4 ms·

Fun personal note: I grew up about two miles from MOS Technology's HQ! The overall point I'm making is that for years Apple sold inferior hardware at va

Fun personal note: I grew up about two miles from MOS Technology's HQ! The overall point I'm making is that for years Apple sold inferior hardware at vastly inflated prices, and made up for it only in superior marketing This is a simplistic take that ignores some key actual reasons. There's no argument that the C64 was superior in terms of graphics and sound although even that comes with a caveat. Marketing is not why Apple beat Commodore, or at least far from the only reason. Nobody bought Apples because of the ads. I don't remember even seeing an Apple ad on TV, and people weren't so impressed by magazine ads that they would go spend an extra $1,000 on Apple. --- 1. The Apple II's were much more expandable thanks to their expansion slots, and there was a big ecosystem in place here already by the time the C64 gathered steam. You can see a somewhat similar dynamic at work today with RaspberryPi. There are competitors with more powerful hardware but with RaspberryPi, the ecosystem is the draw. 2. The Apple II (and soon after, the Mac) dominated the US education market. They developed strong relationships with schools, and had the most "educational" software titles. 3. 80-column mode. I know there were ways to achieve it on a C64, but what percentage of titles supported it? Additionally, a lot of folks had their C64s hooked up to crappy TVs that couldn't display it. 4. The C64's superior graphics and sound ability hurt it in the minds of many consumers. It was cheaper than an Apple II, but as far as parents were concerned that was still a lot of money to pay for a "game machine." Whereas the even more expensive Apple II, with a better selection of educational and "serious" software, was seen more as an investment in a child's future. --- I can tell you that in our household, #2 and #4 were why my (non tech savvy) parents bought us an Apple. They wanted me to have "what schools used." Did they make the right choice? Well, the Apple IIgs we got was definitely underwhelming. Obviously a C128 or Amiga would have been better for gaming and writing fun stuff. But, our local school district did use Apples back then. So it was kind of an advantage for me, to have one at home.

lern_too_spel 6y ago
Apple marketed directly to schools in the US. They were successful at this all the way through the mid 90s. Nobody I knew at the time used Apple computers at home, but every school had Apple computers in a lab and in the library.
cromwellian 6y ago
>The C64's superior graphics and sound ability hurt it in the minds of many consumers. It was cheaper than an Apple II, but as far as parents were concerned that was still a lot of money to pay for a "game machine." Whereas the even more expensive Apple II, with a better selection of educational and "serious" software, was seen more as an investment in a child's future. Then why did the C64 sell 22 million units and the Apple 2 only sold 5-6 million if consumers had a bad impression of it. > Obviously a C128 or Amiga would have been better for gaming and writing fun stuff. And pretty much everything else. Seriously, in college, everyone in engineering used TeX. I used TeX on my Amiga. It produced superior output for math and engineering papers compared to the best you could achieve on a Mac with WYSIWYG.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  Sorry, but best estimates of actual Commodore 64 sales are roughly 12.5 million, not 22 million. Still, there's no doubt that they handily outsold Apple II's. https://www.pagetable.com/?p=547 https://www.pagetable.com/?p=547 (includes some neat serial number analysis) Then why did the C64 sell 22 million units and the Apple 2 only sold 5-6 million if consumers had a bad impression of it. This is bad-faith arguing on your part; it's beneath HN. I clearly didn't say they had a "bad" impression of it. I typed something a lot more nuanced about the different impression folks had regarding the two machines. Feel free to agree or disagree with the points I actually made, but there's no need to make up words and put them into my mouth. I said it was viewed as a less serious computer; more of a games machine. I can think of a few reasons for this, in addition to the ones I've named, such as being sold in literal toy stores. Do you think perhaps that influenced peoples' perceptions? And pretty much everything else. Seriously, in college, everyone in engineering used TeX. I used TeX on my Amiga. It produced superior output for math and engineering papers compared to the best you could achieve on a Mac with WYSIWYG. Yeah, no doubt. Again, and I'm not sure I can state this explicitly enough given your posting spree here, but I'm not disputing that the C64/128 and particularly the Amiga were better at so many things. However, the initial simplistic assertion that "[Apple] made up for it only in superior marketing" (emphasis mine) ignores quite a few other factors.
  - 6y ago

lern_too_spel 6y ago

Apple marketed directly to schools in the US. They were successful at this all the way through the mid 90s. Nobody I knew at the time used Apple computers at home, but every school had Apple computers in a lab and in the library.

cromwellian 6y ago

>The C64's superior graphics and sound ability hurt it in the minds of many consumers. It was cheaper than an Apple II, but as far as parents were concerned that was still a lot of money to pay for a "game machine." Whereas the even more expensive Apple II, with a better selection of educational and "serious" software, was seen more as an investment in a child's future. Then why did the C64 sell 22 million units and the Apple 2 only sold 5-6 million if consumers had a bad impression of it. > Obviously a C128 or Amiga would have been better for gaming and writing fun stuff. And pretty much everything else. Seriously, in college, everyone in engineering used TeX. I used TeX on my Amiga. It produced superior output for math and engineering papers compared to the best you could achieve on a Mac with WYSIWYG.

JohnBooty 6y ago
Sorry, but best estimates of actual Commodore 64 sales are roughly 12.5 million, not 22 million. Still, there's no doubt that they handily outsold Apple II's. https://www.pagetable.com/?p=547 https://www.pagetable.com/?p=547 (includes some neat serial number analysis) Then why did the C64 sell 22 million units and the Apple 2 only sold 5-6 million if consumers had a bad impression of it. This is bad-faith arguing on your part; it's beneath HN. I clearly didn't say they had a "bad" impression of it. I typed something a lot more nuanced about the different impression folks had regarding the two machines. Feel free to agree or disagree with the points I actually made, but there's no need to make up words and put them into my mouth. I said it was viewed as a less serious computer; more of a games machine. I can think of a few reasons for this, in addition to the ones I've named, such as being sold in literal toy stores. Do you think perhaps that influenced peoples' perceptions? And pretty much everything else. Seriously, in college, everyone in engineering used TeX. I used TeX on my Amiga. It produced superior output for math and engineering papers compared to the best you could achieve on a Mac with WYSIWYG. Yeah, no doubt. Again, and I'm not sure I can state this explicitly enough given your posting spree here, but I'm not disputing that the C64/128 and particularly the Amiga were better at so many things. However, the initial simplistic assertion that "[Apple] made up for it only in superior marketing" (emphasis mine) ignores quite a few other factors.
- 6y ago