5 ms·

> Management culture of overruling architects was one of many reasons CBM went to hell. I used to be a massive fan of Amiga (still am) to the point where I'd s

> Management culture of overruling architects was one of many reasons CBM went to hell. I used to be a massive fan of Amiga (still am) to the point where I'd still be waving the banner in the late 90s as my friends all were playing Quake and laughing at me. I've often been tantalized by these 'what ifs', but it's pretty clear in retrospect that IBM PCs were always going to win. IBM (accidentally) democratized hardware expansion with PC clones, so technological advances could be stolen from other architectures, and competition could reduce costs. And, crucially, they already had a massive value advantage by having an excellent suite of business software, justifying their purchase price for many households. Looking at the graphs in this article it's pretty clear they had already won the war by the mid-80s. https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/5/ https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/5/

rvense 4y ago
It sounds like you're speaking from the assumption that a monopoly is inevitable in computing - the PC was so good, all other platforms had to fail. But all other platforms didn't fail. If Commodore had run their company properly and delivered viable products, marketed them properly, there are people would have bought them. It's an open question if that could have supported a viable niche business and for how long.
- bombcar 4y ago
  What would have saved the other platforms is what (I argue) saved the Mac - the Internet itself. Unfortunately it came a bit too late (widespread) for too many of the platforms, and Moore's Law finished everything else off.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > monopoly is inevitable in computing it's not a monopoly, it's an open standard, which is the opposite of a monopoly.
  - h0l0cube 4y ago
    Precisely. IBM PCs also had a software ecosystem and brand around delivering business value. Just like Mac did. They both survived because of this. Once those ecosystems are established, it's hard to supplant them.
  - rvense 4y ago
    Conceded, that's the wrong word use for the PC hardware market. But Windows + Intel definitely had something approaching a "desktop computer platform" monopoly in the mid-late 90's. And it could have become much worse, had Jobs et al. not turned Apple into a functional business again, but I still think it's hard to say if there wasn't (isn't!) room for more than one alternative platform. Commodore were obviously lousy at setting a sane strategy and following through on it to make money, to the point where it almost looks like they could have failed without any competitors at all - so I don't think it's particularly easy to say what a moderately well-run Commodore, with actual new products up through the 1990's could have been able to do.
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      One, to me, obvious path forward for such a fictional Commodore, would have been for them to "embrace and extend" the PC platform. It could have been able to run PC "business" software fine. It could also have been able to run "Amiga" games and gfx productivity software. Sort of like Voodoo had 3D monopoly for a hot minute.
      - antod 4y ago
        They did have something like that for the original A1000 intended to do just that. Sidecar I think it was called? Something with an x86 for running DOS apps.
        icedchai 4y ago
        They also had "bridge boards" for the later models, which supported up to a 386SX: http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/a2386sx http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/a2386sx
KerrAvon 4y ago
Apple is existence proof that other platforms could have succeeded if well-managed. Apple almost died due to incompetent executive management, not the PC per se.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Apple had a much higher price point than the Amiga, it's not at all comparable.
  - h0l0cube 4y ago
    They also had an exceptional suite of 'multimedia tools'. The market for desktop publishing, video editing, graphics tools, etc. was cornered well before the Amiga did so. Amiga had some early inroads with broadcast media and CGI, but that was an awfully small niche. I believe Apple had the first machine with spreadsheet software. Just like PCs had a serious business market from the beginning, so did Apple.
    - snvzz 4y ago
      This was mostly true in the USA; Amiga was big in Europe. Overall attributed to a marketing failure by Commodore. They failed to communicate Amiga's value to potential users and developers.
      - ekianjo 4y ago
        I see that said a lot, but communicating about the value of the Amiga was easier said that done. It was a machine that could do everything, and that was built in the first place as a gaming machine (from the earlier devs themselves). The C64 was also mostly used for gaming at that time so that image of a computer that could be used for professional purposes was not really there in their DNA. Companies went for PCs by default and did not care about the graphics capabilities of the Amiga. Apple had its own market and the Amiga was mostly in a place where it was affordable for many consumers but lacking proper professional support and software to turn it into something else.
      - 4y ago

rvense 4y ago

It sounds like you're speaking from the assumption that a monopoly is inevitable in computing - the PC was so good, all other platforms had to fail. But all other platforms didn't fail. If Commodore had run their company properly and delivered viable products, marketed them properly, there are people would have bought them. It's an open question if that could have supported a viable niche business and for how long.

bombcar 4y ago
What would have saved the other platforms is what (I argue) saved the Mac - the Internet itself. Unfortunately it came a bit too late (widespread) for too many of the platforms, and Moore's Law finished everything else off.
ekianjo 4y ago
> monopoly is inevitable in computing it's not a monopoly, it's an open standard, which is the opposite of a monopoly.
- h0l0cube 4y ago
  Precisely. IBM PCs also had a software ecosystem and brand around delivering business value. Just like Mac did. They both survived because of this. Once those ecosystems are established, it's hard to supplant them.
- rvense 4y ago
  Conceded, that's the wrong word use for the PC hardware market. But Windows + Intel definitely had something approaching a "desktop computer platform" monopoly in the mid-late 90's. And it could have become much worse, had Jobs et al. not turned Apple into a functional business again, but I still think it's hard to say if there wasn't (isn't!) room for more than one alternative platform. Commodore were obviously lousy at setting a sane strategy and following through on it to make money, to the point where it almost looks like they could have failed without any competitors at all - so I don't think it's particularly easy to say what a moderately well-run Commodore, with actual new products up through the 1990's could have been able to do.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    One, to me, obvious path forward for such a fictional Commodore, would have been for them to "embrace and extend" the PC platform. It could have been able to run PC "business" software fine. It could also have been able to run "Amiga" games and gfx productivity software. Sort of like Voodoo had 3D monopoly for a hot minute.
    - antod 4y ago
      They did have something like that for the original A1000 intended to do just that. Sidecar I think it was called? Something with an x86 for running DOS apps.
      - icedchai 4y ago
        They also had "bridge boards" for the later models, which supported up to a 386SX: http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/a2386sx http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/a2386sx

KerrAvon 4y ago

Apple is existence proof that other platforms could have succeeded if well-managed. Apple almost died due to incompetent executive management, not the PC per se.

ekianjo 4y ago
Apple had a much higher price point than the Amiga, it's not at all comparable.
- h0l0cube 4y ago
  They also had an exceptional suite of 'multimedia tools'. The market for desktop publishing, video editing, graphics tools, etc. was cornered well before the Amiga did so. Amiga had some early inroads with broadcast media and CGI, but that was an awfully small niche. I believe Apple had the first machine with spreadsheet software. Just like PCs had a serious business market from the beginning, so did Apple.
  - snvzz 4y ago
    This was mostly true in the USA; Amiga was big in Europe. Overall attributed to a marketing failure by Commodore. They failed to communicate Amiga's value to potential users and developers.
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      I see that said a lot, but communicating about the value of the Amiga was easier said that done. It was a machine that could do everything, and that was built in the first place as a gaming machine (from the earlier devs themselves). The C64 was also mostly used for gaming at that time so that image of a computer that could be used for professional purposes was not really there in their DNA. Companies went for PCs by default and did not care about the graphics capabilities of the Amiga. Apple had its own market and the Amiga was mostly in a place where it was affordable for many consumers but lacking proper professional support and software to turn it into something else.
    - 4y ago