The Amiga: Why did it fail so hard in the United States?

[Keatah]

When I told my buddies I had the power of a workstation I got laughed at.

[BillLoguidice]

Let's face it, while the Amiga excelled in art and video software, in almost every other productivity category, it was a let-down in comparison to the PC, and even the Mac. The ST was no great shakes in that regard either, although I'd consider its productivity software at least more stable, and it arguably had better desktop publishing software. It's really a crime that the Amiga's potential was never really fulfilled in that area.

[zzip]

ok, that's it. I'm going to put my asshole hat on:

 

Sigh, I just #@(@% love it when people who weren't doing professional computing chime up about how the machines like the Amiga and ST were "mid-end" machines compared to the PC and the Mac.

 

Do I really need to beat some facts into you, from someone who _KNEW_ the low level hardware better than most of you?

.. J

In terms of systems strength, the Amiga was competing not only against PCs, and the Macintosh (of which, only had AT MOST 512K of RAM in a fat-Mac, pre-Mac-Plus), BUT ALSO WORKSTATIONS, of which THEY ALL were utilizing a public tax-payer funded design by Andy Bechtolsheim, called the Stanford University Network computer (SUN). The companies who commercialized these things, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, and others were using either variants of this architecture, or had built similar hardware on the same 68000 based microprocessor (Apollo comes to mind).

 

As 1985 approached, these machines had been upgraded to the 68020, most running at approximately 10-12MHz, and the 68030 would be announced during the summer of 1985 as a "micro-mainframe"... Just as the Sun-1 had been defined by the 68000, the Sun-2 by the 68020, the Sun-3 machines would be defined by the 68030. Sun would, at this point shift all of their research and development expenses toward the SPARC CPU and S-Bus architecture...but I digress...

 

These workstations were not available for mere mortals, as most people didn't have $20,000 of spare 1985 dollars floating around.

 

 

-Thom

 

The ST and Amiga were price-wise mid-tier. There's no denying this. With some people price alone creates a perception that it's garbage. I remember my Atari 8-bit being sneered at by Apple II fans, even though it was demonstrably more capable in many areas, but hey, they paid a lot more so they were never going to acknowledge that.

 

Yes the PCs and high-end workstations at the time were crappy when analyzed from a multimedia perspective. But that's because we look at these machines and favor them due to their potential. While the professional buyer looks at the machine and potential doesn't matter, all that mattered to them is "what applications can it run today?" and "Is the company behind it going to be around long term?"

 

PCs and workstations had big name apps those people wanted. Sure Amiga and Atari had similar apps, but they were usually by small-name companies and rough around the edges because these small companies had limited resources.

 

The Sun workstations you mention had Unix, I don't know about Amiga, but ST really didn't. Atari's Unix initiative didn't go anywhere, Sure we had MiNT, which was Unix-like, but would never pass the Unix certifications and it was difficult to set up back then. There was Linux for the 030 systems, but Linux of the 90s was not respected yet-- It was for hobbyists only, and not nearly as well-supported on 680x0 as it was on PC.

 

So yes, the Amiga kicked-ass in the multimedia department, and ST was better than average as well. But we have to remember that while that mattered to us, it didn't matter to many other people.

[+save2600]

Yes, Amiga had a Unix machine and a version of Unix called Amix - A300UX:

 

https://amix.failsure.net/HomePage

 

...and looks like Atari had one too with the TT030:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_TT030

[zzip]

Yes, Amiga had a Unix machine/version of Unix called Amix - A300UX:

 

https://amix.failsure.net/HomePage

 

...and looks like Atari had one too with the TT030:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_TT030

 

Yes, both were System V official too, but Atari's at least didn't go anywhere, I assume Commodore's didn't either because it's barely mentioned among the Unix OS's of the past.

[+save2600]

 

Yes, both were System V official too, but Atari's at least didn't go anywhere, I assume Commodore's didn't either because it's barely mentioned among the Unix OS's of the past.

 

Not surprising since most people who write about computers of the past, seem to always skip or forget about the Amiga and ST altogether. Rare when they don't!

[rootboy]

ok, that's it. I'm going to put my asshole hat on:

Me too!

 

Sigh, I just #@(@% love it when people who weren't doing professional computing chime up about how the machines like the Amiga and ST were "mid-end" machines compared to the PC and the Mac.

 

Do I really need to beat some facts into you, from someone who _KNEW_ the low level hardware better than most of you?

.. J

I just @&%^#$$ love it when systems guys think that their brand of computing/hardware is the only one out there. I was (still am) doing professional computing on machinery, aka PLCs, since the '80s...

 

My world is almost all bit-level, and crashes come with large sounds and consequences. Often followed by fire, flood, and panic...

 

As for hardware, ever come up with a hack to double the RAM on a GE Series Six memory card? I did. Saved the company I worked for $4k per board in upgrade avoidance. GE was not amused...

Edited February 3, 2017 by rootboy

[JamesD]

When I told my buddies I had the power of a workstation I got laughed at.

To be fair, my Unix classwork was done on a 68010 based Unix workstation... so it wasn't really a lie.

 

[BillyHW]

The Amiga failed because the controllers only had one button.

[D.Daniels]

When did Windows get Solitaire and Mindsweeper? That probably killed any chance for Amiga.

 

win 3.1 (I think)

Edited February 4, 2017 by D.Daniels

[+save2600]

The Amiga failed because the controllers only had one button.

Hey, now you're talking!

 

In all seriousness, Commodore should have had a 2-button joystick or gamepad in the beginning. They produced their own joystick for the Vic-20 and C64, so why not the Amiga? They caught on finally with the CDTV (infrared only though) and CD32, but was way too late by then.

[D.Daniels]

The Amiga failed because the controllers only had one button.

 

that's not true the mouse used two buttons, just games developers only programmed for one based on Atari threating to take away their chips and beer

Edited February 4, 2017 by D.Daniels

[Nebulon]

 

that's not true the mouse used two buttons, just games developers only programmed for one based on Atari threating to take away their chips and beer

Almost as frustrating as programmers not bothering to check for a second disk drive. Ugh...

[JamesD]

FWIW, I'm pretty sure more Amigas sold in the US that worldwide.

[Aquaman]

FWIW, I'm pretty sure more Amigas sold in the US that worldwide.

Official sales numbers are missing, but all the information sources claim that the most where sold in Germany. Also in the Netherlands most of us switched from the C64 to the Amiga 500 range of computers.

For example one source mentioning sales figures: https://amigalove.com/viewtopic.php?t=45

[JamesD]

Official sales numbers are missing, but all the information sources claim that the most where sold in Germany. Also in the Netherlands most of us switched from the C64 to the Amiga 500 range of computers.

For example one source mentioning sales figures: https://amigalove.com/viewtopic.php?t=45

The US was 90% of the world market at that time.

Even though it got stomped by the PC in the US, 5% market share is still equal to half of all computer sales worldwide.

But hey... maybe Commodore mislead their dealers.

 

From your link:

 

"Getting reliable numbers by-country is nearly impossible, which is unfortunate as it would have quieted a lot of sniping and chest beating in forums for decades to come. "

 

"Finding reliable numbers for the Amiga prove harder than the C64, although several sources (many of which have gone dark in recent years) have tried. Some look to magazines (mostly published in Europe, so the focus might be partial), others looked to serial numbers stamped on cases, while others looked to past employee recollections, which are also prone to error or being myopic to region. "

 

[BillLoguidice]

Again, I still go with the thesis that the Amiga did about as well as it was going to in the US given the clearly inevitable rise of PC Compatibles, which just happened to happen a little faster here than it did the rest of the world (other major markets like Europe, Japan, South America, etc., had fairly different trajectories, but still eventually ended up at the same place). There's no shame in being the second most popular computer platform for a time, no matter how brief, and no matter how distant of a second. With that said, it's clear that, if Commodore had executed better, the Amiga could have probably secured more marketshare in its prime leading up to the early 90s and lasted with at least some miniscule marketshare up to roughly the introduction of Windows 95. Again, Commodore's fate was inevitable, unless they pivoted to become a premiere PC Compatible maker, and even then, who knows if the Commodore name would have hindered them. As it was, only Apple and the Macintosh barely squeaked out the share it needed to survive up to the infamous Microsoft cash infusion, and then to go onto a corporate pivot to end all corporate pivots.

[Osgeld]

if Commodore had executed better, the Amiga could have probably secured more marketshare in its prime leading up to the early 90s and lasted with at least some miniscule marketshare up to roughly the introduction of Windows 95.

 

 

C= went dead in 1994, so they just about did depending on what month day hour whatever vs first previews of 95

 

Commodore's fate was inevitable, unless they pivoted to become a premiere PC Compatible maker, and even then, who knows if the Commodore name would have hindered them.

 

 

They did, I will let you work out how well that worked

[BillLoguidice]

 

They did, I will let you work out how well that worked

 

I'm well aware of both Commodore and Atari's foray into PC Compatibles (and related activities), but I meant more as a primary concern rather than a dalliance.

[high voltage]

Way back I watched the film 'Big', and I thought....what, USAer's playing games in monochrome?...

[rootboy]

And with amber monitors. And we liked it!

[+save2600]

Way back I watched the film 'Big', and I thought....what, USAer's playing games in monochrome?...

And with amber monitors. And we liked it!

Oh no we didn't! lol Though on some games like Hard Hat Mack, Sammy Lightfoot, Lode Runner, Conan & Montezuma's Revenge (which I played in b/w on my Apple ][+ before I had a color TV), wasn't the end of the world or didn't really matter. Different colored keys in Montezuma's Revenge be damned! lol

 

While most of my friends didn't care to spend their money or time on such things, I do remember a couple that had parents with PC's (one a Leading Edge, the other an IBM 5150), that didn't seem to mind playing games in green or amber. One used to play card and golf games, while the other was into text adventures and RPG's like Wizardry. He also played quite a bit of Starflight in monochrome. Again, wasn't a super big deal... we just made do with what we had and boy, those were the days!

 

 

My parents had given me a 13" Sears color TV as a gift in the early 80's that I used with everything from my VCS, TI, Apple, Atari 400, C64 and Nintendo... all the way up to my first Amiga 1000 w/ an RF Modulator that I purchased at Radio Shack. Here's a snapshot of me showing my little cousin C64 Pinball Construction Set ca. Halloween '86 with said TV.

 

 

[zzip]

Again, I still go with the thesis that the Amiga did about as well as it was going to in the US given the clearly inevitable rise of PC Compatibles, which just happened to happen a little faster here than it did the rest of the world (other major markets like Europe, Japan, South America, etc., had fairly different trajectories, but still eventually ended up at the same place). There's no shame in being the second most popular computer platform for a time, no matter how brief, and no matter how distant of a second. With that said, it's clear that, if Commodore had executed better, the Amiga could have probably secured more marketshare in its prime leading up to the early 90s and lasted with at least some miniscule marketshare up to roughly the introduction of Windows 95. Again, Commodore's fate was inevitable, unless they pivoted to become a premiere PC Compatible maker, and even then, who knows if the Commodore name would have hindered them. As it was, only Apple and the Macintosh barely squeaked out the share it needed to survive up to the infamous Microsoft cash infusion, and then to go onto a corporate pivot to end all corporate pivots.

 

I don't think they even needed to be a PC maker. if they had adopted their Amiga chips to PC cards, they could have beaten SoundBlaster to the punch and maybe become the defacto standard. Maybe do the same with graphics too

[zzip]

Way back I watched the film 'Big', and I thought....what, USAer's playing games in monochrome?...

 

Not every computer was compatible with a TV as a monitor, and Green/Amber monitors were cheap and common for a time.

[BillLoguidice]

 

I don't think they even needed to be a PC maker. if they had adopted their Amiga chips to PC cards, they could have beaten SoundBlaster to the punch and maybe become the defacto standard. Maybe do the same with graphics too

 

I suggested that in the past too. Basically follow the Tandy model (which itself was modeled after the IBM PCjr AV system). Again, though, the problem with that is they would have to have started that more or less as soon as the Amiga came out, kind of undermining the purpose of the Amiga. The other issue, of course, is that that still would arguably only take you so far before a universal standard would develop, a la VGA. We can again look to how the Tandy standard eventually had to be deprecated, and that was one of the best selling clone systems for several years.

 

Outside of 20/20 hindsight, I think the most realistic path for Commodore would still have been to market the Amiga better, embrace its cross-compatibility more, and establish a higher percentage of marketshare. I still then see a surviving Commodore having to become a PC clone maker, with perhaps their name being held in more regard after managing the Amiga better. They could have leveraged that background/reputation when multimedia PCs started to become a thing.