I was always surprised, based on Jack Tramiel's ability to cut costs, that Atari wasn't more of a force in the PC clone world. Did they not put enough of an effort into it because of the ST? Why did they not put more effort behind it, I wonder?
Why would anyone buy an Atari branded PC clone in 1987?
In the U.S. Tandy had a full store presence in almost every town, and the Tandy 1000 series were widely available, extremely successful, and expandable.
In the U.K. and Europe, Amstrad/Schneider had their PC1512s and PC1640s which were widely available, extremely successful, and expandable.
Tramiel had burned bridges left and right with both suppliers and retailers. He had a very limited distribution network, and fading brand recognition which, such that is was, potential customers associated it with games, not computers. And with the PC standard essentially being open, aiming to be the low-cost leader is a race to the bottom, as Gateway found out.
I love the Atari PC1. I wish I had one. Its so damn cute. And it uses the same floppy disk and mouse interface as the ST. But I also remember looking at the PC1 back in 1988, and being told by an Atari representative that it was not expandable at all. I was surprised to find out later it does in fact have an internal expansion bus and a single 8bit ISA card could have been installed. Atari's marketing and customer support under Trameil was incompetent.
Apple, Amstrad, Dell, Compaq, HP, Tandy and even IBM made money in the consumer market offering machines that were capable, but also available, and most importantly marketed and supported.
Trameil never seemed to figure that last part out.