who post to the net. I am referring to top level management like the board of directors who make broad policy decisions. P.P.S. In case you hadn't heard, the expanded memory blitter is a real item actually in development, no question about it. But it is unclear when it will be introduced, or in what product. Jay Miner was not centrally involved in this development, since "it wasn't necessary for the small changes needed". (my source shall remain anonymous but is quite reliable)
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (03/12/87)
In article <8703120204.AA02451@ingres.Berkeley.EDU> hatcher@INGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Doug Merritt) writes: >The following is from a letter that I mailed out. I decided to post it, >along with a few lines of context from previous letters, in the hopes >that it may shed some light on what's going on at CBM. With any luck >it might even get seen by some of those at CBM who are in a position to >make policy. Note that it reflects my own views of things, and I go further >out on a limb with my opinions than I usually would in a posting. A few general notes: Interesting postings from the net do get reposted to an internal mailing list and thus to some managment and marketing people who do not normally have access to or time for netnews. Whether these people pass the articles further up the management chain is, of course, up to them. In general we (peon engineering and support people) will quietly refrain from comment on internal Commodore vs. Amiga issues. This is partly to avoid unwonted managment attention and partly from a desire to keep our dirty laundry to ourselves. At this point, it seems that the current (mostly empty) Amiga facility in Los Gatos will be closed. However, both Commodore and the Amiga people seem to want to keep a Commodore/Amiga presence in the Los Gatos area and there is an on-going discussion to determine the exact details of this presence. One further note, especially for those who have a good line into Amiga gossip is to please remember that every story has at least two sides. The Commodore that bought Amiga subsequently went through wringer and survived only by implementing rather draconian cost control measures. Life around here wasn't very pleasant either... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
foy@aero.UUCP (03/13/87)
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.