7800 Atari Corp. Revival

[SpaceDice2010]

Some facts -

 

At the summer CES 1983 show TI dropped the price of the TI to $99. Commodore announced a new price of $99 for the C64. Tramiel went one step further and announced that all software was 50% off and cut many peripherals in half as well. Rumor had it that the TI cost $125 to make and by announcing that Commodore's software was now 50% off and thus MUCH less than TI's. TI was faced with a serious problem. It wasn't long after that that TI pulled out of the market.

 

The VIC-20 most likely pushed TI to the extreme and Commodore forcing TI into a price war on software, which was heavily controlled by TI and the model in which it made profits, was the final straw.

 

But Tramiel's decision had a real negative affect on Commodore's profit during the Christmas season.

[Lynxpro]

Some facts -

 

At the summer CES 1983 show TI dropped the price of the TI to $99. Commodore announced a new price of $99 for the C64. Tramiel went one step further and announced that all software was 50% off and cut many peripherals in half as well. Rumor had it that the TI cost $125 to make and by announcing that Commodore's software was now 50% off and thus MUCH less than TI's. TI was faced with a serious problem. It wasn't long after that that TI pulled out of the market.

 

The VIC-20 most likely pushed TI to the extreme and Commodore forcing TI into a price war on software, which was heavily controlled by TI and the model in which it made profits, was the final straw.

 

But Tramiel's decision had a real negative affect on Commodore's profit during the Christmas season.

 

 

Didn't Commodore also push trade-in rebates for trading in not only other Commodore computers [VIC-20] but also competing computers? It's been a long time since I read The Home Computer Wars, but I do know practically all of the home computer companies - except Apple - were pushing rebates in order to compete with Commodore's insane price slashing...

 

And it was insane*. Jack gained massive market share but it cut Commodore's profits so much he was shown the exit door from his own company.

 

 

 

*Basically a personal vendetta to destroy TI in revenge for what they allegedly did to him and Commodore "personally" during the calculator "wars" with no respect to the interest of Commodore's shareholders...

Edited February 13, 2011 by Lynxpro

[SpaceDice2010]

That Christmas for Commodore was horrible. His actions had the affect of

 

1. Totally pissing off his small dealers that Jack always had a love-hate relationship with.

2. The mass merchants like Kmart had inventory on their shelves that was worth 1/2 it's value. So Commodore had to give free products to them to make up for the difference. (This was common practice with retailers.)

3. And you are right, Commodore gave a $100 trade-in for any computer. So that Christmas season consumers were gobbling up new TIs and Sinclairs at $50 and sending them into Commodore for a $100 rebate.

 

The bottom line is the amount of product that Commodore had to give away vs sell was significant and affected sales during the crucial holiday season. If you believe the accounts by those who were in the know at Commodore at the time this was the beginning of the end for Jack as far as Guild was concerned. Keep in mind that about the only thing that Guild cared about was the stock price. He never wanted to even raise more money in the past by stock issues. If Guild had allowed Commodore to be fully funded at certain critical times in it's history, I think Commodore would have been one of the survivors. While many feel that Tramiel was the best CEO at Commodore, I believe that Rattigan was much better. Too bad he got canned in a coup.

[kool kitty89]

You're right; the VIC and the TI were at each other's throats. So, the Commodore 64 was in a different price war, then? I figured it was just a price war free-for-all. The Commodore 64 was introduced in September, 1982 for $595, and sometime (late????) 1983, it was 1/3 of that at $200. So it was in some price war: which? Where was the line?

They didn't have to be in ANY price war to push low prices like that (not saying that wasn't a reason, but not necessarily THE reason). It could have been pushed as such as a general marketing strategy to push for high market share. (a combination of strong advertising and low prices facilitated by high volume and vertical integration -and also cut corners on the hardware wherever they could afford including some questionable quality control)

I'd thought CBM had dumped the C64's price during the "war", but in a discussion a while back I got corrected on that: CBM was making profits on every single C64 sold in the US and Europe (not taking failures/returns into account), the margins were smaller than pretty much anyone else had been pushing up to that point (and even more extreme due to the vertical integration -though TI had that as well). The C64 didn't drop below $200 until well after the end of 1983. (I don't think it dropped to $100 until late '84 or maybe '85 -not counting rebates)

 

The C64 demonstrated that from the start with the $595 launch price for a new, relatively technically impressive 8-bit computer with 64 kB of RAM standard. (I'm not sure what the 1200XL launched at, but I think it was closer to $1000, though I think Atari was also pushing for higher profit margins and a more expensive machine in general -quality keyboard, well-built case, etc . . . except it SHOULD have been significantly cheaper to produce than a 48k 800 and that had dropped below $700 by early 1982 -the unreleased 600 should have been significantly cheaper than the 16k 400 in spite of the much better keyboard due to the consolidated single-board design with removal of the heavy aluminum castings -a big mistake to to launch that in any case, a high quality lower-end model that definitely would have undercut the C64 by a large margin at normal profit margins -for Atari- and offered a much more useful machine than the VIC or TI99 for that matter -better software lineup than either of the competition for that matter and the only one with Y/C monitor support -a shame that Atari didn't actually sell Y/C monitors for the line though, at least AFIK)

 

CBM could afford to drop the price of the C64 due to volume production and probably opted to after the promising sales in '82. (they'd already taken a big risk with the initial production ramp-up and stockpiling -let alone the hit taken on hardware failures from factory defects)

Of course, the very fact that the competition had left such an opening on the market facilitated their success hugely. (Tandy, Apple, or Atari could have cut in heavily if any of them had pushed things differently -especially Atari with their in-house software and advertizing resources, a shame they weren't pushing TV ads in '81/82 -or even earlier- like they were with the XL line briefly before -and maybe after?- the split in '84 -like the Alan Alda ones -albeit Commodore missed their own opportunities with the PET line, not to mention IBM)

Even with the price advantage, a well-established A8 would have made it much tougher in the US or Europe to cut in. (plus you had the Sinclair machines closing up the low end in Europe, let alone if Apple -or Apple II clone makers for that matter- had pushed for a low-cost line of their machines by '81/82 -ie consolidated chipset with a compact/low cost design and more limited expansion -probably more like the CoCo or Atari 800/600XL- and tight profit margins -and turning around to use the same consolidation for high end models as with the Apple IIe -Acorn had a lot more potential in the UK/Europe as well, one of the biggest mistakes was pushing for the heavily cut down Electron rather than making it a fully-functional 2 MHz BBC Micro using a low cost chipset and form factor)

 

 

The VIC is the one they were selling below cost and doing things that were probably illegal on the market. (though technically, they weren't doing anything that TI themselves weren't capable of matching with a similarly cheap product and selling at a loss -apparently that wasn't a game of chicken TI wanted to partake in though -that and TI didn't have a cheap machine like the VIC on the market, a Z80 based system more like the Clecovision/Sord M5/SC-3000/etc might have fit the bill more though -hell, it might have competed better against the C64 too with higher memory models -the TMS9900 was relatively expensive for the time and also used a fair chunk of board space and traces with the 64 pin DIP)

 

And, of course, those price cuts hurt others on the market not directly tied into the price war. (plus, TI was the only major competitor on the home computer market other than CBM to have vertical integration) The CoCo probably would have been the cheapest computer on the market at the time if it hadn't been for the VIC's price dumping. (as it was, the 4k CoCo model was $299 in 1980 -at least by the holiday season iirc, so quite possibly the first really affordable hoe computer in the US -of course, the Apple II COULD have made a great low-cost computer as it aged -ie by the early 80s- given the simple design with related potential for heavy consolidation as well as the head start on the market with good software support and reputation -hell, even without vertical integration, a cost cut 4k Apple II should have been able to undercut the VIC-20 and still maintain a profit)

 

Plus, the VIC was sold for profit initially too (and only for a loss for a short period in the heat of the price war I believe). It started at the moderate $300 price point in 1981 (at which it wasn't really a better value than the CoCo, let alone Atari 400 -more so with the software of the latter), but it was down to $200 by early '82 iirc and to a mere $100 (or 99) in 1983. (the Atari 400 was also down to $99 by the end of 1983 -though it had been officially discontinued by that point and the 600XL was placed at $200 SRP iirc -not particularly competitive given the C64 selling for the same price and given some of Atari's previous prices and the fact the 600XL should have been much more efficient to produce than the 400, you'd think they could have cut the price lower -maybe more like $150 which is what the Colecovision was at just before the crash iirc)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought the price war was with the C64 as well. Didn't TI goto the Consumer Electronics show and bail out of the computer market right after Commodore announced that they were cutting 50% off all the titles for the C64 at the show?

 

Now that I think about it, TI was fighting a price war with the Vic-20; but I think when they realized that they now had to fight a price war on software (which is how they made their money) that they couldn't make up for selling the TI at a loss w/o additional software revenue.

 

If I recall correctly the decision to cut software didn't go over well with Irving. Commodore had to ship a lot of free products to it's major dealers after that.

The C64 was in a different price class than the TI99/4a, that was one of TI's problems, they limited their computer to the lower end only when they had potential for so much more. The razor and blade model with the 1st party software was especially odd for a computer though, limiting (or outright discouraging) 3rd party publishing was a very bad move. (Tandy, Apple, and I don't even think Commodore -with the PET- did that, I don't think Atari did -though they didn't provide -as standard or very cheaply/easily at least- the critically needed 3rd party development tools/kits in Europe -IBM definitely didn't either)

 

Hell, if TI HAD wanted to aim at a low-cost computer, they probably should have opted for a cheaper CPU like the Z80 used on many other TMS9918 based systems. (perhaps even licensing the Z80 to produce in-house) That also should have meant having a memory interface slow enough to use commodity DRAM for main memory from the start. (the Z80's refresh counter would help a little with that too)

 

 

 

 

 

Some facts -

 

At the summer CES 1983 show TI dropped the price of the TI to $99. Commodore announced a new price of $99 for the C64. Tramiel went one step further and announced that all software was 50% off and cut many peripherals in half as well. Rumor had it that the TI cost $125 to make and by announcing that Commodore's software was now 50% off and thus MUCH less than TI's. TI was faced with a serious problem. It wasn't long after that that TI pulled out of the market.

 

The VIC-20 most likely pushed TI to the extreme and Commodore forcing TI into a price war on software, which was heavily controlled by TI and the model in which it made profits, was the final straw.

 

But Tramiel's decision had a real negative affect on Commodore's profit during the Christmas season.

What's your source on that? It's these sort of claims that gave me the wrong idea before. I need to dig though my references again (and some previous discussions tying into this), but $99 for the C64 in 1983 doesn't make sense, the VIC for sure but not the C64.

 

After I had made similar comments a while back, I got corrected on the issue and pointed to some better references along with actual quotes on the market prices in the US and Europe at the time. The C64 didn't drop to $100 SRP until 1984 if not '85. (I'm pretty sure it wasn't $99/100 SRP until 1985 -again, short of any rebate offers)

 

Hell, this print ad points to $215 in 1984, so maybe they hadn't even dropped to $200 in 1983. http://home.insightbb.com/~kguenther6/com64sep84ad.jpg (I know they dropped below $300 in '83, but I'm not sure what they ended with as far as SRP goes -not with rebates)

Edited February 14, 2011 by kool kitty89

[+wood_jl]

You're right; the VIC and the TI were at each other's throats. So, the Commodore 64 was in a different price war, then? I figured it was just a price war free-for-all. The Commodore 64 was introduced in September, 1982 for $595, and sometime (late????) 1983, it was 1/3 of that at $200. So it was in some price war: which? Where was the line?

They didn't have to be in ANY price war to push low prices like that (not saying that wasn't a reason, but not necessarily THE reason). It could have been pushed as such as a general marketing strategy to push for high market share. (a combination of strong advertising and low prices facilitated by high volume and vertical integration -and also cut corners on the hardware wherever they could afford including some questionable quality control)

For a price cut of 2/3 in a relatively short period of time, there was likely a price war, eh? I mean competition is the driving force to keep prices low. That's an *EXTREME* price cut, rather than a marketing strategy; cutting it in half would even be extreme in that amount of time. Of the cost-cutting, the much-talked-about switching of the Vic II from a ceramic to plastic encasing (not sure if that's the right word) must be one of the few things they could do. I mean, what else could they do, until the 64C? The price-cut timefram, according to this site....

 

http://www.commodore.ca/history/company/chronology_portcommodore.htm

 

Commodore announces the Commodore 64 (6510, 64KB RAM, 20KB ROM with Microsoft BASIC, custom sound, color graphics, for US$600) for US$595. During 1983, the price drops to US$200.

....so who knows if that's accurate. Who's running commodore.ca?

 

I'd thought CBM had dumped the C64's price during the "war", but in a discussion a while back I got corrected on that: CBM was making profits on every single C64 sold in the US and Europe (not taking failures/returns into account), the margins were smaller than pretty much anyone else had been pushing up to that point (and even more extreme due to the vertical integration -though TI had that as well). The C64 didn't drop below $200 until well after the end of 1983. (I don't think it dropped to $100 until late '84 or maybe '85 -not counting rebates)

Price cut quote above. When Tramiel himself took the helm at Atari, he immediately cut the 800XL to $99 (if memory serves) so that must have been 1984, assuming Commodore followed suit. Is not the rumor that "his" price war is one of the reasons they wanted to get rid of him at C=? Of course, nobody really knows, but it's fun to speculate, and I think I read that somewhere but can't remember where. I also believe I remember reading somewhere that they got the manufacturing cost down to $25 for a C64, either in the peak or at the end. That sounds a little low; perhaps it was material cost alone. Crazy!

 

The C64 demonstrated that from the start with the $595 launch price for a new, relatively technically impressive 8-bit computer with 64 kB of RAM standard. (I'm not sure what the 1200XL launched at, but I think it was closer to $1000,

I think it was $900. I was pissed, because I'd just bought an Atari 800 (with 48k included) and threw newspapers for several months to get it out of "Lay-a-way" and I had the flagship for about 2 weeks, before I saw the 1200XL ads in magazines. The price on the 800 kept dropping as it was in layaway! I got it out early because of that. I think I ended up at $699, but it was about $900 when I started.

Edited February 14, 2011 by wood_jl

[kool kitty89]

Price cut quote above. When Tramiel himself took the helm at Atari, he immediately cut the 800XL to $99 (if memory serves) so that must have been 1984, assuming Commodore followed suit. Is not the rumor that "his" price war is one of the reasons they wanted to get rid of him at C=? Of course, nobody really knows, but it's fun to speculate, and I think I read that somewhere but can't remember where. I also believe I remember reading somewhere that they got the manufacturing cost down to $25 for a C64, either in the peak or at the end. That sounds a little low; perhaps it was material cost alone. Crazy!

Are you sure it was just $99? That's a huge jump from the $300 point Atari Inc had had it posted at in early 1984. Then again, even if selling at a loss, it would be generating critical revenue to help tackle the debt. (still, if it only wanted to cut under the C64, a $150 point might have been better for starters with the 600XL down to $99)

I know the 65XE was $99, at least by early '87, but that's a bit of a different context.

 

At those prices, why even bother with a new game console at all? (let alone a razor thin profit margin 16k "game computer" model based on the 600XL with a cheap keyboard) Sure, they'd be throwing away the 5,000 7800 units and some hype (if they never released the 7800 later on), but they'd be pushing all those stockpiled A8 chips and consolidating production to just the VCS, A8, and ST chipsets plus the overstock of older A8 games to offer cheap -along with normally priced newer games. (not to mention catering better to the crashed gaming market and skating Nintendo's licensing later on -the last would be pre hindsight, but not the other stuff)

 

Again, that wouldn't have been a bad idea to push in place of the 5200 back in '82 either, sort of like revamping the 400's position as a game console computer but at a price point that actually made that realistic -ie the $200 range, though the 400 itself was actually below $200 with rebates in late '82. (but the fact the 600 was scrapped altogether just made that worse)

 

Of course, consolidation with CGIA would help all around too. (let alone going a step further with merging POKEY+SALLY or such -PIA hadn't yet been licensed/customized by Atari iirc, but the other 4 chips were in-house or already licensed/customized -merging all the DRAM interface logic into a single IC -or even inside another custom IC- would have been important as well) They'd have been far better off with vertical integration (via Synertek or other), but even so they could have competed in other ways for cost reduction as well as marketing. (especially since the C64 had a very slot lifecycle for consolidation and the A8 had older tech that had tons of potential for consolidation on newer manufacturing processes and newer packaging methods -like the 68 pin LCC used for the CGIA prototype)

 

 

The C64 demonstrated that from the start with the $595 launch price for a new, relatively technically impressive 8-bit computer with 64 kB of RAM standard. (I'm not sure what the 1200XL launched at, but I think it was closer to $1000,

I think it was $900. I was pissed, because I'd just bought an Atari 800 (with 48k included) and threw newspapers for several months to get it out of "Lay-a-way" and I had the flagship for about 2 weeks, before I saw the 1200XL ads in magazines. The price on the 800 kept dropping as it was in layaway! I got it out early because of that. I think I ended up at $699, but it was about $900 when I started.

At least you avoided the headaches with 1200XL compatibility issues. I wonder if they'd have been better off not trying to push 64k just yet and simply offering a consolidated version of the 48k 800 with a slimmer form factor, improved keyboard, and lower cost/price. (drop the right cart port but perhaps keep all 4 controller ports -especially since they wouldn't be using PIA for XL RAM select lines; they even could have used a different expansion scheme altogether like the 4k "hole" banking used with the mosaic add-on -which already had some software support and Atari could either clone or push to license the scheme depending on the legal issues; you'd lose the 62k of flat mapped memory, but also gain the advantage of retaining the existing memory map with OS ROM included and no wasted 2k I/O range or OS loaded into RAM, plus unlimited expansion via more 4k banks and full flat mapping of the lower 48k -unlike XE banking)

They definitely should have had PBI though and the 600 prototype even did. (that port could be used for said mosaic type expansion -or normal 48k expansion on the 600 plus more banking support beyond that)

 

Hmm, keeping simpler with no added MMU logic to remap things for the XL's added 16k RAM wouldn't just make for avoiding compatibility issues, but with only 48k onboard they should have been able to price more aggressively with CBM. (let alone keeping with the 400's tradition in the 600 with both 16 and 32k models out of the box with the 48k higher-end model -or maybe make the 16k model the cheap game computer with a membrane keyboard -or maybe just a lower cost mechanical/chicklet keyboard, the 32k model with lower/mid-range computer)

 

Then again, they should have invested in lower-cost single board designed by '80/81 even, at least in Europe where the FCC was not an issue and where lower cost was even more important. (other marketing mistakes they made there though)

Then again, the 800 could have been a single board design with no shielding in the US too if they'd dropped the TV support and gone monitor only like the Apple II (or with "unofficial" TV support externally). Not only that, but they could/should have kept the idea to include Apple II-like expansion on the higher end models. (maybe a lower end A8 with simpler expansion an a PBI like port for an external expansion box plus a full big-box Apple II type model with external card slots for more than just RAM -maybe drop the RAM cards on the 800s too in favor of simple DIP sockets -and soldering once 48k became standard)

[Retro Rogue]

Are you sure it was just $99? That's a huge jump from the $300 point Atari Inc had had it posted at in early 1984.

 

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=rC4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=atari+800xl&hl=en&ei=7nZZTYKeJoP78Aa48t2yBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=atari%20800xl&f=false

 

"In November, he cut the price of 64k home computing to about $100."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kool kitty89]

Are you sure it was just $99? That's a huge jump from the $300 point Atari Inc had had it posted at in early 1984.

 

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=rC4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=atari+800xl&hl=en&ei=7nZZTYKeJoP78Aa48t2yBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=atari%20800xl&f=false

 

"In November, he cut the price of 64k home computing to about $100."

Ah, OK $119 or less, I wonder what the 600XL was priced at. I assume those were being sold at a net loss, but given the position of Atari Corp at the time, selling off the stock as fast as possible to generate revenue in the short term and cut out some of the debt (as well as make a stronger market position) makes some sense.

A shame they weren't in a better position to begin with though. (with the A8 line not being nearly as popular as it could have been with better marketing -let alone without the 1200XL, dropping the 600, and problems and missed '83 Christmas sales, but even prior to that they seem to have missed out on pushing the sort of advertising they did for the VCS -and a whole slew of mistakes when it comes to catering to the European market)

 

The arrival of the XLs in Europe and especially the price drop of the 800XL led to a short term boost of the A8's popularity in that market iirc, especially since the C64 had yet to become dominant by that point (not really coming into its own until '85 with the Speccy being far more popular early on and still extremely popular into the late 80s), but the weaker Atari brand name in Europe as well as the weaker distribution and advertising (from what I understand) still limited it there as well -and of course the limited 3rd party support coming from Europe, especially in terms of developers having good documentation of the full features of the hardware. (hence the 65XE/800XE not really catching on over the C64 in '85)

 

Though the limited production and stockpiles would also be major factors and that wouldn't just tie into Atari Corp's position at the time, but again, the missed opportunities to really expand the computer market earlier with Atari Inc. (even without vertical integration, the arrival of CGIA and other integration could have helped close the gap with CBM -especially with additional things like merging POKEY and SALLY or consolidating DRAM logic, PIA, MMU, etc)

That, and of course, if the console gaming market had avoided oversaturation and been properly regulated (steady growth that was moderated and highly profitable), Atari could have even afforded to push tight computer prices more so with the stronger console profits. (and 1st party software sales for the computers and consoles) Though, had they acquired a smaller chip vendor for in-house production, that would have been even more substantial.

 

 

 

And maybe the "99" price of the C64 in '83 was including rebates, since that would be a rather different issue. (especially if it's including the special rebate offers for trade-ins of game consoles or computers) That, or it's a mix-up with the VIC-20's price point. (the C64 dropping close to $200 alone would have been quite dramatic for the competition)

 

 

I'm definitely seeing a lot of conflicting info on the subject though. (and in any case, things seemed much less extreme pricing in Europe -with the C64 still well above 200 GBP though '83- in spite of the Spectrum 48k offering a far lower price and selling exceptionally well -and apparently the Atari 400 dropping below the price of the VIC in that period as well, though the lack of XL machines would have made that a bit tougher in general)

 

 

I'm seeing a lot of $199 or just over $200 prices for 1983 and '84 ('85 seems definitively $99 in the US) as well as some other references to those prices. (again, maybe it's the rebates that dumped the prices in '83)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Didn't Commodore also push trade-in rebates for trading in not only other Commodore computers [VIC-20] but also competing computers? It's been a long time since I read The Home Computer Wars, but I do know practically all of the home computer companies - except Apple - were pushing rebates in order to compete with Commodore's insane price slashing...

 

And it was insane*. Jack gained massive market share but it cut Commodore's profits so much he was shown the exit door from his own company.

IIRC the rebate offer included game console trade-ins as well.

 

I think the situation over Jack's departure was a bit more complex than that too, though I do wonder what his long-term business strategy was. (if the rebates and low prices were only short term tactics to knock out competition and boost market share -and software development interest- it may have meant shifting back to normal, profitable prices without rebates in '84 -which is what Commodore seems to have done after he left-)

 

Actually, if they'd really wanted to undercut the lower end competition while managing profits on the C64, I don't see why they didn't launch a 16k model of the 64 to fill that role. (that would have been even more important if Atari had actually launched the 600 in '82) They could have phased out production of the VIC much sooner and pushed for production of the C64 chipset for 2 models. (and also avoid the C16 and Plus/4 in general, both of which required more R&D, separate production of the chipset, totally incompatible with the VIC or C64, and a later release date when they could have pushed the 16k derivative of the 64 from day one)

Edited February 14, 2011 by kool kitty89

[jbanes]

That Christmas for Commodore was horrible. His actions had the affect of

 

1. Totally pissing off his small dealers that Jack always had a love-hate relationship with.

2. The mass merchants like Kmart had inventory on their shelves that was worth 1/2 it's value. So Commodore had to give free products to them to make up for the difference. (This was common practice with retailers.)

3. And you are right, Commodore gave a $100 trade-in for any computer. So that Christmas season consumers were gobbling up new TIs and Sinclairs at $50 and sending them into Commodore for a $100 rebate.

 

You forgot #4:

 

4. Triggered a massive retail purge of video game equipment and software, thus lighting the fuse of the Great Video Game Crash.

[Lynxpro]

That Christmas for Commodore was horrible. His actions had the affect of

 

1. Totally pissing off his small dealers that Jack always had a love-hate relationship with.

2. The mass merchants like Kmart had inventory on their shelves that was worth 1/2 it's value. So Commodore had to give free products to them to make up for the difference. (This was common practice with retailers.)

3. And you are right, Commodore gave a $100 trade-in for any computer. So that Christmas season consumers were gobbling up new TIs and Sinclairs at $50 and sending them into Commodore for a $100 rebate.

 

You forgot #4:

 

4. Triggered a massive retail purge of video game equipment and software, thus lighting the fuse of the Great Video Game Crash.

 

 

Question is, without the Tramiel Commodore price war, would the Great Video Game Crash have happened simply from the glut of bad 2600 games or was it a combination of both factors?

 

Perhaps Atari Inc. could've withstood the video game console collapse had it still had healthy sales of the A8 computers [and healthy profits] had it not been for Tramiel's insane rule of Commodore biting at the heals of their other market...

[kool kitty89]

That Christmas for Commodore was horrible. His actions had the affect of

 

1. Totally pissing off his small dealers that Jack always had a love-hate relationship with.

2. The mass merchants like Kmart had inventory on their shelves that was worth 1/2 it's value. So Commodore had to give free products to them to make up for the difference. (This was common practice with retailers.)

3. And you are right, Commodore gave a $100 trade-in for any computer. So that Christmas season consumers were gobbling up new TIs and Sinclairs at $50 and sending them into Commodore for a $100 rebate.

 

You forgot #4:

 

4. Triggered a massive retail purge of video game equipment and software, thus lighting the fuse of the Great Video Game Crash.

 

 

Question is, without the Tramiel Commodore price war, would the Great Video Game Crash have happened simply from the glut of bad 2600 games or was it a combination of both factors?

 

Perhaps Atari Inc. could've withstood the video game console collapse had it still had healthy sales of the A8 computers [and healthy profits] had it not been for Tramiel's insane rule of Commodore biting at the heals of their other market...

The powder keg had been created by Atari/Warner management (and to some extent, others in the market) before the computer price war, the latter set it off before it could be defused. (by James Morgan, etc)

 

That keg had been created by Warner/Atari management problems, but most prominently due to the distribution network that resulted in false feedback on market demand/sales figures and led to oversaturation of a market assumed to be growing faster than it really was.

Those problems could have been greatly reduced with revised management earlier on (mid '82 is when they really needed it to avoid disaster entirely -they really should have had someone better than Kassar from the start, though that wouldn't have fully avoided the Warner conflicts on top of that -but someone better may have better catered to the difficulties of dual management as well)

 

 

Of course, it didn't help that Mattel and Coleco both screwed up with their computer efforts. Had the Aquarius been Intellivision compatible, maybe it would have been OK, and if the Adam had been more like the SC-3000 or Sord M5, it very well may have been a reasonable mass market competitor that kep the Colecovision alive beyond the crash as well. (that wold mean offering the lowest end model of the Adam as basically a CV built into a keyboard with very little work RAM standard -the bottom end SC-3000 was 1 or 2 kB iirc, but something between 1 and 8 kB- then probably a 16k+16k VRAM model in the mid range with a full 64+16k model as the high, but possibly offer 1 or 2 desktop models as well -but without the odd tape drives, just standard cassettes at ~1500-3000 baud and DD 5.25" floppy drives, printers, etc, etc -the important thing would be offering the console models though, especially the bottom end one -basically a colecovision with a new motherboard, maybe a little more RAM, and built-in keyboard- and the 16k+16k lower/mid-range model -both of which should have been able to undercut the C64, and the bottom end model should have been cheap enough to push close to $100 fairly soon after launch -and all models being expandable to more RAM and peripherals, the low end units would probably omit most peripheral ports as well save a cassette interface and probably a parallel port for printer and/or disk drive)

 

If either of those had been reasonably successful at computerizing their consoles (especially Coleco), it could have meant having the console continue along side it, or come back in '85 at least.

 

 

With Atari it was a different issue: they already had a computer, but they'd made soem mistakes that prevented it from gaining more market share up to 1982 and then more with the release of the 1200XL (and the cancellation of the 600 on top of that), and then you've got the 5200 released at the same time. (holding off on ANY new console -in leu of projected delays of the 3200- and pushing more of a true successor to the 400's "video game computer" role with the 600 in 1982 could have paid off on many, many levels, maybe even more so with an even lower cost fully game-console-with-a-keyboard oriented model with a cheaper membrane -or maybe chiclet or XE style- keyboard but using the same motherboard as the normal 16k 600XL -a 32k model to fit in between the 1200 and 16k 600 would have made sense too; plus the gaming version of the 600 probably could have had a built-in game rather than BASIC in ROM -or simplyfying all of that with just the 600 with the full keyboard standard offered in gaming and computing bundles -maybe not even the 32k model, or maybe push that for Europe exclusively)

 

That way, Atari would have only had the VCS to crash and a rising position in the lower end computer market even with the mid-range 1200XL having problems.

That, and they could have released Donkey Kong on their game computer system.

Edited February 15, 2011 by kool kitty89

[jbanes]

Question is, without the Tramiel Commodore price war, would the Great Video Game Crash have happened simply from the glut of bad 2600 games or was it a combination of both factors?

 

Here's the short answer:

 

It was already a video game recession. The recession would have continued for some time, market corrections would have happened, and the market would have slowly recovered. The computer price war turned the recession into a complete disaster.

 

Why? Because it smashed the price separation between computers and video game systems. And the thinking of the time (as typified by the Commodore commercials) was, "Why buy just a game system when you can buy a computer?"

 

(Notice that people stopped talking about making game systems into computers after the crash. )

[kool kitty89]

(Notice that people stopped talking about making game systems into computers after the crash. )

That's not a bad idea technically though, and vice versa, depending on the circumstances. (you've got plenty of cases where game console architectures could be attractive to rework into computers or computers into game console or arcade systems -Commodore missed out on using the C64 and Amiga chipsets as such in heavily cut down configurations -dropping the computer hardware side but retaining all the major areas needed for a good console -dropping most added peripheral I/O and expansion support, cutting out RAM with more emphasis on ROM carts, etc -the C64GS, CDTV, and CD-32 were messes of hardware that were configured wrong and/or released at the wrong time -C64 should have been pushed as a game system no later than 1986, Amiga OSC no later than 1990, and AGA probably no later than the 1992 introduction)

 

The GPU in the PS1 probably could have been marketed as a good low-cost 2D/3D PC graphics card in the mid 90s, the Jaguar's TOM probably would have needed more tweaks for such (or for Atari's own computers if they'd still been pushing them) but is also interesting. (especially given the 1993/1994 timeframe -while it wasn't until 1995 that ATI, NVidia, and S3 had their chipsets on the first consumer 2D/3D graphics cards -ATi's Rage being the most well balanced and also including MPEG-1 acceleration, heh, that chipset may have made the good basis for a game console at the time )

 

The Colecovision could have made a good computer, but the Adam was a mess. (several others managed the same -or similar- chipsets quite well: Sega even did break your above claim after the crash with the 1984 SG-1000 Mk.II supporting a computer add-on that turned it into the SC-3000 computer standard -which Sega had released in 1983 to be cross compatible with the SG-1000: had Coleco did the Adam like Sega did the SC-3000, it may have been a success and actually boosted CV popularity)

The Intellivision may not have made a very good computer, but trying to do that with compatibility may have been a lot better than what they did with the Aquarius.

 

 

The original (simple) concept of the Atari Graduate had some merit too, though I think a more complete (internal) redesign of the VCS may have been an even more useful route. (at least if they pushed that earlier and in parallel with the VCS -like in 1978 as a low cost computer in a new market sector below the TRS-80 and directly VCS compatible -using more RAM, a full 6502 and hacking TIA for software driven text/graphics like the later Graduate did -or BASIC Progamming back in '77, probably somewhat like the ZX80/81 did with the BIOS ROM routine for the CPU driving the display -especially with the CPU able to work in vblank on the ZX81 vs the simpler ZX80 design that had to turn off the display for any added CPU work)

Edited February 16, 2011 by kool kitty89

[jbanes]

...lots of mental wankery...

 

And at the end of the day, a console designed to be a console is better as a console and a computer designed as a computer is better as a computer. The market figured it could fight the economic forces by a piecemeal attack of add-on components for consoles.

 

Just one problem: The cost was too high.

 

The Intellivision keyboard never shipped (though a non-working facsimile did), none of the 2600 keyboards ever took off (most never saw the light of day), the Colecovision "computer" expansion was canceled and replaced with the Adam, and the Odyssey^2 was never exploited as a home computer.

 

Once the C64 got cheap enough, consumers got their computer instead of a video game console. They ultimately realized that the computers were good at some things, but consoles were better at others.

 

The reason why no one ever talked about it after the crash is that it turned out to be a stupid idea. Consumers instead purchased computers if they wanted computers and consoles if they wanted consoles. End of story. And they all lived happily ever after.

[Retro Rogue]

The Intellivision keyboard never shipped (though a non-working facsimile did),

 

According to the Blue Sky Rangers they did ship through mail order, it just never hit wide distribution.

 

the Colecovision "computer" expansion was canceled and replaced with the Adam

 

That was expansion module 3, which was the Super Game Module not a computer module. Expansion Module 3 was replaced with the Adam computer expansion.

Edited February 17, 2011 by wgungfu

[jbanes]

The Intellivision keyboard never shipped (though a non-working facsimile did),

 

According to the Blue Sky Rangers they did ship through mail order, it just never hit wide distribution.

 

Your link agrees with me:

 

Mattel was forced to go with its back-up plan: it released instead the Entertainment Computer System (ECS) that had been quietly developed by a different division

 

I call it "non-working" because (to the best of my recollection) the quality was poor. Plus it was cut back so much it did not truly achieve the task of making the Intellivision into a computer.

 

the Colecovision "computer" expansion was canceled and replaced with the Adam

 

That was expansion module 3, which was the Super Game Module not a computer module. Expansion Module 3 was replaced with the Adam computer expansion.

 

It seems I need to amend my statement. I had not realized that the Computer Expansion had been released for the the Colecovision. The story I always heard was that the Adam was instead of Expansion #3 rather than in addition to.

 

I don't think my fundamental point is compromised. The fact that we're having this discussion kind of points to the fact that the expansion was not popular. The Expansion #3 was announced at $400 (not sure what the final price was) and a full Adam was $600.

 

As I said, far too expensive of an idea to be practical. Cheaper just to buy a ColecoVision and a C64.

[Retro Rogue]

Your link agrees with me:

 

Mattel was forced to go with its back-up plan: it released instead the Entertainment Computer System (ECS) that had been quietly developed by a different division

 

No it does not, that's cherry picking. It clearly states "a trickle of Keyboard Components was made available to selected stores and offered by mail to consumers who complained (at a loss to the company)." That directly contradicts "never shipped". The statement you're referring to is in the context of the fact that the original component never hit wide distribution because of the issues they were having, so they went with the backup plan of the ECS. You can't state never shipped when it clearly did make it to the public. Never shipped means never made it out the door.

 

I call it "non-working" because (to the best of my recollection) the quality was poor. Plus it was cut back so much it did not truly achieve the task of making the Intellivision into a computer.

 

There's a big difference between "non-working" and "poor quality". And the ECS is what was cut back.

 

 

It seems I need to amend my statement. I had not realized that the Computer Expansion had been released for the the Colecovision. The story I always heard was that the Adam was instead of Expansion #3 rather than in addition to.

 

The Adam was released in two formats, a computer expansion for the Colecovision (which is the one I had on display at the MGC last year) and a standalone version. The expansion, unfortunately, isn't a true "expansion". It only uses the Colecovision for it's video output and doesn't use the CV's hardware itself for anything (like you'd expect an expansion to do). Would have been cool to have had a dual z80 system back then.

 

Matt is planning on having an Adam setup (fully running) this year in my area at the MGC you can play around with. Not sure which version he has.

 

 

I don't think my fundamental point is compromised. The fact that we're having this discussion kind of points to the fact that the expansion was not popular. The Expansion #3 was announced at $400 (not sure what the final price was) and a full Adam was $600.

 

As I said, far too expensive of an idea to be practical. Cheaper just to buy a ColecoVision and a C64.

 

The Adam wasn't popular because of the manufacturing problems they had, and because you needed the printer connected and on to run the thing. It was never an issue of expansion vs. non-expansion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jbanes]

No it does not, that's cherry picking. It clearly states "a trickle of Keyboard Components was made available to selected stores and offered by mail to consumers who complained (at a loss to the company)." That directly contradicts "never shipped".

 

We seem to have a failure to communicate here. The Intellivision keyboard promised to consumers and intended for delivery never shipped. In its place a cut-down replacement keyboard DID ship. (Which I referred to as a "non-working facsimile".) That is the facts of the situation which are beyond argument.

 

Now whether or not the ECS was a reasonable replacement for the original keyboard component is up for debate. I say it wasn't and that it didn't meet the intended goals. It ended up being more of a keyboard for the Inty and less of an actual computer expansion. On top of that, I recall there being quality control problems because it was so cheap.

 

Either way, it never had its intended effect of giving consumers a home computer.

 

The Adam was released in two formats, a computer expansion for the Colecovision (which is the one I had on display at the MGC last year) and a standalone version. The expansion, unfortunately, isn't a true "expansion". It only uses the Colecovision for it's video output and doesn't use the CV's hardware itself for anything (like you'd expect an expansion to do). Would have been cool to have had a dual z80 system back then.

 

Matt is planning on having an Adam setup (fully running) this year in my area at the MGC you can play around with. Not sure which version he has.

 

I'll keep an eye out for it. I've seen the full computer many times, but I can't say I've ever seen the expansion.

 

 

I don't think my fundamental point is compromised. The fact that we're having this discussion kind of points to the fact that the expansion was not popular. The Expansion #3 was announced at $400 (not sure what the final price was) and a full Adam was $600.

 

As I said, far too expensive of an idea to be practical. Cheaper just to buy a ColecoVision and a C64.

 

The Adam wasn't popular because of the manufacturing problems they had, and because you needed the printer connected and on to run the thing. It was never an issue of expansion vs. non-expansion.

 

Again, to clarify: I am talking specifically about the expansion. Regardless of the general problems with the Adam, no one then (or now) was sitting there saying, "This is a good idea. It's too bad about the problems." The general reaction was almost certainly, "This is too expensive for an add-on!"

 

In fact, you probably have access to some data that would help make the point more clearly. Do you know how many expansion units were sold vs. the number of full-up Adam computers sold? I'm willing to bet there was a massive disparity between them.

[Retro Rogue]

No it does not, that's cherry picking. It clearly states "a trickle of Keyboard Components was made available to selected stores and offered by mail to consumers who complained (at a loss to the company)." That directly contradicts "never shipped".

 

We seem to have a failure to communicate here. The Intellivision keyboard promised to consumers and intended for delivery never shipped.

 

Cool hand luke, it was released in limited quantities, it's clearly stated. Again not shipped = not released, i.e. not out the door. The failure seems to be in you misreading what's stated on the page. Keith Robinson has never said anything different either when I talked to him directly about it. The keyboard component was released to consumers in limited quantities before being completely replaced by the ECS for wide release.

 

 

 

In its place a cut-down replacement keyboard DID ship. (Which I referred to as a "non-working facsimile".) That is the facts of the situation which are beyond argument.

 

No, again you're misreading the facts. The ECS was it's replacement for wide release. Facts are facts. You can't change the facts that the original keyboard component did see a release and was sold to consumers, however in limited quantities.

 

I'll keep an eye out for it. I've seen the full computer many times, but I can't say I've ever seen the expansion.

 

If you've ever seen the one I've had on display a number of years, that was the expansion one. Never had any other one.

 

 

Again, to clarify: I am talking specifically about the expansion. Regardless of the general problems with the Adam, no one then (or now) was sitting there saying, "This is a good idea. It's too bad about the problems." The general reaction was almost certainly, "This is too expensive for an add-on!"

 

Not really, never seen that in any reviews or coverage from the time. The issues were what I stated. Expansion or not was never an issue, it was the Adam itself. In fact the expansion module was of course cheaper than the stand alone Adam.

 

In fact, you probably have access to some data that would help make the point more clearly. Do you know how many expansion units were sold vs. the number of full-up Adam computers sold? I'm willing to bet there was a massive disparity between them.

 

I could dig in to it, but even as a stock holder at the time that was never a reported issue. Nor have I ever seen it in any news reports, reviews, etc. The problems were always with the Adam itself. You'd actually be hard pressed to find anything otherwise.

Edited February 17, 2011 by wgungfu

[kool kitty89]

...lots of mental wankery...

 

And at the end of the day, a console designed to be a console is better as a console and a computer designed as a computer is better as a computer. The market figured it could fight the economic forces by a piecemeal attack of add-on components for consoles.

It heavily depends on the circumstances in question and that's not always true.

 

Hardware specifically designed for a game console could be (in many cases) re-used for a highly efficient computer, and vice versa. (OTOH, the amount of reworking it would take depends)

 

The Colecovision is a prime example, it used hardware that was designed for a computer through and through, and while it was less efficient due to that, they still managed to make it work. (the fact that the hardware was in largescale production and off the shelf would also cut out R&D overhead and issues with economies of scales -but also have the issue of relying on 3rd party parts and not being able to consolidate things without reverse engineering or licensing said parts)

 

The fact that the Adam failed has nothing to do with it being related to a game console since the game console's hardware was designed predominantly for a computer. (the C64's hardware had generally been designed for possible use in arcades, home video games, or computers as such as well, but only got properly implemented as a computer -actually, the hardware is even more optimized for video games than the A8 chipset with the complete lack of bitmap graphics modes and less flexible resolution options)

 

The MSX is almost identical to the CV hardware wise and did rather well in the low-end niche in Japan and OK in parts of Europe. (the Sord M5 and SC-3000 are even closer, and again the SC-3000 was cross compatible with Sega's SG-1000 console -the SC3000 was actually considerably more popular from what I understand)

And the TMS9918 was, of course, originally designed for the TI99/4. (the biggest change to later systems using that VDP was the CPU: most/all used a Z80 -a lower cost mass market CPU vs the 9900 which would even have been fairly expensive for TI to produce, let alone if they'd licensed/cloned the Z80 to manufacture in-house -like NEC did)

 

Just one problem: The cost was too high.

The cost of what was too high?

 

The A8 chipset, let alone the cut-back 5200 chipset in 1982 should have been LESS EXPENSIVE for Atari to build a console with than Coleco buying off the shelf parts. (Atari already had R&D and mass production of the chipset and with only the overhead of 3rd party chip vendors vs buying for profit off the shelf parts)

 

Hell, in many respects it would have been more cost effective than the Intellivision, but again, the 5200 wasn't nearly as cost optimized as it could have been. (something that could largely have been addressed after the fact with further consolidation for embedded DRAM interface logic, GCIA, a much more compact motherboard and case design, etc)

 

Likewise, the C64 (even in '82/83) could have been cut down to console form factor (sort of like the MAX, but more so) and been cost competitive with others on the market. (especially with CBM's vertical integration)

 

Just because console/computer transitions didn't often work out, hardly is grounds for it being a bad idea. (it just means they screwed up in other ways -which the Adam obviously did, or they screwed up in the specific implementation)

 

The reason why no one ever talked about it after the crash is that it turned out to be a stupid idea. Consumers instead purchased computers if they wanted computers and consoles if they wanted consoles. End of story. And they all lived happily ever after.

Except it DID happen after the crash: computer hardware being turned into consoles and vice versa (and tons of potential for more of it), but not so much in the US. (more in Europe and Japan, and rather successfully in some cases, but less so in others -like the GX4000 in Europe, though that was a bit of a joke when it was launched)

 

The Xbox was basically a PC in a console form factor, and modern consoles have (in many ways) become very PC line in overall functionality. (and up until recently you could even run Linux on the PS3 without hacking it)

[jbanes]

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

 

All y'all are far too details oriented to be proper analysts. There's seeing the tree, then there's seeing the forest. You guys are stuck staring at the tree.

 

(Hey, that's some nice looking bark you got there! )

 

Riddle me this:

 

• If the keyboard was truly "shipped" why was the FTC fining Mattel $10,000 a day?
  
• If the keyboard was truly "shipped" why was the ECS released?
  
• If the ColecoVision was such a solid home computer by itself, why did the Adam expansion only use the video out?
  
• Were the Coleco* and Intellivision engineers stupid or otherwise simply incompetent?
  

 

And a few just for the kewl cat:

 

• If these multifunction systems like the GX4000 were superior jacks of all trades, why did they fail to displace the IBM PC?
  
• Does a microprocessor or single graphics chip make an entire machine?
  
• What are the fundamental differences between a given PC and a game console? (e.g. PS3 vs. PC)
  
• How many people do you know who use a PS3 for their desktop computer?
  
• If the XBox was basically a PC computer (which I'm well aware of, thank you) why didn't Microsoft repeat that design with the XBox 360?
  

 

The answers to these questions and more tie back to conclusions that are difficult to escape. Baseless arguing of semantics rather than looking at the big picture only does a disservice to yourselves and prevents a proper analysis.

 

(Oh, and stop saying that the Adam failed because it was an expansion. I never said that and I don't appreciate the words being inserted into my mouth.)

 

* I suppose I could be convinced about the Coleco engineers.

Edited February 18, 2011 by jbanes

[kool kitty89]

[*]If the ColecoVision was such a solid home computer by itself, why did the Adam expansion only use the video out?

[*]Were the Coleco* and Intellivision engineers stupid or otherwise simply incompetent?

I'd say yes, if that's the context then they were stupid and incompetent.

 

However, that configuration namely implies that the computer add-on wasn't planned from the start, or the original plans fell apart, or the designers of the Adam failed to comply with the CV's expansion limitations.

 

The fast is, the Colecovision was a game console that was built from computer hardware and then morphed back into a computer and is technically very similar to the Spectravision and related MSX computers (sound chip and related I/O are the main differences -or compared to the TI99/4 it's the CPU that's the main difference, and the fact the CV has 4 times the work RAM of the TI99).

 

The intellivision was a tougher push for a computer add-on and would be fundamentally limited by the original design (graphics, CPU architecture, etc) as well as the expandability of the system. (it would be easier to build a computer based on and compatible with the IV than it would be to build an efficent add-on -hell, it might have been cleaner/cheaper to offer the computer standalone and as a trade-in upgrade for existing IV users rather than trying to build an add-on -or have a limited add-on and a full computer with faster CPU, more flexibility, etc)

The VCS also would have been ugly to make a computer add-on for (let alone an efficient one), it would have been more realistic to build an evolutionary (or hacked) derivative of the system with a full 6502, more onboard RAM, a BIOS/OS ROM (probably including code to drive the display -like the ZX80/81), and a general purpose expansion interface on top of the VCS cart slot and a VCS compatibility mode. (possibly use a POT input to software decode cassette data, perhaps remap RIOT I/O for the keyboard interface while the keyboard is in-use, various other options as well) And, at best, that would have made a CHEAPER system than any decent computer add-on for the VCS, or short of that, still not much more costly and a lot more flexible. (most of which would also have to include a separate CPU and added logic -not sure exactly what they did in the graduate though, they might have used a RAM expansion hack as well as bank switching on top of a CPU driven text/graphics hack)

 

The CV OTOH, was close to perfect for upgrade to a computer as long as they made sure to include the necessary expansion signals (for RAM expansion and additional peripheral I/O -like the cart slot on the VIC or CoCo, or PBI on the A8 -technically the cart slot on the 7800 would be fine too, though the 5200 would need a read/write hack or an added signal to the cart slot like for the VCS adapter), if they failed to include the necessary expansion, or failed to take advantage of it for the expansion module, that was no fundamental fault of the based hardware configuration/chipset used.

 

And from what I understand, the CV's expansion port DOES offer proper expansion in general with the main bus, read/write, IRQ, and a fair amount of address space for expansion. (20 kB iirc -any more and you'd need bank switching, but that's not a big deal)

There's a reason the homebrew expansion module for the CV works like it does. (for that matter, the 7800 XM is just a keyboard away from turning the 7800 into a formidable mid 80s home computer, and POKEY already has logic for key scanning in hardware -albeit you probably wouldn't have had 128k back then or the YM2151)

 

 

 

[*]If these multifunction systems like the GX4000 were superior jacks of all trades, why did they fail to displace the IBM PC?

That's a ridiculous question (ie why are the Mac and PC still around but Amiga and ST dead, why did Tandy fall out of favor in the computer business, etc, etc), in many cases it's marketing and not much more (the IBM brand name was the biggest factor in the PC's success -that and the ease of cloning).

 

Also, the GX4000 was an example of a BAD case of such as it was a weak system to release in 1990, though it might have been OK for 1986. (same issue with the CPC+ in general) A shame Amstrad hadn't picked up the Loki (Flare) team when they merged with Sinclair's computer division, or licensed the Flare 1 chipset after the fact for that matter (not only completed a couple years earlier than the CPC+/GX4000, but also far more powerful, and made even more attractive with the moderately enhanced, single-chip Slipstream ASIC intended for the Konix MS -though Knoix couldn't afford to buy the IP exclusively and thus Flare retained full ownership with the freedom to license/sell it to anyone they wanted -like Amstrad, Atari Corp, etc -they ended up licensing it out for several set-top box designs made in China later on -no idea if Martin Brennan ever suggested it to Atari Corp when he was working on Panther or when he convinced ACorp management to ditch Panther and have Flare 2 design the Jaguar)

 

The good good example (more or less) would be the SC-3000, which didn't do exceptionally well, but did do better than the corresponding SG-1000 and was released early enough to matter. (1983 -vs the 1990 GX4000/CPC+)

 

 

The Adam was never going to beat out the PC/clone market in popularity, but it could haev been reasonably successful. (it was weaker than the C64 -at least for games- but was directly compatible with the CV and could have probably put up reasonable competition)

However, they didn't offer a low-end model to compete more in the VIC/TI99/Atari 400, or even C64/800XL range, but went for the all-in-one total system (sans a monitor) as the only option. (given the problems with it, they probably should have even held off on the desktop model initially -it still could have been out by '84 to meet the PCJr)

The bottom-end system could have been nothing more than a CV (maybe slightly more RAM) with a built-in OS ROM (maybe BASIC too), keyboard and peripheral ports (perhaps cassette and a parallel I/O port) and enhanced expansion port (for RAM and added interfaces), and it would go up from there with systems with more RAM and built-in functionality all the way up to the desktop models. That and drop the funky tape drives in favor of normal (but still relatively fast -ie 1500-3000 baud like the CoCo or Speccy) cassette interface and floppy disks being the next step up. (probably SSDD 160k disks from the start given the timing -ie bypass SD drives)

 

 

[*]Does a microprocessor or single graphics chip make an entire machine?

That and some memory and I/O logic, yes. The Colecovision has MORE memory (even CPU work RAM) out of the box than some contemporary computers (TI99/4A as before). It lacks built-in peripheral ports, but so did the likes of the TRS-80, or the Sinclair ZX series (among some others), save an analog cassette interface. (which could have been a simple add-on even without any special provisions -tons of options via the cart slot alone on the CV and with hacks MUCH easier than what the likes of the VCS had to deal with -the Z80 doesn't require Phi-2 for RAM interfacing like the 650x among other things, so a cartridge adapter for a cassette interface would have been easier than the Starpath Supercharger; likewise, if they HAD to -ie had a crap expansion port- they could have used the cart slot for the whole computer add-on with RAM/ROM accessed in banks within the cart address space along with added I/O mapped to the cart space)

 

What are the fundamental differences between a given PC and a game console? (e.g. PS3 vs. PC)

The software licensing schemes, relative standardization, marketing, etc. (consoles today aren't that different from home computers in the 80s in that respect)

That, and consoles tend to be significantly more cost effective -or at least sold at much lower/negative profit margins. (the software market doesn't make it attractive for general application programming though, and the standard OSs don't either)

 

[*]How many people do you know who use a PS3 for their desktop computer?

Honestly, it was more interesting as a low-cost server due to the CELL. (but I knew a couple people who were using their PS3s as supplementary PCs or in the interim when they had no main PC available)

Of course, Sony didn't really want the systems used as such (and it opened more exploits they REALLY didn't want), but otherwise they COULD have pushed the necessary software/OS support to be useful as an actual computer.

 

[*]If the XBox was basically a PC computer (which I'm well aware of, thank you) why didn't Microsoft repeat that design with the XBox 360?

I've heard a lot of different answers, but fear of piracy/emulation is the one to make the most sense. Licensing customized x86 designs and a largely compatible video chipset shouldn't have been that much of an issue if they wanted near 100% backwards compatibility. (especially due to the high level OS/API emphasis of the original model such that a hardware compatible GPU was less necessary -just one compliant with the general API and OS routines used in the Xbox, though the few games that bypassed that and went low-level would have been problematic -nothing that patches shouldn't have solved though, rather like PC games: as it is, the "compatibility" is acchived through porting the entire game over -recompiling the engine as a massive "patch"- and using the old discs for authentication and data -the bulk of the disc space is for mass data storage, the game engine/code is proportionally tiny)

 

I highly doubt it was a performance choice since contemporary x86 cores available at the time of the 360's design (especially from AMD) were competitive if not ahead by a fair margin in per-core performance. (you also get greatly diminishing returns on multi-core designs for many common operations -purely computationally intensive tasks favor multi-cores, but tons of I/O or bandwidth intensive stuff just means multi-cores are wasted over single cores -or dual vs tri/quad- the only reason multi-core processors became popular is because engineers hit a wall with faster processor speeds and improved per-clock single-core performance progresses much more slowly than clock speed increases had allowed on top of per-clock performance boosts in previous generations -which is also why the PPE in the 360 is considerably more than 1/3 the average performance of the 360's tri-core version of the same CPU -actually more than 1/2 the performance on average iirc)

 

People seem to automatically think "oh, oh, PPC, it must be better than x86", but really, that has next to nothing to do with modern performance since the ISA is totally separate from the actual internal CPU logic (the micro-ops translated from the external instructions). Benchmarks are limited too, but they're better than clock speeds, MIPS ratings, let alone vague architecture -or "bitness" . (hence why the PIII derived Xbox CPU was generally more powerful than any other CPU in a console that generation -including the GC's PPCG3 based CPU -in fact, due to the clock per clock performance, the Xbox's CPU should outperform the Wii's CPU -also a G3 derivative- even though it's almost the same clock speed -though I used to think the opposite in my ignorance)

 

The answers to these questions and more tie back to conclusions that are difficult to escape.

More like conclusions that are difficult to make since there's so much that's up to hypothetical interpretation as it simply never happened:

I think the Adam would have been much more successful (maybe not super well selling, but a hell of a lot more popular than the Adam as it was) it it was offered an an MSX/C64/etc like form factor (possibly in addition to a desktop bundle), but we'll never know if things would have played out that way.

 

Baseless arguing of semantics rather than looking at the big picture only does a disservice to yourselves and prevents a proper analysis.

I see very little here that's semantics (other than many the issue of the limited release of the IV keyboard module), the rest is more comprehensive deductive reasoning under a hypothetical "what if" context.

 

(Oh, and stop saying that the Adam failed because it was an expansion. I never said that and I don't appreciate the words being inserted into my mouth.)

I never said that (unless you mean Marty). I don't think being an add-on was the issue: being only offered in an expensive (relatively) desk-top form factor with reliability problems and a funky tape format were the reasons it failed. (the poorly configured add-on was a problem too -though that's one issue I hadn't fully realized and had previously assumed was a proper expansion module for the system -since all it needs is RAM and some I/O for keyboard and peripherals, taking it on makes no sense from a cost or engineering perspective -it would be like having a complete A8 computer attach to the 5200 as the computer expansion module)

 

 

* I suppose I could be convinced about the Coleco engineers.

Maybe, though corporate management can also be a major factor in making such messes. (not so different with Atari Inc either . . . except that corporate management is also what drove Atari to the height of what it was in 1980/81, but then nearly drove it into the ground before Morgan finally starting turning things around -and then Warner yet again pulls a snafu with the way they managed the split and sale to TTL)

[Retro Rogue]

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

 

All y'all are far too details oriented to be proper analysts. There's seeing the tree, then there's seeing the forest. You guys are stuck staring at the tree.

 

And you're trying to hard to make a point that isn't there. Ignoring facts in order to make a watered down forest is not proper analysis. Sorry.

 

(Hey, that's some nice looking bark you got there! )

 

Riddle me this:

 

 

If the keyboard was truly "shipped" why was the FTC fining Mattel $10,000 a day?

 

 

Because they weren't shipping enough for the FTC to consider it meeting their regulations. I waited to talk directly to Keith again to clarify things before responding back to you. Verbatim from him, yes it did ship. (I used that exact question and that exact wording of "ship" and "shipping"). According to what he was told from Mattel's lawyers, they were threatened with being fined because the FTC didn't think they were shipping enough. As he further stated "but I have never found a record of an FTC action, so it may have been a threat not followed through on."

 

If the keyboard was truly "shipped" why was the ECS released?

 

Because by that time money wise and with the FTC threats to up the amount shipping, it was just too costly a product to continue to try and manufacture. Likewise they still had the ongoing quality issues (which is what was an issue all along) which would further ad to costs via product support. It made much more sense all around to scale it down to the much less ambitious ECS to coincide with the cost reduced Intellivision II then in development and coming out.

 

If the ColecoVision was such a solid home computer by itself, why did the Adam expansion only use the video out?

 

As Kitty mentioned, a computer add-on was not planned from the start. The CV was itself however, specifically designed as a general purpose computer used like a console vs. console specific hardware. I got that verbatim from one of the people at Nuvatec, the company charged with redesigning the system from the original proto done at Coleco. According to them, they wanted to do that specifically to aid in expandability. Hence what Kitty mentioned about the expansion port functionality as well.

 

For some reason, Coleco management made the decision that it would be more cost effective manufacturing wise to reproduce (the wheel (since the Adam is basically an expanded Colecovision on it's own) and kill two birds with one stone by simply producing the Adam in two formats, one with the video components and one without that can plug in to any existing Colecovision owner's console. (And I purposely said reproduce the wheel rather than reinvent to make a point).

 

Were the Coleco* and Intellivision engineers stupid or otherwise simply incompetent?

 

Or it could have been management. But then hind site is always 20/20, and of course things would have wound up much different if you were running things.

 

 

The answers to these questions and more tie back to conclusions that are difficult to escape. Baseless arguing of semantics rather than looking at the big picture only does a disservice to yourselves and prevents a proper analysis.

 

Of course, your analysis being defined as "proper" and everyone else's being defined as "baseless arguing of semantics". How condescending and completely inaccurate. Sorry, I'd chalk it up to someone ignoring facts (one person's semantics are another person's accuracy and facts) and seeing what they want so it fits in to their prescribed big picture. You said it didn't ship, and it did just not in high numbers. Likewise neither I nor Kitty stated the words you're accusing of being put in your mouth. Any commentary was in regards to your commentary on the expansion unit's popularity and claimed lack thereof, I simply stated any issues with it were the same issues with the standalone Adam. Finally, you apparently have the misconception that the Colecovision was not designed as a general purpose computer when it was - I've talked directly to the firm that designed it (during which I was able to get many source code copies of the games they did for Coleco as well that I passed on to Eduardo to help "the cause").

Edited February 24, 2011 by wgungfu

[Metal Ghost]

Am I still in a 7800 thread??

 

I'm just joshing y'all though. I always love hearing the well-informed comments left by Kitty and Marty.

[ApolloBoy]

All y'all are far too details oriented to be proper analysts. There's seeing the tree, then there's seeing the forest. You guys are stuck staring at the tree.

That's all part of being an historian. You have to look at the real small stuff if you want to put together a good thesis, and Marty does a great job of that.