6 ms·

The Amiga was dead before a Wolfenstein 3D came out on the PC. A lot of Amiga users failed to recognize it at the time but commodore surely and truly killed tha

The Amiga was dead before a Wolfenstein 3D came out on the PC. A lot of Amiga users failed to recognize it at the time but commodore surely and truly killed that thing off by his horrible mismanagement. When Wolfenstein 3D came around it was really just shifted from keeping it on life support hoping it would awake from its coma to palliative care.

eurekin 2y ago
What did the management specifically do? (500 user)
- RiverCrochet 2y ago
  The Deathbed Vigil video provides a lot of interesting perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaTjwo1ywcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaTjwo1ywcI
- MalphasWats 2y ago
  in-fighting, power struggles & empire building. Then fell into bankruptcy.
  - timbit42 2y ago
    All by Irving Gould.
- msh 2y ago
  They failed to evolve their product while the competition was rapidly improving. The orginal amiga was leaps in front of anything thing else you could get at remotely the same price point, for many features that mattered to games. But then they only made the smallest incremental improvements to the hardware until they launched the AGA chipset with the A1200 and A4000 which was too little too late. Had the amiga improved at the same rate as consoles or dos PC's they might have had a chance. The OS (mostly workbench) also did not see any big improvements over its lifetime.
  - foobarian 2y ago
    I wonder if they boxed themselves into a corner by putting so many features into ASICs. Custom chips take forever to design and iterate even today, I can only imagine how painful that was in the 80s. Couple that with a frugal management and I can see how they would be reluctant to sink resources into a fantastically expensive development process.
    - hapless 2y ago
      They absolutely did box themselves into a corner, and also, they had no god damn money The 1st gen products (500/1000) never caught on in the world's largest market. They were always struggling. The ASIC-based architecture did not help
    - fidotron 2y ago
      I think with hindsight the tragedy is the home computer market getting split between Commodore, Atari and possibly Acorn. The ST looks like a far more reasonable foundation from which to start building a computing legacy than the Amiga, which really was a one trick pony. Have an ARM in an ST running a pre emptive multitasking OS in 1990 . . . now that would have been an interesting machine.
      - TheAmazingRace 2y ago
        They kinda already were getting there when Atari hired Eric R Smith to work on MiNT. MiNT also supported protected memory!! At least this is what I remember from my time playing around with it on my Atari (C-LAB) Falcon before I sadly sold it off. As a collector, I vastly prefer the ST lineup over the Amiga for this reason. The hardware was more "bog standard" and easier to understand than the custom chipset on the Amiga, even if the Amiga seemed cooler on paper back in the day.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - chuckadams 2y ago
    The custom chipsets in the Amiga went from being its secret weapon to its biggest liability. Amiga simply could not afford to keep them competitive with commodity PC hardware, especially not while Irving Gould was busy looting Commodore of every penny it was once worth.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rongenre 2y ago
  I had an A1000 - even worked in high school at a Commodore/Amiga dealer. What they really didn't understand is that software sells hardware: The OS was so far ahead, but in terms of basic productivity software? Even the Mac was ahead. And [IMO] markets can maintain a leader and one strong competitor. But just one. So it became PC/Mac throughout the 90's on the desktop.
  - timbit42 2y ago
    That Commodore didn't understand that software sells hardware was obvious back in the early 80's before they bought Commodore. The VIC-20 was incompatible with the PET, The CBM-II line was incompatible with the PET, the C64 was incompatible with the VIC-20, the Plus/4 was incompatible with the C64, the C128 was incompatible with the C64, although it had a compatibility mode. All the C64 compatibility mode did was ensure the C128 mode was rarely used. The only reasons Commodore was successful is that their hardware engineering was great and their products were inexpensive. Apple had weak hardware and high prices, Atari had great hardware and high prices. Jack Tramiel never used a computer until he was given an iPad. He never understood computers. He would have been just as successful selling bicycles.
- timbit42 2y ago
  Commodore's bankruptcy was primarily driven by Irving Gould to enrich himself. Mehdi Ali was his henchman. They pulled funding from R&D, preventing the chipset from keeping up with the industry.
idkdotcom 2y ago
As a proud commodore Amiga 500 owner starting in 1990 I agree. When it was released in 1985, the Amiga was at least 5 years ahead of its time when it came to the graphics and sound technology. I don't care about angering Apple bots, but the capabilities of the Mac paled in comparison. The mismanagement at Commodore that led to the fall of the company is well documented. For me personally, as a tech professional, the lesson of the episode is clear: superior technology alone is not a guarantee of business success. The technology companies are high performing in both technology and business. The most clear example of what I mean is NVIDIA that was launched when Commodore was still alive.
wccrawford 2y ago
My parents called this before Wolfenstein even came out, though they did it with the Commodore 64 and 128. I really wanted a 128, and they insisted on an IBM compatible instead. I was devastated at the time, but they were 100% correct in hindsight.
- tfandango 2y ago
  Wow same here. My Dad could see which way the wind was blowing, I guess. It started my obsession with Sierra games though.
  - wccrawford 2y ago
    Oh man, those games alone would have made the switch worth it. I had never considered that aspect. :D
- billyjobob 2y ago
  Your parents were wrong. Assuming you wanted to play games as well as run productivity software, the C128 was far superior to any PC in 1985. Yes the PC would eventually catch up in the 90s, but the C128 was discontinued by then.
  - wccrawford 2y ago
    That's correct in the short term, but my parents were focused on the long-term and that the computer was an investment for my future, rather than a tool/toy for a present. It wasn't long before I admitted how correct they were.
    - billyjobob 2y ago
      Apparently a typical PC is 1985 cost upwards of $5000. The C128 was $299. So for rich people yes it may have made sense to pay a 15x premium to get hold of tech “from the future, today”. But you could have easily had both. And for a child, both machines would be entirely obsolete by the time the child grew up and entered the workforce, so I would question how much advantage you were really buying.
karmakaze 2y ago
For PC games Commander Keen running on an EGA display was already enough for PC gaming to be good enough for me. I remember how excited I was on my Atari 8-bit awaiting the production of Amiga Lorraine. By the time it came out I think I was less excited, and happy enough with my monochrome Atari ST. The Amiga would certainly have been more fun, but I was glad to have a machine that could run a (Megamax) C compiler. It helped that I got some beta software and dev docs through a connection. The Lorraine was supposed to have it all, graphics+sound+MIDI but the last part went to the ST instead. It sure was weird when Commodore and Atari made PC-compatibles--the end of an era. In the late 80s I'd already moved past the Atari, Amiga, and even DOS/Windows, being all excited running all versions of OS/2 (until that failed too), but hey we got OS/2 3.0 (aka NT).

eurekin 2y ago

What did the management specifically do? (500 user)

RiverCrochet 2y ago
The Deathbed Vigil video provides a lot of interesting perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaTjwo1ywcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaTjwo1ywcI
MalphasWats 2y ago
in-fighting, power struggles & empire building. Then fell into bankruptcy.
- timbit42 2y ago
  All by Irving Gould.
msh 2y ago
They failed to evolve their product while the competition was rapidly improving. The orginal amiga was leaps in front of anything thing else you could get at remotely the same price point, for many features that mattered to games. But then they only made the smallest incremental improvements to the hardware until they launched the AGA chipset with the A1200 and A4000 which was too little too late. Had the amiga improved at the same rate as consoles or dos PC's they might have had a chance. The OS (mostly workbench) also did not see any big improvements over its lifetime.
- foobarian 2y ago
  I wonder if they boxed themselves into a corner by putting so many features into ASICs. Custom chips take forever to design and iterate even today, I can only imagine how painful that was in the 80s. Couple that with a frugal management and I can see how they would be reluctant to sink resources into a fantastically expensive development process.
  - hapless 2y ago
    They absolutely did box themselves into a corner, and also, they had no god damn money The 1st gen products (500/1000) never caught on in the world's largest market. They were always struggling. The ASIC-based architecture did not help
  - fidotron 2y ago
    I think with hindsight the tragedy is the home computer market getting split between Commodore, Atari and possibly Acorn. The ST looks like a far more reasonable foundation from which to start building a computing legacy than the Amiga, which really was a one trick pony. Have an ARM in an ST running a pre emptive multitasking OS in 1990 . . . now that would have been an interesting machine.
    - TheAmazingRace 2y ago
      They kinda already were getting there when Atari hired Eric R Smith to work on MiNT. MiNT also supported protected memory!! At least this is what I remember from my time playing around with it on my Atari (C-LAB) Falcon before I sadly sold it off. As a collector, I vastly prefer the ST lineup over the Amiga for this reason. The hardware was more "bog standard" and easier to understand than the custom chipset on the Amiga, even if the Amiga seemed cooler on paper back in the day.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- chuckadams 2y ago
  The custom chipsets in the Amiga went from being its secret weapon to its biggest liability. Amiga simply could not afford to keep them competitive with commodity PC hardware, especially not while Irving Gould was busy looting Commodore of every penny it was once worth.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rongenre 2y ago
I had an A1000 - even worked in high school at a Commodore/Amiga dealer. What they really didn't understand is that software sells hardware: The OS was so far ahead, but in terms of basic productivity software? Even the Mac was ahead. And [IMO] markets can maintain a leader and one strong competitor. But just one. So it became PC/Mac throughout the 90's on the desktop.
- timbit42 2y ago
  That Commodore didn't understand that software sells hardware was obvious back in the early 80's before they bought Commodore. The VIC-20 was incompatible with the PET, The CBM-II line was incompatible with the PET, the C64 was incompatible with the VIC-20, the Plus/4 was incompatible with the C64, the C128 was incompatible with the C64, although it had a compatibility mode. All the C64 compatibility mode did was ensure the C128 mode was rarely used. The only reasons Commodore was successful is that their hardware engineering was great and their products were inexpensive. Apple had weak hardware and high prices, Atari had great hardware and high prices. Jack Tramiel never used a computer until he was given an iPad. He never understood computers. He would have been just as successful selling bicycles.
timbit42 2y ago
Commodore's bankruptcy was primarily driven by Irving Gould to enrich himself. Mehdi Ali was his henchman. They pulled funding from R&D, preventing the chipset from keeping up with the industry.

idkdotcom 2y ago

As a proud commodore Amiga 500 owner starting in 1990 I agree. When it was released in 1985, the Amiga was at least 5 years ahead of its time when it came to the graphics and sound technology. I don't care about angering Apple bots, but the capabilities of the Mac paled in comparison. The mismanagement at Commodore that led to the fall of the company is well documented. For me personally, as a tech professional, the lesson of the episode is clear: superior technology alone is not a guarantee of business success. The technology companies are high performing in both technology and business. The most clear example of what I mean is NVIDIA that was launched when Commodore was still alive.

wccrawford 2y ago

My parents called this before Wolfenstein even came out, though they did it with the Commodore 64 and 128. I really wanted a 128, and they insisted on an IBM compatible instead. I was devastated at the time, but they were 100% correct in hindsight.

tfandango 2y ago
Wow same here. My Dad could see which way the wind was blowing, I guess. It started my obsession with Sierra games though.
- wccrawford 2y ago
  Oh man, those games alone would have made the switch worth it. I had never considered that aspect. :D
billyjobob 2y ago
Your parents were wrong. Assuming you wanted to play games as well as run productivity software, the C128 was far superior to any PC in 1985. Yes the PC would eventually catch up in the 90s, but the C128 was discontinued by then.
- wccrawford 2y ago
  That's correct in the short term, but my parents were focused on the long-term and that the computer was an investment for my future, rather than a tool/toy for a present. It wasn't long before I admitted how correct they were.
  - billyjobob 2y ago
    Apparently a typical PC is 1985 cost upwards of $5000. The C128 was $299. So for rich people yes it may have made sense to pay a 15x premium to get hold of tech “from the future, today”. But you could have easily had both. And for a child, both machines would be entirely obsolete by the time the child grew up and entered the workforce, so I would question how much advantage you were really buying.

karmakaze 2y ago

For PC games Commander Keen running on an EGA display was already enough for PC gaming to be good enough for me. I remember how excited I was on my Atari 8-bit awaiting the production of Amiga Lorraine. By the time it came out I think I was less excited, and happy enough with my monochrome Atari ST. The Amiga would certainly have been more fun, but I was glad to have a machine that could run a (Megamax) C compiler. It helped that I got some beta software and dev docs through a connection. The Lorraine was supposed to have it all, graphics+sound+MIDI but the last part went to the ST instead. It sure was weird when Commodore and Atari made PC-compatibles--the end of an era. In the late 80s I'd already moved past the Atari, Amiga, and even DOS/Windows, being all excited running all versions of OS/2 (until that failed too), but hey we got OS/2 3.0 (aka NT).