Friesen@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA.UUCP (11/25/87)
I am very depressed, I just saw a pretty good commercial on tv for the Amiga. When will Atari learn? All of the television commercials I see for Atari are for their game systems, but if they want to change their image, shouldn't they advertise their computers? The Amiga commercial said that they even have a 1-800 number to get information and a home demonstration. I have a feeling that the Amiga ads are going to start popping up during sprots. This is what Apple and IBM do, why dosn't Atari? Is it asking too much for Atari too have good marketing? I think some advertising will bring them more business than buying out the Federated chain. I keep hoping for a miracle. Will Atari ever realize that the only way to lose its game image is through marketing? That is how IBM did it. They never were that great a computer. But their marketing made people think they were. The ST is a great computer, but will Atari ever convince any one that it is? I didn't mean to flame anyone, I guess I'm just hoping that my two cents worth may make a difference. I just had to try. Aric Friesen
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (11/30/87)
>Amiga. When will Atari learn? All of the television commercials I see >for Atari are for their game systems, but if they want to change their >image, shouldn't they advertise their computers? The Amiga commercial Well, this is somewhat unfair to Atari. The Atari that controls the video game market is no longer the same company as the Atari that controls the ST series. They are entirely separate entities. So the problem at the moment is not one of incorrect advertising, but a lack of advertising. You're right though, it doesn't help to have all those Atari game commercials around (even though they aren't related). -Matt
c9c-eh@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU (Warner Young (WHY)) (11/30/87)
Line-eaters! A New Breed of Bugs! In article <8711301706.AA18559@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: >>Amiga. When will Atari learn? All of the television commercials I see >>for Atari are for their game systems, but if they want to change their >>image, shouldn't they advertise their computers? The Amiga commercial > > Well, this is somewhat unfair to Atari. The Atari that controls >the video game market is no longer the same company as the Atari that >controls the ST series. They are entirely separate entities. So the problem >at the moment is not one of incorrect advertising, but a lack of advertising. Unfortunately, though you are right in that the VIDEO (coin-op) game Atari is separate from the ST Atari, the commercials that I've seen so far have all been for the Atari 7800, or the 2600, or the 65XE (?). These ARE from OUR Atari, owned and operated by good ol' Jack Tramiel. So the problem is, when will Atari get a _*GOOD*_ PR agency? If they could get one like the one that does ads for Apple, we're set. Disclaimer: I'm not associated with \ /\ /arner the latest revision of SANITY. \/ \_/ Address: ucbvax!dorothy!c9c-eh |oung c9c-eh@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU \__|
weaver@tut.UUCP (12/01/87)
In article <8711301706.AA18559@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: >>Amiga. When will Atari learn? All of the television commercials I see >>for Atari are for their game systems, but if they want to change their >>image, shouldn't they advertise their computers? The Amiga commercial > > Well, this is somewhat unfair to Atari. The Atari that controls >the video game market is no longer the same company as the Atari that >controls the ST series. They are entirely separate entities. So the problem Not quite. The Atari that owns the _home_ video games _is_ the same Atari that controls the ST series. When Jack Tramiel bought Atari he sold off the coin-op division of Atari (a company now known as Atari Games) but retained control of the 2600/5200/7800 game systems as well as the 8-bit computers and now the ST line. The games systems _are_ selling, and probably outselling the STs, unfortunately for us ST users. However, what needs to be advertised is the ST series; the 2600s can sell themselves (I think I heard some figure that around 100,000 Model 2600 game system units sold in '85 or '86 with $0 advertising. Now that says something or other about a game image.) Atari has previously been the leader with graphics (at least with Jay Miner's work with the 800.) Even some of the arcade games testify to this: Battle Zone, Tempest, Xevious, Star Wars, Return of the Jedi, etc. Maybe this 'Abaq' thing will fly; but only if it is unique in some way. Some nasty fast graphics would be nice; but lets face it: unless Atari gets something to market (on time) that has something unique about it, and isn't in the 'game vein', then they always will be 'that damn toy company.' > -Matt Cheers, -- Andrew Weaver, The Ohio State University College of Business UUCP: ...!cbosgd!cis.ohio-state.edu!weaver | "This ain'ta my planet, ARPA: weaver@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu | monkey-boy!" | - Emilio Lizardo
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (12/01/87)
In article <8711301706.AA18559@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: >The Atari that controls >the video game market is no longer the same company as the Atari that >controls the ST series. They are entirely separate entities. Unless something has happened real recently that I'm not aware of, the Atari that does the computers is one and the same with the Atari that does the home video games (2600, 5200, 7800). The Atari which does the coin-op video arcade games, like Marble Madness, IS a separate entity, and is known as Atari Games. This division came about when Tramiel bought Atari - he bought the computer and home video sections, but not the coin-op section, which was subsequently sold to someone else. -- ---------------- Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
neil@atari.UUCP (Neil Harris) (12/02/87)
In article <8711301706.AA18559@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > >Amiga. When will Atari learn? All of the television commercials I see > >for Atari are for their game systems, but if they want to change their > >image, shouldn't they advertise their computers? The Amiga commercial > > Well, this is somewhat unfair to Atari. The Atari that controls > the video game market is no longer the same company as the Atari that > controls the ST series. They are entirely separate entities. So the problem > at the moment is not one of incorrect advertising, but a lack of advertising. Sorry, but we (Atari Corp) are, in fact, the same company doing the video game advertising. We no longer are associated with the coin-op Atari, but we have the home video game and computer parts. The reason for the ad policy is simple. We have plenty of game machines and terrific distribution for them. So we advertise heavily. On the computer side, the distribution is not as strong and we're pretty much sold out of product this season. Why advertise if the consumer is unlikely to find the machine available? It will be interesting to see if Commodore can make a profit on the Amiga's sold this season, after deducting the advertising expense. -- --->Neil Harris, Director of Marketing Communications, Atari Corporation UUCP: ...{hoptoad, lll-lcc, pyramid, imagen, sun}!atari!neil GEnie: NHARRIS/ WELL: neil / BIX: neilharris / Delphi: NEILHARRIS CIS: 70007,1135 / Atari BBS 408-745-5308 / Usually the OFFICIAL Atari And w Da
rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) (12/04/87)
In article <899@atari.UUCP> neil@atari.UUCP (Neil Harris) writes: >>The reason for the ad policy is simple. We have plenty of game machines and >>terrific distribution for them. So we advertise heavily. On the computer >>side, the distribution is not as strong and we're pretty much sold out of >>product this season. Why advertise if the consumer is unlikely to find the >>machine available? >>-- >>--->Neil Harris, Director of Marketing Communications, Atari Corporation > > Well, I give Mr. Harris a lot of credit for publicly signing his name to so preposterous/humorous a statement! What does it boil down to? This: 1. We push our game machines because we have a lot of them. 2. We don't push the computers because we don't have a lot of them. 3. Anyway, if we *did* push the computers, people would be really sad because of point #2. 4. We are unconcerned that continued lack of publicity for the computer line may tend to: (a) preclude winning any new customers, and (b) dry up whatever interest that has been generated despite Atari's non-existant advertising for the product. As Dr. Venckman said in "Ghost Busters" to the possessed Sigourney Weaver when the later asked "Do you want this body?", IS THIS A TRICK QUESTION?? Mr. Harris, pardon me, but is it conceivable that you *would* be able to advertise (and sell) more ST's and other Atari computers if you *built more of them*?! I don't think anyone would blame Atari for advertising their most profitable products. The question that you have raised in my mind is, are you serious about selling Atari computers? If Atari is serious, then produce more units and advertise more vigorously. If you do not feel that that policy is viable, then I have to question why you continue to carry microcomputers in your product line. Bill ====================================================================== I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization .........................How's that, Gary? ======================================================================
c60a-2ae@web6f.berkeley.edu.UUCP (12/04/87)
Atari,
I don't buy the excuse that you are advertising vid games because
you have lots of them and are not advertising computers because supply is
low. I say advertise to make the product known.
I think that aside from atari and commodore owners and general
computer enthusiasts, not too many people know how powerful the ST is.
This was almost the case with the Amiga until commode started advertising
it. Unless atari starts to focus on advertising computers, they will be
seen as a vid game company.
Chances are, even folks who do own computers know what exactly the
ST is. This is especially true of _users_ of apple and ibm machines
(probably less so of clones). They might not even read Byte (gasp!).
There must be millions of people out there who think the Macintosh is
the only "turn your home into a home office" machine. Some may even
think that Macs and IBMs are reasonably priced!
Combat system stupidity Atari. ADVERTISE!!!
John Kawakami
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| JoHn KaWaKaMi alias spectacle -O^O- alias c60a-2ae@widow.berkley.edu |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+c9c-eh@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (12/04/87)
In article <909@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >In article <899@atari.UUCP> neil@atari.UUCP (Neil Harris) writes: > > >>The reason for the ad policy is simple. We have plenty of game machines and > >>terrific distribution for them. So we advertise heavily. On the computer > >>side, the distribution is not as strong and we're pretty much sold out of > >>product this season. Why advertise if the consumer is unlikely to find the > >>machine available? > >>--->Neil Harris, Director of Marketing Communications, Atari Corporation >Well, I give Mr. Harris a lot of credit for publicly signing his name to so >preposterous/humorous a statement! What does it boil down to? This: > 1. We push our game machines because we have a lot of them. > 2. We don't push the computers because we don't have a lot of them. > 3. Anyway, if we *did* push the computers, people would be really > sad because of point #2. > 4. We are unconcerned that continued lack of publicity for the computer > line may tend to: > (a) preclude winning any new customers, and > (b) dry up whatever interest that has been generated despite > Atari's non-existant advertising for the product. > [* some stuff deleted... *] >I don't think anyone would blame Atari for advertising their most profitable >products. The question that you have raised in my mind is, are >you serious about selling Atari computers? If Atari is serious, then >produce more units and advertise more vigorously. If you do not feel that >that policy is viable, then I have to question why you continue to carry >microcomputers in your product line. > >Bill >====================================================================== >I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization >.........................How's that, Gary? > >====================================================================== Neil, I think Bill speaks not only for himself in this case; many of us here on the Net would agree with him on this matter. I can definitely see why you're advertising the game machines; in not a few ways, the biggest market is still in the usual home, where the average person may be more likely to purchase a game system than an ST. BUT... Bill is right. I think that even if you can't get the ST's out the door for the Christmas masses, some advertising surely wouldn't hurt. I've tried many times in the past to convince others that Atari's image as a game company is now undeserved, a thing of the past. But without some support from Atari to that effect, this claim is usually disbelieved by almost everyone I know, even those who have ST's, in some cases. The problem is not just lack of advertising, it's also that the advertising should be aimed correctly, to convince people that Atari was/is/will be a serious force in the market, and that if Joe Schmoe bought an Atari, he would be able to use it for serious purposes. We want to be able to have corporations using Atari's, too. All right, that's almost enough said. Certainly, things seem like they might be improving. Some major software houses, such as WordPerfect Corporation (look for my review from a few days ago), are doing things to help. WP is one of those things that I will be able to point to and say "Look. That's NOT a game; it's serious STuff!" Neil, please listen to us. We are not here to make your life harder :-), we want to help Atari, too. I've always bought Atari, and I probably always will, provided Atari can keep itself in the market. Disclaimer: I'm not associated with \ /\ /arner the latest revision of SANITY. \/ \_/ Address: ucbvax!dorothy!c9c-eh |oung c9c-eh@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU \__| P.S. Whatever happened to Atari (Microsoft Word) Write, anyways?
jimm@amiga.UUCP (12/04/87)
> >It will be interesting to see if Commodore can make a profit on the Amiga's >sold this season, after deducting the advertising expense. > >-- >--->Neil Harris, Director of Marketing Communications, Atari Corporation Yeah, but it can't hurt the chances of the third-party software developers making a profit this christmas, now, can it? jimm (speaking for self) I and I Computing
koreth@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Steven Grimm) (12/04/87)
In article <5202@zen.berkeley.edu> c9c-eh@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Warner Young (WHY)) writes: > The problem is not just lack of > advertising, it's also that the advertising should be aimed > correctly, to convince people that Atari was/is/will be a serious > force in the market, and that if Joe Schmoe bought an Atari, he > would be able to use it for serious purposes. One thing I noticed about Atari's ST ads (which were shown at the Santa Clara World of Atari Expo last year, and which I haven't seen on TV yet) was that they were all comparisons with other peoples' computers, namely Apple and IBM. We know the ST is a better machine; those ads aren't the way Atari should be pushing their machine. Look at IBM's ads, which show some businessperson in distress, and getting a PC that solves all the problems. That gives people a better reason to buy a computer than, "Yeah, well, my computer COST less than yours, so there." Given a choice between a $1500 paperweight with sound and color graphics (not that the ST is a paperweight, but it might as well be with these ads) and a $2000 business solution, most people would choose the solution. +New! Improved! Now 100% Artificial-+-+-----------------------------------+ |# # @@@ **** &&&&& $$$$$ % %| |Steven Grimm | |# # @ @ * * & $ % %+-+ ARPA: koreth@ucscb.ucsc.edu | |### @ @ **** &&&& $ %%%%%| | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ssyx!koreth| |# # @ @ * * & $ % %+-+ ______________________________| |# # @@@ * ** &&&&& $ % %| | |"Let's see what's out there."| +-----with NutraSour(TM)! No natural colors or preservatives!------------+
lupin3@ucscb.UCSC.EDU.UUCP (12/04/87)
In article <6166@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> c60a-2ae@widow.berkley.edu (John Kawakami) writes: >Atari, > > I don't buy the excuse that you are advertising vid games because >you have lots of them and are not advertising computers because supply is >low. I say advertise to make the product known. [lines about Amiga advertising, Mac & IBM household words deleted] > Combat system stupidity Atari. ADVERTISE!!! Ah, but they ARE advertising the computers. The ratio of ST ads to video game machine ads I see is maybe 40%/60%; haven't you seen the commercial for the ST that compares it to the Mac Plus? (The screen is bigger, it's in color, it has MIDI built in, listen to the music in the background because it was done on an ST...) Not the greatest commercial in the world, but it gets the point across. At least it's better than "The 2600 from A-Tar-Ri!!" Me, and I thought DISCO was DEAD.... >+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >| JoHn KaWaKaMi alias spectacle -O^O- alias c60a-2ae@widow.berkley.edu | >+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -- .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . | _ _ _ _ |_| _ _ |_ -__ _ _ ARPA: lupin3@ucscb.ucsc.EDU L_ (_\( ( (_/ | |(_\_\ (_ || )(_)_\ UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!lupin3 larry / hastings _/ BITNET: lupin3@ucscb@ucscc.BITNET Best Punchline To A Non-Existant Joke: "No... the fish had US!!" Disclaimer: UCSC--where men are men, women are women, and opinions are opinions . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
lupin3@ucscb.UCSC.EDU.UUCP (12/04/87)
In article <1316@saturn.ucsc.edu> koreth@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Steven Grimm) writes: >In article <5202@zen.berkeley.edu> c9c-eh@dorothy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Warner Young (WHY)) writes: >> The problem is not just lack of >> advertising, it's also that the advertising should be aimed >> correctly, to convince people that Atari was/is/will be a serious >> force in the market, and that if Joe Schmoe bought an Atari, he >> would be able to use it for serious purposes. > >One thing I noticed about Atari's ST ads (which were shown at the Santa >Clara World of Atari Expo last year, and which I haven't seen on TV >yet) was that they were all comparisons with other peoples' computers, >namely Apple and IBM. We know the ST is a better machine; ^^^^^^^ We WHO? The owners of Atari ST's? I'm pretty sure that the people Atari is trying to reach with their advertising are NOT aware that the ST is a better machine; hence the advertising to that effect. If a person has just a layman's knowlege of computers, influenced by advertising, then they're probably going to think that the Mac and the IBM are better machines, 'cos after all, they're advertised more and all the businesses buy them. That's why I think the direct comparison is called for. As I said in my previous posting, I _have_ seen Atari ST advertising recently, and it hasn't just been price calling (it compares the ST to the Mac+, along very non-technical lines but still making it look good, and then says "So how much more would you expect to pay for all this? How about 50% less?" or words to that effect). I think the commercial is reasonably useful, and perhaps you people are just missing those commercials. >those ads >aren't the way Atari should be pushing their machine. Look at IBM's >ads, which show some businessperson in distress, and getting a PC that >solves all the problems. That gives people a better reason to buy a >computer than, "Yeah, well, my computer COST less than yours, so >there." Given a choice between a $1500 paperweight with sound and >color graphics (not that the ST is a paperweight, but it might as well >be with these ads) and a $2000 business solution, most people would >choose the solution. Hence, as above, the direct comparisons. I stand as before; that is EXACTLY what the commercial I saw above was trying to prove. It was sided for the home market more than the business market, but then the business stuff _was_ mentioned. >+New! Improved! Now 100% Artificial-+-+-----------------------------------+ >|# # @@@ **** &&&&& $$$$$ % %| |Steven Grimm | >|# # @ @ * * & $ % %+-+ ARPA: koreth@ucscb.ucsc.edu | >|### @ @ **** &&&& $ %%%%%| | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ssyx!koreth| >|# # @ @ * * & $ % %+-+ ______________________________| >|# # @@@ * ** &&&&& $ % %| | |"Let's see what's out there."| >+-----with NutraSour(TM)! No natural colors or preservatives!------------+ > -- .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . | _ _ _ _ |_| _ _ |_ -__ _ _ ARPA: lupin3@ucscb.ucsc.EDU L_ (_\( ( (_/ | |(_\_\ (_ || )(_)_\ UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!lupin3 larry / hastings _/ BITNET: lupin3@ucscb@ucscc.BITNET Best Punchline To A Non-Existant Joke: "No... the fish had US!!" Disclaimer: UCSC--where men are men, women are women, and opinions are opinions . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
870646c@aucs.UUCP (12/04/87)
I had to reply to this one, I have just purchased a Mega, and it is a very nice machine(love that disk I/O). I see it this way, the ST has just had a face lift for the better(could never go back to a 520/1040), and with the full expansion port on the back who knows what will be out in the next 6-12 months. I still consider the ST a better computer that the Amiga(no war please!), we (as in all of us) need to help push the ST to it's limits(we haven't even start to expand the machine). This is going to take input from all, even more so on Atari's part. The other I meet a fellow that just bought a new IBM clone, he asked what kind of machine I had, when I said a ST he just looked at me as if I spent big $ on a game machine, he was soon updated by me telling him that the ST would run circles around his CLONE. It is this image we need to change! Thanx for listening Barry( oh ya!, I speak for myself of course )
neil@atari.UUCP (Neil Harris) (12/05/87)
> Neil, I think Bill speaks not only for himself in this > case; many of us here on the Net would agree with him on this > matter. I can definitely see why you're advertising the game > machines; in not a few ways, the biggest market is still in > the usual home, where the average person may be more likely to > purchase a game system than an ST. BUT... Bill is right. I > think that even if you can't get the ST's out the door for > the Christmas masses, some advertising surely wouldn't hurt. >... > Neil, please listen to us. We are not here to make your > life harder :-), we want to help Atari, too. I've always bought > Atari, and I probably always will, provided Atari can keep > itself in the market. >... > P.S. Whatever happened to Atari (Microsoft Word) Write, anyways? Microsoft Write should be out at any moment. Within a week or two, actually. The other stuff is hard for me to argue with. I'm on record advocating more advertising of computers in the USA also. In this case though, I speak for me, and not the company. -- --->Neil Harris, Director of Marketing Communications, Atari Corporation UUCP: ...{hoptoad, lll-lcc, pyramid, imagen, sun}!atari!neil GEnie: NHARRIS/ WELL: neil / BIX: neilharris / Delphi: NEILHARRIS CIS: 70007,1135 / Atari BBS 408-745-5308 / Usually the OFFICIAL Atari opinion
mrd@SUN.MCS.CLARKSON.EDU.UUCP (12/05/87)
In high school they told me that the reason for studing history was not to learn all the dates and stuff but so that I could see the future. Basicly as you have heard many times before "history repeats itself." This has never been so true with atari. Back when the atari 800 came out it was intended as direct compition with apple. They studied the apple and made many improvements: a better keyboard, better graphics and the best expansion capabilities I have ever seen on a commersial 8 bit computer. If you have ever taken apart an 800 you will see that the back of the board has this wicked expansion edge but was enclosed so that you could not access it. Error #1 - made a computer that could and should have been expandable but do to marketing desided to make it rather unexpandable. Then they took this computer that in my opinion was desided as a small buisness computer (probably word processing) and turn it into a game computer. They then said that a nice disk drive would be available REAL SOON NOW called the 815. They also promissed a light pen, and several things that I don't remember anymore. Well the rest is history. I figure the 815 is comprable to the laser printer or the unix box. The light pen might be compared to the blitter. marketing could be compared to marketing. Boy were my teachers ever right but I didn't think they were this right and I don't think they thought so either. There are also many amazing similarities between old atari and old commodore and new atari and new commodore. Atari has taken the point of view that making vapor-ware is ok. Buggy os's are ok. New products that just look new are ok. Game machines are ok. Michael DeCorte mrd@clutx.clarkson.edu mrd@clutx.bitnet p.s. Sorry Neil I realize that you can't do anything about any of this, these decisions are made higher up. After all if you could you would change it right?
rex@otto.COM (Rex Jolliff) (12/08/87)
Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <8712050444.AA17251@sun.mcs.clarkson.edu> mrd@SUN.MCS.CLARKSON.EDU ("Michael R. DeCorte") writes: > > [much talk about history repeating itself] ... Then >they took this computer that in my opinion was desided as >a small buisness computer (probably word processing) and turn >it into a game computer. First of all, I don't think they really had any intentions of making the 800 a business computer. Second, what's wrong with the 800 being a game machine. It happens to be a very good one. Games are a very important prerequisite for a home computer as far as I'm concerned (probably THE most important 8-). Some people think they need to buy a "sufficiently powerful business computer" for themselves so they can run "business applications". The truth, in my opinion, is that a home computer is something to play games and tinker with in your spare time, much like you would buy a handglider to go handgliding with or a telescope to gaze at the stars. The person that wants to take up flying as a hobby doesn't go out and buy a 747, not only is it not as fun to fly, it costs a whole lot more also. A person that wants to gaze at the stars in his spare time doesn't buy an obseratory, does he? > [talk about atari's vapor-ware syndrome] This can be annoying, can't it? Contrary to popular belief, Atari is not the only company with this problem. > >Atari has taken the point of view that making vapor-ware is ok. I've never heard them state this. >Buggy os's are ok. This is also not true. Of course they could try to fix every bug not worrying about whether one version of thier OS is compatable with any other, sound faniliar? 8-) 8-) >New products that just look new are ok. huh? >Game machines are ok. well they are. >Michael DeCorte >mrd@clutx.clarkson.edu >mrd@clutx.bitnet > Rex. -- Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.UUCP, {akgua,ihnp4,mirror,sdcrdcf}!otto!rex) The Sun Newspaper - |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way Newspaper | reflect the opinions of my employers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What happened to our superior space program?
long@sask.UUCP (Warren Long) (12/12/87)
> In article <899@atari.UUCP> neil@atari.UUCP (Neil Harris) writes: > > >>The reason for the ad policy is simple. We have plenty of game machines and > >>terrific distribution for them. So we advertise heavily. On the computer > >>side, the distribution is not as strong and we're pretty much sold out of > >>product this season. Why advertise if the consumer is unlikely to find the > >>machine available? > >>-- > >>--->Neil Harris, Director of Marketing Communications, Atari Corporation > > Well, I give Mr. Harris a lot of credit for publicly signing his name to so > preposterous/humorous a statement! What does it boil down to? This: > I found Neil's response to be quite refreshing. I was curious as to why they would bother advertising the game machine so heavily and not the ST. I am quite capable of understanding that there is no point in advertising a product, if you are already going to sell all you have manufactured. I also hope that Atari notes that they are selling all the STs they make, and decides to make more next time. I am getting used to the fact the no matter what Atari comes out with, the world will always assume it is for GAMES. Since I have owned Ataris (6 of them so far..., all full blown computers, never had the game machine, even tho' it was my original dream...), I have had to explain to people that my COMPUTER could do anything their's could and probably more/better. I have been doing it so long, it no longer affects me, I have the speech down cold. (I'll even bet $ that people who buy the Atari PC will have the same problem). In summary, I really appreciate the information from Neil & Co. I do view this information as fact, they are considerable closer to the source than anyone else I know, and try to tell us as much as is possible. While people may not like Atari's policies, I do not feel that this is a reason to personally dump on people like Neil, who is on our side. Warren -- =-=-=-=-=-Warren Long at University of Saskatchewan, Canada-=-=-=-=- Home: 78 Carleton Dr.,Saskatoon, Sasakatchewan, S7H 3N6 Phone: (306)-955-1237 =-=-=-=-=-U-Email: ...!ihnp4!alberta!sask!long -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) (12/16/87)
In article <957@sask.UUCP> long@sask.UUCP (Warren Long) writes: > >I also hope that Atari notes that they are selling all the STs >they make, and decides to make more next time. "..next time"? This is what I don't understand. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought products such as microcomputers were turned out on assembly lines that can be kept running, even at a low production rate, on a more or less continuous basis. The "..next time" concept makes sense if you are talking about a press run of books. If an automobile company sees that its cars are selling as fast as they can be made, a second shift is put on at the factory to produce more to meet the demand. In other words, the assembly line is reved up to a higher production rate. Why can't that be done with Ataris? And what is the "..next time"? Does Atari have to wait till Christmas '88 to order more ST's? This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. Anybody have any ideas? Bill ====================================================================== I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization .........................How's that, Gary? ======================================================================
pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Smee) (12/17/87)
In article <926@cod.NOSC.MIL> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >"..next time"? This is what I don't understand. Correct me if I am >wrong, but I thought products such as microcomputers were turned out >on assembly lines that can be kept running, even at a low production >rate, on a more or less continuous basis. The "..next time" concept >makes sense if you are talking about a press run of books. ... Well, I've got two theories. In my more cynical moods, I envision ST's being churned out not by an Atari plant, but by a general purpose Taiwanese 'electronics construction plant' (there are such, don't know if Atari use them). So, this week they crank out N thousand ST's; next week, N thousand Amiga's; the week after than, N thousand IBM PC's, or a million pop-up toasters, or ... More realistically (from my days of working for a company which actually made things you could see and touch), the electronics industry is not as 'unitized' as, for example, the auto industry (sheets of steel in one end, cars out the other). Even if you make the product in your own plants, you buy in a *lot* of the components, which (of course) you buy in batches because it's a *lot* cheaper. So, you've got to get a new batch of PC boards from your PC fabricator (almost certainly, while you design the boards in house, you have them made from your artwork outside); you've got to buy a new batch of cases from the plastic injection molding company; you've got to buy a new batch of custom chips from your silicon fabricator; you've got to buy in a new lot of monitors with your badge from your monitor supplier; and so on... There is the conflict between wanting to get large lots (lower unit cost); and wanting to keep the lots small (so you don't end up with 10000 Rev A ST boards when you suddenly discover you've got to make a mod to Rev B -- or worse, when the product stops selling). This all forces you into a 'batch mode' style of operation, even if your final assembly plant is nominally 'continuous stream'. You can't just say, on the spur of the moment, 'gosh, think I'll put on a second shift and make twice as many'. You've also got to crank up all your suppliers. And you've got to be SURE you can use what you've ordered from them.
bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (BRUCE SZABLAK) (12/17/87)
In article <926@cod.NOSC.MIL>, rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) writes: > This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. Anybody have any > ideas? > > Bill The manufacturing plant may be having quality control problems. No doubt that cranking up the production rate makes any such problems worse.
ericr@hpvcla.HP.COM (Eric Ross) (12/19/87)
Since I am a Manufacturing Engineer at a division of Hewlett Packard that builds computer peripherals, maybe I can lend some insight. There are several constraints that can potentially restrict your production rate. Your comment of cranking up the line is valid, however lead times on materials for the product can be anywhere from 3-9 months. This implies that advance planning is required. Therefore, your response in this case is limited by the response of your suppliers. On the other side of the coin, there has been no mention of the highest capacity of the ST production line. Maybe it already is maxxed out. In this case, duplication or enhancement of the line is required. This can take anywhere from 6 months to years to accomplish. A manufacturer of any product has to walk a very fine line between overproduction(heavy inventory; high expenses) and under production(opportunity costs). Predicting the market accurately is probably one of the toughest jobs there is and very few do it well all of the time. Eric Ross hplabs!hpvcla!ericr Hewlett Packard--Vancouver Division.
stephen@plx.UUCP (Stephen Heath) (12/23/87)
Atari's problems are not unique in industry and are as follows.
First prioritys are gross margins and short term profit.
Some where in the middle comes market share.
Near the end of the prioritys are long term profits.
At the end of the prioritys are quality and customer satisfaction.
If you can get you gross margins and profits up without having
good custormer satisfaction and quality, that seems to be ok with Atari.
If competition forces you to consider these last two prioritys, then
that must be unfare competition and and we need some new trade
laws to put restrictions and tarifs on imports. Bah Humbug. If you
can't get those last two down, you deserve to go out of busness to
some one who can.
Stephen Heath
P.S. If have owned Atari Computers for 5 years. At one time they
gave more value per dollar. Now, I have found it more cost effective to
buy a Hard disk and second disk drive and add an AT System in as
an extra. I could not justify the cost of an atari compatable hard
drive and second floppy. It may have cost somewhat more, but my value
per dollar was MUCH!!!! greater.landon@apple.UUCP (Landon Dyer) (12/25/87)
Atari does a lot of "re-manufacturing" as well. Rev-A boards go in, for instance, and Rev-Ds pop out the other end. atari!jwt could probably shed more light on this subject (he has actually SEEN the plant in Taiwan), but he's probably not allowed to say much. 'tain't that interesting, anyway.... -Landon -- I speak for me.
uace0@uhnix2.UUCP (Michael B. Vederman) (12/25/87)
Okay, how can you change Atari's image? Does it matter? Sure, more advertise- ments would be nice, but what benefit do we, the curreniet owners of STs derive from that? Perhaps it would be a boost to our own egos having more commmercials on TV. I mean who wants to own a machine that doesn't receive alot of press? In actuality, I doubt that more TV advertising would do too much good, other than allowing us to say "I saw the ad five times in one hour," or "Did you see the ads last night?" Ask yourself this - how many other computer companies make game machines? Answer - NONE! Not Apple, not IBM, not Commodore, no one. Therefore, Atari is stuck, because they do currently sell game machines. This is not neccessarily bad, but more advertising, I beleive will only give us current owners a shot in the arm. Remembere, actions speak louder than words, and no advertising can boost sales if you don't have an exciting line of products to sell, and new products on the way. If Atari can produce, then they zwill be successful. The ABAQ is exciting, but may come out too late to 'steal' the show. Is it important for Atari to come out with products first? For us owners, we certainly would take a lot of pride in the company if we were owners of a$ computer from a company that was 'on the leading edge' and delivered prroducts before anyone else, but what real benefit do we get from that other than feeding our egos. So, before you go complaing to Neil, ask who will really benefit. Is this 'commercial wars.' Are we feeling left out? We have a good machine that is exactl[y what we paid for. What more do you want? Flame me at this address, if you want. I just get tired of complaining about immaterial things. If you wanna complain, complain about how GEM is a closed operating system that must be hacked at to figure out (that's GEM, not TOS). My opinions are my own, and do not neccessarily reflect our users' group, company, university, or any living being. - Mike -- #-----------------------------------------------------# University (of Houston) # It is morally wrong to let a sucker keep his money. # Atari Computer #-----------------------------------------------------# Enthusiasts (UACE) Use Atarinet: for help, interactively send a message to UH-INFO@UHUPVM1
Friesen@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA (05/01/88)
I feel that Atari should change the name on their 16-bit computers to fully lose their game image. I also feel the 'cartridge' port should be called an expansion port. There are many hardware products that would plug in through the expansion slot of an IBM PC, that plug in through the cartridge slot on an ST. I also feel that meeting deadlines, not making vaporware, and coming out with bug free software would help their reputation. A software program should have new versions come out to add features, not to fix problems. One last thing that would help is more expansion slots and expansion capabilities. Atari needs to do more advertising. Atari relies all on "word-of-mouth" to advertise thier products. Although "word-of-mouth" is a major aspect of sales, you cannot expect to reach everyone by this method. I have seen numerous commercials for the Atari game systems, that use the approach that they need to use for their computers. They need to compare the ST to the Mac and the PC. The ST is much better than these computers, and I think this would get more busineses interested in Atari (which is Atari's goal, isn't it?). What they should do is have two comercials circulating during sports on TV. One commercial comparing the ST to the Mac, and one comparing it to the PC. They should also advertise in busines magazines, such as "Time" and "Newsweek". The ads in magazines should compare it to the Mac and PC, but also emphasize the laser printer/desktop publishing capabilities, and advertise other "aspects" of the ST (because you can say more for less in a magazine ad then on a TV ad). I feel all of this should be done (especially the name change) before they introduce their next computer, which supposedly is the 030 box. The ST is a good machine, everyone is always complaining, but I think it is about the best microcomputer on the market. I think it is an excellent computer for just about everything. But Atari must make people realize this. (I'm not flaming anyone!) Aric Friesen Addresses: Genie: A.FRIESEN ARPA: Friesen%PCO@BCO-MULTICS.ARPA "Exterminate! Exterminate!"---Daleks