3 ms·

> As it turns out, the end result - the 6501/2 - was actually very competitive with the 6800. So whilst the original intention wasn't to compete with the 6800,

> As it turns out, the end result - the 6501/2 - was actually very competitive with the 6800. So whilst the original intention wasn't to compete with the 6800, in the end it did compete with it very successfully in some important markets. Another subtlety: the ecosystem. Obviously a cheaper cpu encourages usage in more places. Read: more users & more designers working with it. Over time, that means more tools (including better ones), more OSes to run on it, more application software, more code examples, more existing systems that can be used to kick-start a new design, more knowledge in the field to work around quirks, etc. Often that ecosystem weighs heavier than cpu features, price or performance. Yeah a 'nicer' cpu will drop in price. But by then it's late to the party.

systems_glitch 3y ago
That is true, but the 6800 came with a massive ecosystem, all available directly from Motorola! They had reams of useful documentation, including complete, tested implementation guides for things like POS terminals, early simple ECUs, smart disk subsystems, etc. You could build all of those things with chips bought directly from Motorola, engineered to be 100% compatible and easy to interface. For many small systems, you didn't need any non-Motorola parts other than passives. I guess the flip side was, Motorola had to create all that in-house, and the price of the ecosystem reflected that. MOS dumped cheap chips into the world at just the right time and got hobbyists to do the work for free, sometimes with superior results. Probably no one could've seen that coming in 1975.
imglorp 3y ago
TFA says the 4040 ~ $29 and 6502 target ~ $20. In a ~ $1300 computer (Apple II, ca. 1977) how price sensitive was that CPU market to $9? The 6800 was ~ $175 in 1974 - that does seem like a clear gulf to the other two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_6800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_6800
- klelatti 3y ago
  Not 100% sure I understand your question but if you're asking about 4040 vs 6502 as contenders for Apple II in 1977 - the 4040 was a much more limited design than the 6502 and would not have been viable as the Apple's CPU.
- systems_glitch 3y ago
  The Apple 1 could run either the 6502 or 6800! Probably experience with that dictated that people wanted the 6502. Apple also gained enough pull with MOS that at some point they got some say in the feature set of the 6522 VIA.
gary_0 3y ago
> Another subtlety: the ecosystem. See also: The Raspberry Pi.

systems_glitch 3y ago

That is true, but the 6800 came with a massive ecosystem, all available directly from Motorola! They had reams of useful documentation, including complete, tested implementation guides for things like POS terminals, early simple ECUs, smart disk subsystems, etc. You could build all of those things with chips bought directly from Motorola, engineered to be 100% compatible and easy to interface. For many small systems, you didn't need any non-Motorola parts other than passives. I guess the flip side was, Motorola had to create all that in-house, and the price of the ecosystem reflected that. MOS dumped cheap chips into the world at just the right time and got hobbyists to do the work for free, sometimes with superior results. Probably no one could've seen that coming in 1975.

imglorp 3y ago

TFA says the 4040 ~ $29 and 6502 target ~ $20. In a ~ $1300 computer (Apple II, ca. 1977) how price sensitive was that CPU market to $9? The 6800 was ~ $175 in 1974 - that does seem like a clear gulf to the other two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_6800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_6800

klelatti 3y ago
Not 100% sure I understand your question but if you're asking about 4040 vs 6502 as contenders for Apple II in 1977 - the 4040 was a much more limited design than the 6502 and would not have been viable as the Apple's CPU.
systems_glitch 3y ago
The Apple 1 could run either the 6502 or 6800! Probably experience with that dictated that people wanted the 6502. Apple also gained enough pull with MOS that at some point they got some say in the feature set of the 6522 VIA.

gary_0 3y ago

> Another subtlety: the ecosystem. See also: The Raspberry Pi.