7800 Atari Corp. Revival

[kool kitty89]

thanks for the explaination. one further question: was 10mil for jack to acquire atari games prohibitively expensive, or was it "tramiel cheapness"? interesting about the arcade titles appearing on the lynx, it seems like maybe the lynx could have enjoyed some security with more support! still I wonder... what if those titles appeared at the 7800 launch...

 

 

 

Whenever I've talked about it to Leonard Tramiel, he stated that their feeling for lack of success was because they couldn't get the Lynx down cheap enough to compete with the GameBoy. They felt if they could have offered their full color system at the same price, they would have won. Their biggest cost was the color LCD, which they had negotiated with a supplier to provide at a price that would have allowed them to get the price point they wanted on the Lynx. That supplier fell through and they wound up suing him.

I think that's a big part of it, but probably not the biggest part.

The Lynx suffered from many of the same shortcomings as the Game Gear except for 2 major differences: it had a big head start but was also not backed by a huge game company with strong in-house development, strong funds for marketing and commissioned/licensed game development, and greater public interest from consumers and 3rd party developers. (albeit the Lynx seems to have been more popular in the UK than the GG -which did oddly poorly given Sega's popularity there) And even there, Nintendo had Sega beaten. (and a head start)

 

The common problems were price point, bulky size, and short battery life (and 6 AAs at that). The battery life issue was probably the biggest issue for a portable/handheld console: on top of a console that's large and relatively expensive, it also eats through batteries adding more cost overhead and more bulk (if you wanted spare batteries to extend play time).

That wouldn't change on any color handheld until LCD screens got to the point where reflective (unlit) color screens had reasonably adequate contrast ratios. (at least enough to allow reasonable 6-bit RGB representations -well short of the 12-bit used on both, but also acceptable enough to make the cost/bulk/power savings well worth it for such an unlit "Jr" model)

I'm not sure when those minimum requirements were met with mass market screens, but I know it was some time in the mid 90s. (maybe even by 1992 or '93 for boarderline screens -ie ones that were more or less on par with the 1989 gameboy screen but in color, and more acceptable ones following by '95 with progressive improvements there on out)

The GG and Lynx were both powerful enough to compete through the Game Boy color years with ever consolidated chipsets and ever reduced cost had both companies continued to support the platforms.

 

Except Atari was in trouble and poorly managed by the early 90s, and Sega oddly didn't pushed for a revised GG even by 1995 or '96 when they pulled resources from it in favor of the Saturn. (1st and 3rd party GG development pretty much dried up by '97 and it was left as a more or less "dead" platform being sold with minimal advertising and no new software -Majesco kept it going into the late 90s though)

 

 

The battery life issue really was a biggy though, something the GB actually declined in as time went on. (the original GB line was exceptional -upwarsds of 30 hours in better circumstances- but the pocket and to lesser extent color versions cut that back a fair bit, the GBA did it more so than the color and I don't think any models of DS have matched the better examples of the original 4 AA brick gameboy models for continuous play time on batteries)

OTOH, that would actually make things easier as time went on too: if Sega and Atari had pushed more and more eficient designs, the batter life gap could have closed much more quickly. (I think existing GG models -at least late ones- may actually be into the brick GB battery life range if you disable the backlight, albeit that's on 6 AAs, but still a pretty good indication)

 

The Deluxe form factor of the Lynx with ambidextrous layout was very neat, but it may have been wise to cut that feature at least for such cost/size reduced unlit "Jr" models in favor of making it as cost effective and compact as possible. (Gravis was the only one to do that with gamepads for that matter, so most left handed people were probably used to playing "right handed" controllers as such -joysticks/gamepads aren't even really defined that way, you see arcade joysticks configured often on the left, but home console and PC joysticks intended for the right hand or either, so I'm not sure that was ever a very necessary feature at all)

 

 

 

 

here is an interesting scenario: sega lived for a long time in the face of nintendo's third party publisher dominance partially because they had their own games division. would the outcome have been different for atari corp had jack acquired atari games in 1984? was that a realistic option for him?

wouldn't acquiring the games division solved a lot of issues? would the 10mil dept made atari corp suffer? and i realize that this has been addressed but would it have made any impact on the 7800's release? i bet in terms of launch titles it would have!!!

thanks for the explaination. one further question: was 10mil for jack to acquire atari games prohibitively expensive, or was it "tramiel cheapness"? interesting about the arcade titles appearing on the lynx, it seems like maybe the lynx could have enjoyed some security with more support! still I wonder... what if those titles appeared at the 7800 launch...

Unless Warner was offering it for loans/IOUs like much of Atari consumer, TTL/Atari Corp couldn't afford it.

 

Much of that ties into the links to Marty's (wgungfu's) posts I pointed out in my previous post.

 

 

However, not having Atari Games really was on the bottom of the list of problems: the arcade staff didn't have much to do with AInc's consumer game development (just the coin-op games), and it was the loss of the AInc game programming staff (except some that crossed over to the computer side of things at AInc -as much of the computer programming staff was retained) that hurt things as well as a general lack of funds to invest in 1st party or commissioned games. (they did have some significant game programming talent left from the computer staff, but even with that they were very strapped for cash, at least until '87/88) Similar reasons cover the limited advertising. (though Katz did a bang up job considering what he had to work with)

By the time they had remotely reasonable funding to compete as such, Nintendo had already more or less tied up the market for that generation. (the very fact that the 2600 and 7800 fit into somewhat of a budget niche probably helped keep them in a somewhat separate category rather than dying off completely under the pressure -Sega OTOH had the funding and the software to compete from the start, but not the right marketing or management -and while Tonka improved that a bit, it was too little too late to take the market from Nintendo that generation: Katz managed to make the Genesis make a pretty notable splash on the market towards the end of 1989 and especially 1990 -an up-hill battle, of course)

 

Another thing with the 7800 is that it wasn't really a hit in Europe (it did OK, possibly better market share in the US, but still well behind Sega and Nintendo -market share was split more evenly in Europe), so they didn't really get to tap that programming/development talent opposed to the ST. (who knows what might have happened with a next gen console had they released it, especially if related to the ST line -hell, if they made it architecturally similar with an updated version of the ST -like the ST, though that should have been better- it could have helped increase support for the new computer platform as well)

 

 

 

Again, those linked posts really summarize things well; a ton of the problems had not so much to do with Tramiel buying Atari consumer, but rather how Warner managed the sale and transition. (selling the entire company as a single entity would have been nice, but the split could have been very favorably managed as well had Warner been prudent)

 

With a smooth transition, Atari Games could have maintained a positive relationship with ACorp and made favorable licensing agreements for new arcade games and other cooperation. (vs the strained relationship they got instead)

 

 

 

 

is Kent's account of the Tramiel takeover accurate?

Kent's book is good for quotes, but bad for commentary and fact checking. It's very inconsistent for anything other than direct quotes and figures; if he'd been assiduous in cross-checking his information, Curt and Marty would have had a lot less work cut out for them in some areas. (he might have jump-started digging into some other historical areas as well )

I haven't more than skimmed his book myself, but I'm not sure if he even has comprehensive interviews from the Tramiels, Katz, or various others integral to the period. (I know he didn't interview Ted Dabney or anyone else who could have debunked Nolan's many lies and other myths )

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is such an informative investigation into the plan of Atari Corp. as concerns the home console line-up. Kudos.

 

My view of Tramiel has changed a great deal.

 

Gotta admit he still kinda cheaped out on really supporting the 7800. Under million dollar marketing, lack of money spent on software development, etc. I know that they were somewhat under a budget, but, I mean...damn. But that's the gamer in me who just wanted to see the stuff we got in '89-90 on 7800 show up earlier in the life cycle. I can somewhat understand why now.

By the time Atari Corp was evening out and actually getting some decent funding, Nintendo had pretty much tied up the market and what was left was a bit tricky. What's more is that Jack was stepping down with Sam transitioning into the role as CEO/President, and Katz left about the same time Jack did towards the end of '88 iirc. So both of them were gone for the Lynx, STe, various console proposals up to the Panther which was then canceled with the Jaguar as a followon, TT030, Flacon, and then the Jag finally released in late '93. And, by that point, Atari was in big trouble, I think this quote from Marty sums it up well:

And then Sam Tramiel had a heart attack - Jack stepped back in and wound down operations. I truly think is Sam didnt have his heart attack that Atari would've continued to fight to the last $$$ - but Jack and Leonard were not interested anymore.

 

Truthfully, Leonard didn't have much to do with the daily operations, he was more involved with the products themselves. And I'm not sure that Sam would have been able to change things if he didn't have the heart attack. Every since he had taken over, the company itself was on a downward spiral. When Jack turned the company over to him, he had mananged to bring the company out of the red and in to the black - shedding all the debt they took on from Warner in the purchase. That was his dream after all, to be able to hand something solid over to his sons and retire. Sam managed to take it from a multi-division multi-product company to a single product company by the time Jack came back in. If they would have fought to the last $$$, there would have been nothing left of a legacy for his kids, hence the reverse merger to get out while they still could. Truthfully, I would rather have had Jack not retire back in the late 80's and have him stick around for the oncoming Wintel onslaught to see how he would have dealt with that. I can't picture just turning tail and closing down the computer division like that.

-----------

 

 

 

And the hiring of Katz based on the idea that they wanted someone with knowledge of the game industry was a good one, perhaps one that should've come earlier when Jack was in negotiations with Warners to buy the consumer division. Had someone with knowledge of the game industry been a consultant for Jack they might have insisted on securing an exclusive contract with the arcade division that would allow ports to consumer products only happen on Atari hardware. Warner was keeping a part of the arcade division, and they wanted to get rid of the consumer division totally, right? With someone who understood the value of securing exclusive licenses for games, perhaps a deal would've been struck along those lines: exclusivity on Atari Corp. hardware for ports of Atari Games software as part of the "deal" to take the consumer division off of Warner's hands. That would've given Atari Corp. a steady stream of games for the 7800, 2600 and 8-bit computer line...and the then upcoming ST.

That all ties into the poor planning/management of the transition on Warner's side unfortunately, see below:

 

 

 

hmm. just read the part about Atari Games costing $10 million more. I'm pretty sure even if he didn't pony up all of it, had he had someone with knowledge of the game industry in his group he would have either spent a little more to buy into the arcade division, or spent more to buy home consumer exclusivity over Atari arcade IPs.

 

Damn shame that didn't happen.

Katz was an excellent addition in that respect, but in as far as transitional staff: that again goes back to Warner's mismanagement of things. (Morgan was the president of Atari Inc and the one handling some very promising reorganization of the company, so he and some of the senior management probably should have been retained for a time at least in the interim to smooth the transition -quite possibly allow his plans to be completed or at least adjusted for the change in plans)

Edited February 5, 2011 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

Link doesn't work

I think Atari caused most of the problems around the 7800 themselves, if you look at why nintendo and sega were successful with their consoles is mostly due to the fact that anyone developing for sega/nintendo only had to support thast particular console, i.e the NES and the SMS, which meant that sega/nintendo could maximize not only the amount of games on their platform(s) but also maximise licensing profits for each game sold/released on their platform(s), Atari simply didn't read the market properly, after all Atari were'nt top dog anymore so why did Atari do 3 gaming systems aimed at the same market (bearing in mind that nintendio had already sewn up most of the US publishers for publishing/development on it's console) and that what remained were'nt so interested in supporting any Atari platform, perhaps if Atari had only focused on one platform in the gaming hardware market (like the 7800) in the same way that Nintendo and Sega did with the NES and SMS/II I think the 7800 might have been more successful, since Atari and 3rd party publishers would only have to support one Atari gaming platform and not 3

I think that's wrong: I've never heard of Sega enforcing any sort of exclusivity on 3rd parties publishing for their: they may have made attractive deals to better compete against Nintendo and form strong relationships along with licensed/commissioned 2nd/3rd party games, but not anything like Nintendo did with exclusive contracts, limited production, etc.

 

And Sega was very weak with the SMS in Japan and the US, better in the US, but still well behind Atari in terms of market share. (the SMS may have been ahead of the 7800 but definitely well behind composite 2600+7800 sales in the late 80s; the often quoted 2 million SMS sales in the US seems very wrong though since the 7800 sold at least 3.77 million in the US alone and given the market share -and presumably how much of that was 2600 sales- as well as general anecdotal accounts, it seems like the SMS was far closer to the 7800 in popularity than that, if not ahead of it)

 

The problem wasn't lack of focus: the 2600, 7800, and ST were all strong products to push, and while the XEGS was really not that good of an idea (or at least not in execution and timing), the real issue was general lack of funding and in-house development resources. (heavily exacerbated by the many issues tied to the sloppy split by Warner -a smooth transition would have helped a ton, and should have meant a timely release of the 7800 and quite possibly more revenue on top of a nice head-start in the market)

 

The XEGS really didn't make that much sense as it was though: I know Katz was against it, but Tramiel (I think it was Jack pushing for it, Lennard may have had something to do with it too -aside from hardware) was set on pushing a product in the entry level computer sector iirc and the XEGS was the result. I'm not sure why they couldn'tdidn't jsut release a gaming bundle with the 65XE, maybe tweak the design a bit to make it more convenient (like moving the cart slot back to the top), but as it was the 65XE was really the same machine but in a more compact form factor. (other than the cart slot, it really was more convenient to use than the XEGS+keyboard, and probably cheaper to manufacture)

The way it was marketed was a bit odd too, placed more as a game console against the NES, which was not the original concept from what I understand. (games/entry level consumer interest would have been part of it, but it was really supposed to be a low-end game-oriented computer unless I'm mistaken)

 

In any case, it didn't sap software resourced any more than developing for the A8 line in general . . .

 

 

Hmm, actually, if the XEGS would have been useful at any point, it would have been back in '84 as an alternative to the 7800 as well as a tie-in to the computer line. (given the conflict over GCC, that could have been "plan B" so to speak, though, again, it seems like a gaming bundle of the A8 line alone could have made more sense -in '84 probably the 600XL due to cost)

For that matter, the 5100/5200 Jr might have been a consideration (let alone further consolidation more like the 600XL or XE motherboards), but I think Atari Inc had already announced the discontinuation of the 5200 along with already hyping the 7800 and starting production. (so at that point it may have simply confused things more than it was worth, and a console/game computer directly compatible with the A8 line would mean one less distinct platform to support -albeit the 5200's design could have facilitated lower cost if consolidated properly, but that was pretty much off the table by that point)

If they were going to have any chance of keeping the A8 profitable in the long run (ie to the end of the 80s at least), 1984 and 1985 seem to have been the final windows of opportunity. (and '84 got largely ruined by the split and messy transition)

The XE-M seems to have been a rather odd idea too. (why put a high-end sound chip in a low-end 8-bit? -vs a higher-end revision of the ST- and why not just use dual POKEYs if you wanted boosted sound? -maybe plan to later produce a consolidated dual POKEY with redundant circuitry cut and general die shrink, maybe on a surface mounted package -also could have come in handy on the 7800)

 

 

CGIA would have been a significant cost savings for the A8 line (or 5200) as well, and it had reached LSI prototypes by fall of '83 (by the time of Morgan's freeze), so I wonder why it never got implemented. Perhaps the necessary engineers (and possibly some documents) got lost in the transition to ACorp, though as long as they retained a certain critical amount of prototype hardware, documentation, and schematics, Atari Corp should have been able to complete it independently. (as with the JAN/VCS-on-a-chip ASIC for later model 2600 Jrs -albeit I think it had originally been slated to be implemented for all Jrs from the start and be released by the end of '84, so significant delays on that side as well)

 

 

The reason for the XEGS was to shore up the 8-bit computer line. At the time, software publishers were furious with software piracy and they were looking to make an example by cutting out an entire platform. While the [anecdotal] majority of software piracy was being committed by Commodore 64 owners, publishers couldn't cut that platform out so they instead were targeting the Atari 8-bit platform. Atari Corp. was doing its best to save the line until the ST became cheap enough to come in at the 8-bit's price point so they opted to repackage the 65XE as a game system [XEGS] and prove to the publishers that going the game cartridge route was the best way to defeat disk based software pirates despite the higher cost of producing cartridges versus floppy disks. If I recall, even John Skrutch said much the same in an interview in Atari Explorer back then.

That seems rather odd, especially since the biggest piracy was in Europe (with tapes) though I'm sure disks got a fair amount of piracy from the early 80s through the mid 90s when they fell out of favor.

 

Piracy is something that often leads to scapegoating and reactive responses rather than proactive ones. (DRM has made more of a mess of things than it has combated piracy on the whole) There will always be piracy (though it can be curtailed within reason), if the product is good it will sell well in spite of piracy and if it's bad it won't sell well or get pirated as much. (price and convenience is also important, if the product is more affordable, fewer will be likely to resort to piracy, etc)

 

 

However, with the A8 being fairly strong on the cart media side of things, that should have made it among the least pirated systems (percentage wise) in the US since carts are not cheap or trivial to pirate at all. (and limited to professional piracy usually, not casual disk swapping)

So, if anything, developers could simply have pushed more for cart based games, the XEGS would have no impact on that given it was no different than any of Atari's computers. (came without disk or tape drives pack-in, and emphasized cartridge media -albeit the XE made it a bit less convenient to use carts, but that should have meant a tweak to the XE design, if anything, putting the slot back on top, or at least on the side like the 520 ST/1200)

 

 

In any case, it's been my impression that the XEGS was not designed for any such reason: it was to be a more attractive form factor entry level computer with attractive market positioning for the casual consumer (so to speak). Again, I think they could have done that with the 65XE (especially as it was down to $99 retail earlier in '87 -vs the $80 7800 and $50 2600 Jr) and all they had to do was come out with a gaming bundle and corresponding marketing. (though, again 1987 was pretty late and a bit wasteful to even bother pushing that with how far the A8 line had declined, even '86 would have been a bit iffy)

A computer add-on for the 7800 might have made more sense to fill the entry level computer role and tie into the casual consumer/entertainment market at the time: obviously the add-on from GCC was a bust, but that doesn't mean Atari corp couldn't push their own add-on module (let alone in a different form factor -ie more like the 7800 XM, but with less RAM -ie 32-48k mapped directly into the cart ROM space- and no YM2151 obviously) and including high-score compatibility wouldn't have been a bad idea either. (as long as that wouldn't have legal conflicts with GCC)

 

Hell, maybe they could have even marketed such a system as a general enhancement add-on for the 7800 with a higher-end version including a keyboard and added computer-oritented software. (plus an expansion bundle with just the keyboard+software for users initially buying the module alone) That could have been smart with the first RAM expanded and POKEY embedded games (Summer/Winter games using 32k SRAM chips -only using 16k of that though- and BallBlazer using a POKEY) so they could have left those as plain carts with support/requirement for the add-on and thus cut out the per-game overhead. (and as long as the add-on was priced and marketed carefully, consumers should have realized the advantages to shelling out more for every game) For that matter, it may have been wise to introduce a new 7800+ with the module's capabilities built-in, further cutting costs and allowing the module to be more sparingly produced. (they'd have to be careful to not push the 7800's price up significantly though, one thing might have been designing the expanded RAM's memory map to fully displace the onboard SRAM, so perhaps a single 32kx8 SRAM, though 4kSRAM and the rest DRAM -with embedded interface ASIC- may have been more cost effective overall -plus it would also mean that one of those enhanced games could have been pack-in with similar or less overhead than having a chip on-cart, or better yet have it built into the system itself like the XEGS or later Master Systems)

 

 

 

 

 

 

See above, the Jaguar may have been a market failure, but it wasn't a business failure. (in fact it was a critical success for Atari Corp at the time)

 

For failures the Falcon probably does apply and the Transputer Workstation, not sure if the TT030 turned a profit either. (though it didn't make the impact desired)

Maybe I'm not looking at it with enough detail, but it seems like Atari Corp sort of screwed up with the ST at the end of the 80s and early 90s with rather limited upgrades that were a bit late (the STe came out at a point where it was really behind both mid-range PCs and still behind the Amiga -the latter mattering more for Europe) and then pushing more high-end with the TT without a lower-end /mid-range counterpart with similar video enhancement. (no lower end 68020/030 models prior to the Falcon or 16 MHz 68k models until the MEGA STE in '91 -it seems something like an STe with 16 MHz 68k with optional FPU and added TT SHIFTER video would have been good alongside the TT in '90 though more so if the STe had video upgrades in the first place -not all the TT modes, but a 320x200 256 color mode at least and probably a 640x200 16-color mode if not expanded 640x400/480 modes -obviously for dedicated RGB/VGA monitors only)

Note that Drackisback corrected me a bit on that a few posts later. (and I mused on the issue a bit more -and hand't realized how the Lynx got cut either) The Jag may have helped in some areas, but it could be argued that investing in it hurt them as well, and more so than sticking with the computers and Lynx may have. (if not investing in all 3, though the main issue was that Atari Corp was a mess by '93 and they were lucky to do as well as they did with the Jaguar -makes you wonder how Jack could have managed things though -from '89 onward- let alone someone as capable as Katz heading the entrtainment division)

 

As an ST owner, I think the biggest screw up they committed was skipping the 68020. I remember Sig Hartmann commenting on how disappointed they [Atari Corp.] were in the chip's multitasking abilities circa 1986/87 and even saying as much not only in Atari Explorer but also at the user's group meetings he'd appear at. Even then, that was startling to me since Motorola finished the 68020 back in 1984. Regardless, their "disappointment" delayed them releasing a high-end line and the TT030 was shipped too late in the ballgame against the Amiga wares and the creeping cheap PC clone onslaught.

 

The STe came out way too late and it still did not match the Amiga's graphics abilities. Even as a staunch ST owner at the time, that was pretty embarrassing.

Yes, we discussed a lot of this in a couple recent threads, and not just the 020, but a lot of other things like no 12 or 16 MHz 68k models (same issue with the Amiga), not offering good lower-end upgraded standards, pushing more to match the Amiga than go ahead with their own evolutionary path or perhaps push more against the PC standards emerging, etc. (at very least the MEGA should have been 16 MHz -or had 16 MHz models- from the start, if not a fastRAM and FPU option, those were more important than a blitter in many respects -and simple hardware scroll registers in the SHIFTER would have been a qicker/cheaper addition that would still have been very significant overall -and could have been reasonably added on ALL newer model STs with the old SHIFTER totally discontinued -making support more likely) Upgrading to a YM2203 is a nice idea too, at least for higher-end models. (along with DMA sound, but off the shelf was more foolproof, maybe aiming with a simpler DAC array in a compact ASIC with direct write modes for software PCM playback of better quality than the YM/AY hack and without software scaling/mixing, and then later introduce a DMA circuit to add to it)

Edited February 5, 2011 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

The "computers only" perception came from the press. All during the ST's launch, the press kept on stressing that Atari Corp. was "now a computer company" and supposedly directly coming from Jack's mouth. The coverage didn't change until 1986 after the NES was considered a success and then you have magazines like Compute! stating that the Tramiels then decided to get back into video games. The Tramiels themselves didn't seem to do much to correct this "narrative" that the press created and us owners latched onto since it conveniently explained all the missteps that Atari Corp. took over the years.

If that's remotely representative of the general perception of the time, it demonstrates just how weak the marketing was for the A8 by Warner up to that point. Otherwise, Atari would have been known as a computer company for half a decade by that point in the mass media: ie a large, multidivision company with major stake in the Arcade and home video game markets as well as the home computer market and beyond.

 

There was no real "switch" to selling computers, but there was a decline in video game sales from the crash and a new and different push for the computer side. (and the Arcades were with a totally separate company)

 

The bigger thing is that the mass media doesn't seem to have had a decent understanding or realization that Atari Corp was a totally new company taking on parts (ie the consumer division and some staff) of the old Atari Inc (then a corporate shell) with the Arcade division breaking away entirely. Though there does seem to be some common reference to the "new" Atari (albeit that would also be vagule accurate for the defunct NATCO ), but rather vague in general.

 

The "Atari switched to making computers" thing seems to have been a major misconception of the time though, almost certainly bolstered in regions most severely impacted by the crash. (ie when availability of any non-computer video games pretty much dried up from '84-86 -ie not available at all in retail stores- or took even longer to come back in other cases -I think some regions in the US only saw Nintendo really start to come in in '87 -as with a lot of things, the east and west coast "tend setting" regions seemed to recover first by far, and California may have been the quickest to recover in general -maybe the least heavily impacted as well, though a lot of this seems to be limited to anecdotal evidence and I'm not sure there's comprehensive sales statistics with regional breakdowns to back things up)

 

 

 

 

If it's indeed completely true that Atari Inc hadn't been well-known for their computers before hand (in the mass market -as Apple, Commodore, Tandy, IBM, etc), that would definitely indicate a weak point in Warner/AInc's marketing and yet another facet of their management problems. (I know they were stepping up marketing in '83/84 to some degree -like the Alan Alda ads- but that was a bit late given all the opportunities they had for the 3 years prior to that -and Europe was another story entirely) The less than ideal decisions on A8 hardware/configuration/feature set/evolution was one thing, but not pushing marketing hard enough is another. (especially given hoe sensitive the US market tends to be for that) The tie-in was Sears was a good move, but if advertising was weak, that would have been a major limiting factor.

 

 

It also doesn't help that even in interviews today, Jack Tramiel seems rather dismissive of video games. That was evident in the Computer History Museum's session on the Commodore 64's anniversary from a few years back, not to mention Commodore's own advertising campaigns for the 64 back in the day.

He really wasn't that into the games though, he was into the business side of things not the entertainment or the end software, etc. Mike Katz or other management from the entertainment divisions would be the ones to ask, or others on the CBM side more related to games or hardware design.

 

He was interested in video games from a business perspective and the fact that they were an integral part of the company (especially depending how things with the ST went). That's exactly why it was a smart move to have separate management for the game/entertainment side of things, he had a pretty good idea of the electronics/computer market in general and how to do business in a way he'd found successful by years of experience, but marketing and management of specific divisions was a separate issue. (Lennard handled the technical/R&D management iirc and Katz was brought in for the games/entertainment management -and convinced Tramiel to create a dedicated entertainment division of Atari Corp -which was initially just Katz in a single office)

He was also most definitely interested in competitive business practices and continuing to push the Japanese out of the market.

 

 

It's a shame that Warner hadn't found that sort of management early on with Atari Inc: someone with experience in the general market field and good business sense vs what they got with Kassar. (Morgan also seems to have been quite capable, Busnell was not -from a business perspective) And, again, having smart 2ndary management/marketing (like Katz -and others for other respective divisions) would have rounded things out nicely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I'm a big fan of Apple stuff (typing this on an iMac), let's get back on topic.

 

I only type this from my MacBook because neither Atari nor the Amiga have a modern platform as a realistic alternative.

 

Perhaps had Jack Tramiel and Irving Gould put away their sharp weapons when the Atari/Commodore lawsuits were settled and agreed to combine the ST and Amiga into a single shared platform, we would have a viable third computer platform to this day [and I don't mean Linux]...

There's no reason they'd have to collaborate, but either could have pushed for licensed manufacturers to create a general mass market standard (apple could have done the same and did later with Mac clones -albeit pretty late on, and the Apple II was the one with the most potential for a universal standard). In either case you'd promote clones more that way too, but the ST's hardware was already somewhat clone friendly, and careful management (and making sure the primary companies had control over defining new additions to the standard) might have worked. In the US, PCs were already pretty solidified by the mid/late 80s and cutting through them in the long run would have been tough (though perhaps possible), but Europe definitely had room for a new standard. (and for a time, the ST seemed to possibly fit the bill)

 

One thing that kills the ST as a semi-open/licensed standard is the lack of expansion (without internal modification), and that's one issue Atari Inc had finally rectified with the XL models but jumped back to the closed box with the ST. (the A500 was limited in expansion as well, but the socketed cips helped at least -for low-end models, a single, general purpose expansion port for simple modules or full expansion slot systems would be a nice route to take while certain higher-end models could have built-in expansion slots as well as direct general-slot compatibility -maybe slimline desktops only using the single external slot as well to maintain a sleek basic form factor -aside from internal RAM expansion)

 

 

Plus, there was more than just the Microsoft end of PCs too, there was GEMDOS on PC as an option (somewhat niche, but the ST and Amiga were niche to some extent as well compared to mass market sales) and IBM's rather nice OS/2, especially later versions. (but like many things, it seems to have ended up crippled by corporate bureaucracy -as with IBM's competition in the PC hardware market-)

And, of course, if DRI had been more open to IBM's terms for the PC's use of CP/M, they could have taken MS's place on the market and things could have been quite different in other areas. (DRI would have had the clout to deflect Apple, more resources for R&D in general, the PC would have had a better OS from the start with more promising growth, etc, etc)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many of the Atari Games Corp. titles eventually were licensed for the Lynx. That was after animosity between the two companies [Atari Corp. and Atari Games Corp.] was settled during their many lawsuits against Nintendo and also at the behest of the company that was the largest [minority in the case of Tramiel's Atari Corp.] shareholder of them both, Time Warner. That still didn't settle all the feelings; I can remember Sam Tramiel complaining at the 1992 Atari Corp. shareholder's meeting about the waning popularity of Atari Games Corp. titles in the arcades [this was during the whole Street Fighter 2 craze] and of course later Time Warner had Atari Games Corp. settle for actual shares in Atari Corp. in order to forgive debts from the licensing deals...

The licensing opening up was, from what I understand, more pure business than any improved relationships.

Remember, the ST got quite a few licenses from Atari Games in the mid/late 80s. (including one of the best -if not the best- versions of Gauntlet out there at the time)

Albeit that was stuff published by 3rd parties; Atari Corp wouldn't license Atari Games stuff until later, let alone Tengen publish on Atari Corp platforms.

 

It's a shame that Warner forced them into such a negative position. The 2 being separate companies wasn't the issue, it was the way they were split up that screwed things over. (and also contributed to Atari Corp not retaining video game programming talent from Atari Inc -again, the Arcade is not where the home game development came from, all ports and original games were handled by console programmers separately -maybe crossover in some cases, but I don't think too much)

 

 

 

 

 

I'd imagine this was the reason why the Lynx came to the market at [approximately] $189.99 MSRP instead of $149.99 as originally intended.

 

The video game press was rather hostile to the Lynx. If I remember correctly, EGM really picked on it over the battery life issue. Even with the Feds on Nintendo's back, it still didn't help the Lynx out in terms of third party support from first tier companies.

 

It's such a damn shame because the Gameboy was such a POS in comparison. How many years was it until the GBA came out when the Gameboy line finally eclipsed the capabilities of the Lynx in 1989?

 

I'd like to see someone unseat Nintendo in hand helds. I've always felt the PSP was the spiritual heir to the Lynx but even with Sony's money, they still have been unable to beat Nintendo there.

The GB was a good design though, it did what it was intended for and fit the market well. Monochrome screens were not only cheaper, but had better contrast ratios than color screens of the time (and possibly better viewing angles) making them the only practical option for unlit screens. (the only practical route for the all critical battery life, let alone lesser issues like bulk and cost)

The price point was OK for a deluxe system, and even the size wasn't that huge of an issue if it just hadn't been for the battery hungry nature of the system.

 

The later GameGear suffered similar problems, again mainly due to battery life. (they even had strong 1st party software and great advertising)

 

I don't think you could even get decent 6-bit RGB color depth for 1989/1990 commodity reflective passive matrix LCDs, probably just barely in 1991 or '92 (the Lynx 2's screen seems almost playable -for some people at least- in the unlit sleep mode, so a reflective screen of equal quality might have pushed that into the range of acceptability). Atari dropped the Lynx ~1993 though, so it never got a chance to have a 3rd revision with consolidated/lower power chipset (moderately decreasing load) and a reflective unlit screen (dramatically reducing load), but Sega totally missed their chance at such, in spite of haning onto the GG until '96. (from '97 onward it was more or less dead in terms of active development, just a static product -and would have died in '97 if not for Majesco licensing it)

 

 

So, the options for Atari providing a more mass market version of the Lynx (in cost, battery life, and form factor -albeit the Lynx I was bulkier than it needed to be-) would have been to offer a low-end grayscale model, perhaps with higher quality screens than the GB (maybe smaller screen size than the color Lynx as well), or to attempt to push a reflective color screen instead, but I don't think that would have been acceptable. (even in grayscale, the Lynx should have been more impressive than the GB in several areas, more so if the screen had less blur and a fairly high contrast ratio. (at least better than the GB's 4 shades; screens pushing boarderline ~8 shades would be significant, with full 16 shade capable grayscale later on -prior to color reflective screens)

Developers would need to cater to both color and B/W models, but that shouldn't have been a huge issue. (and I'll bet the cheaper/smaller/much longer battery life Lynx model would have sold better by far)

 

In technical terms it would be more like the Neo Geo Pocket: significantly more advanced than the GB (albeit without the neat scaling stuff), but still grayscale. (except it would be introduced side by side with the GB rather than on the eve of the GBC -with all models switched over to color long before the GBC)

 

Same thing with the GG, except with the 1991 release it was almost to the point where reflective color LCDs could be acceptably usable. (so at very least a shorter turnaround to unlit color models)

 

 

Nintendo also didn't release the Game Boy pocket until 1996, so competition faced the same basic design and form factor from '89 to '95. (though that also means they faced the same awesome battery life up to '96 with the GBP only a fraction of the brick models -which is one reason why it was important for the brick models to stay in production; if they'd gone with 2 AAs rather than AAAs it wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic and easier for consumers in other respects -AAs being more commonly used in general -the brick models were also a hell of a lot louder than the GBP/color models)

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for American pride and Microsoft, just remember they tried to sell out the entire American computer industry by creating the MSX "standard" as the launchpad for the Japanese invasion of the home computer industry.

 

To me, Microsoft is "The Mule" from Asimov's Foundation series.

The MSX was not going to be the prime computer to push into the US market as such (NEC's 8-bit machines dominated the Japanese market and would have been the most likely to push into the US if not blocked by the C64 and PC/clones -and the 16-bit 9801 line as well in the higher-end more directly placed against PCs)

The MSX was more of a niche market in Japan as a casual computer, it lasted a long time of course, but NEC dominated by far.

 

Also, it wasn't a Japanese only standard, it was an attempt at an international standard with some US companies also joining in and contributing significantly to defining the standard. (namely Spectravideo who's earlier computers were prime contributors to the MSX hardware design standard)

 

 

It wasn't some sinister plot to invade the US market. (actually, had NEC pushed for the PC8801 -or previous PC-8000- to be released in the US early on, that could have been rather significant with the right marketing at least -especially with the 1979 PC-8000 being among the first home/business computers capable of running CP/M out of the box) The closest thing in the US prior to the PC would have been the TRS-80 model II, and that almost certainly would have been more expensive out of the box. (plus the PC-8000 offered true bitmap graphics modes and color, including a 160x100 8-color 3-bit RGB graphics mode)

NEC also had vertical integration and a huge market share (monopoly into the early 90s) in Japan with the PC88/98 series, so that would have been significant in the long run as well. (not until cheap DOS clones in the early 90s did their monopoly begin to crumble)

The machines weren't really great for games either, but all were better than contemporary IBM machines, and in some cases better than the ST. (at least in sound; graphics would depend on the CPU model used and the machine in question -none of the 8801 models would have matched the ST in CPU pushed graphical capabilities, but all models from '85 onward had later models with SVGA competitive graphics in some modes -but not enough CPU grunt to really push things hard; the PC9801 series was another story though)

[SpaceDice2010]

"The Japanese are coming and we must become the Japanese."

[toptenmaterial]

The delay was because GCC still owned the 7800 and neither Warner or Jack T wanted to pay them off. They both wanted the other one to spend the cash. Jack ended up caving first and paid for the 7800.

 

Mitch

just for some clarification, what does GCC stand for please? was it a separate entity than warner?

[jaybird3rd]

just for some clarification, what does GCC stand for please? was it a separate entity than warner?

General Computer Corporation. It's a Massachusetts company started by a group of MIT students. They started by designing "upgrade kits" for popular arcade games, such as Missile Command. Their upgrade for Pac-Man, Crazy Otto, evolved into Ms. Pac-Man. They developed quite a few 2600 and 5200/800 games for Atari during the 1983 time period, and they also designed the 7800 console (including the Maria chip).

 

The company still exists, although they're exclusively in the laser printer business now.

[The_Laird]

The delay was because GCC still owned the 7800 and neither Warner or Jack T wanted to pay them off. They both wanted the other one to spend the cash. Jack ended up caving first and paid for the 7800.

 

Mitch

just for some clarification, what does GCC stand for please? was it a separate entity than warner?

 

General Computer Corp who designed the 7800 and the Maria chip in particular. Seperate company to Warner.

[toptenmaterial]

Ok, but here is where I am confused: atari released the 7800 in 1984. Sometime between then and the 1986 rerelease, they lost the original rights? If they had released it in 84, wasn't it still theirs?

[jaybird3rd]

Ok, but here is where I am confused: atari released the 7800 in 1984. Sometime between then and the 1986 rerelease, they lost the original rights? If they had released it in 84, wasn't it still theirs?

Here's how I understand it: even though GCC was developing Atari product, their contract was with Warner, not with Atari. So when Atari was split off from Warner and sold to the Tramiels, the rights to the GCC product (particularly the launch titles they developed for the 7800) didn't come with it and had to be renegotiated.

 

It's really too bad that Atari's working relationship with GCC ended with the Tramiels. Considering how desperate they were later to find 7800 developers who weren't already tied to exclusive contracts with Nintendo or Sega, it would have been helpful to have GCC on board to develop new games after the relaunch; after all, they created the 7800 in the first place.

[Metal Ghost]

Ok, but here is where I am confused: atari released the 7800 in 1984. Sometime between then and the 1986 rerelease, they lost the original rights? If they had released it in 84, wasn't it still theirs?

Here's how I understand it: even though GCC was developing Atari product, their contract was with Warner, not with Atari. So when Atari was split off from Warner and sold to the Tramiels, the rights to the GCC product (particularly the launch titles they developed for the 7800) didn't come with it and had to be renegotiated.

 

It's really too bad that Atari's working relationship with GCC ended with the Tramiels. Considering how desperate they were later to find 7800 developers who weren't already tied to exclusive contracts with Nintendo or Sega, it would have been helpful to have GCC on board to develop new games after the relaunch; after all, they created the 7800 in the first place.

 

 

Seconded. They had a proven track record with game development, and in this case they new the console inside and out, literally! They really could have pushed the console in a showcase type of way to show other developers what was possible.

[DracIsBack]

Ok, but here is where I am confused: atari released the 7800 in 1984. Sometime between then and the 1986 rerelease, they lost the original rights? If they had released it in 84, wasn't it still theirs?

Here's how I understand it: even though GCC was developing Atari product, their contract was with Warner, not with Atari. So when Atari was split off from Warner and sold to the Tramiels, the rights to the GCC product (particularly the launch titles they developed for the 7800) didn't come with it and had to be renegotiated.

 

It's really too bad that Atari's working relationship with GCC ended with the Tramiels. Considering how desperate they were later to find 7800 developers who weren't already tied to exclusive contracts with Nintendo or Sega, it would have been helpful to have GCC on board to develop new games after the relaunch; after all, they created the 7800 in the first place.

 

 

They really could have pushed the console in a showcase type of way to show other developers what was possible.

 

Plus, had they completed work on GUMBY, we may have had a lot of 7800 games with better sound ...

[toptenmaterial]

So in essence Warner still held the ProSystem, Jack couldn't/wouldn't buy the rights and was haggling for it. He couldn't get the rights on the front with no money down. He couldn't afford it (or may have been stingy). Is this correct?

[krewat]

Considering how desperate they were later to find 7800 developers who weren't already tied to exclusive contracts with Nintendo or Sega, it would have been helpful to have GCC on board to develop new games after the relaunch;

 

It's interesting that "they were desperate to find 7800 developers". If I hadn't gone "off the grid" right after IM was released, I wonder how different things would have turned out. Computer Magic was, at this time, late 1988, early 1989, insolvent, or so I was led to believe. I can't imagine they wouldn't have JUMPED at the chance to develop more games, nor would they have ignored me, as I had the most knowledge about my own development system. I didn't leave them on bad terms, neither, except for the "pay me to fix IM or nothing happens" thing.

[Lynxpro]

So in essence Warner still held the ProSystem, Jack couldn't/wouldn't buy the rights and was haggling for it. He couldn't get the rights on the front with no money down. He couldn't afford it (or may have been stingy). Is this correct?

 

 

The Tramiels were rich off Commodore so I don't understand this "woe is me" attitude that some are posting about Jack having to put some of his money into getting Atari Corp. going. He certainly had more to spare than Jay Miner and the Amiga Inc. guys had to keep the financing going with their pet project.

 

 

 

 

Considering how desperate they were later to find 7800 developers who weren't already tied to exclusive contracts with Nintendo or Sega, it would have been helpful to have GCC on board to develop new games after the relaunch;

 

It's interesting that "they were desperate to find 7800 developers". If I hadn't gone "off the grid" right after IM was released, I wonder how different things would have turned out. Computer Magic was, at this time, late 1988, early 1989, insolvent, or so I was led to believe. I can't imagine they wouldn't have JUMPED at the chance to develop more games, nor would they have ignored me, as I had the most knowledge about my own development system. I didn't leave them on bad terms, neither, except for the "pay me to fix IM or nothing happens" thing.

 

 

I'm not seeing a lot of info commented on about Atari's Chicago development operations from 1989 on... [until 1992?]...

 

And if it's not personal, why did you go "off the grid"?

[toptenmaterial]

I must say that this period in Atari's history certainly is the mist discussed, and inspires the most debate.

[+wood_jl]

The Tramiels were rich off Commodore so I don't understand this "woe is me" attitude that some are posting about Jack having to put some of his money into getting Atari Corp. going. He certainly had more to spare than Jay Miner and the Amiga Inc. guys had to keep the financing going with their pet project.

 

It would be stupid to pour all of one's own finances into a business entity that is unproven. Obviously, he knew that, and is probably still rich because of it. Is it not standard practice for Corporate bosses to keep their personal finances separate from the company? What's "woe is me" about any of that?

[toptenmaterial]

as a sidenote: I do remember that the game gear had a rather novel add-on, the tv tuner! a friend of mine used one cladestinely at our boarding school, allowing us to secretly watch all kinds of boring public broadcasts... just a little trip down memory lane.

[Retro Rogue]

I must say that this period in Atari's history certainly is the mist discussed, and inspires the most debate.

 

Well it's a tumultuous period for the brand, a period shrouded in a lot of disarray - to the point that a lot of things were made up and stated as gospel for a lot of years in the absence of said clear information. Jack had been used as this caricature villain in Atari's history that everyone loved to hate and neatly point a finger at. The problem was that as Curt dug more in his archive, and as we began doing more research, the long told "truth" became much more complicated.

 

But it certainly isn't the the only period subject to this. Thanks to Ted Dabney coming out in to the public eye, a lot of material regarding the early years of Syzygy/Atari also was held up to a similar process.

[Metal Ghost]

as a sidenote: I do remember that the game gear had a rather novel add-on, the tv tuner! a friend of mine used one cladestinely at our boarding school, allowing us to secretly watch all kinds of boring public broadcasts... just a little trip down memory lane.

 

I believe the portable TG16 had one of those as well. I always wanted one back in the day. Funny thing is that these portable add-ons would have still worked until just a few years ago. Now they're just collector's items.

[krewat]

And if it's not personal, why did you go "off the grid"?

 

I meant I didn't have a phone in my own name, nor any other way to find me. If Computer Magic (or Atari) wanted to find me, it would have been damn near impossible. CM did, however, have my home phone number, I believe, but again, I refused to fix IM without being payed.

 

After IM was done, I took a break from programming, or job hunting, or anything else at that point. Irresponsible 22-year-old that I was, I took a job driving a truck for my sister's business. It was a blessedly unstressed life which I continued for 4 years until I went back to being a full-time consultant again. And was a step UP in pay from CM

[Metal Ghost]

And if it's not personal, why did you go "off the grid"?

 

I meant I didn't have a phone in my own name, nor any other way to find me. If Computer Magic (or Atari) wanted to find me, it would have been damn near impossible. CM did, however, have my home phone number, I believe, but again, I refused to fix IM without being payed.

 

After IM was done, I took a break from programming, or job hunting, or anything else at that point. Irresponsible 22-year-old that I was, I took a job driving a truck for my sister's business. It was a blessedly unstressed life which I continued for 4 years until I went back to being a full-time consultant again. And was a step UP in pay from CM

 

 

Aren't those years (i.e. early 20's) great?? In a way I'd never want to go back, and then in another way I'd do anything to go back!

[toptenmaterial]

as a sidenote: I do remember that the game gear had a rather novel add-on, the tv tuner! a friend of mine used one cladestinely at our boarding school, allowing us to secretly watch all kinds of boring public broadcasts... just a little trip down memory lane.

 

I believe the portable TG16 had one of those as well. I always wanted one back in the day. Funny thing is that these portable add-ons would have still worked until just a few years ago. Now they're just collector's items.

well it's only a matter of time before someone here creates a miniature converter add-on. that would be cool!

[kool kitty89]

Ok, but here is where I am confused: atari released the 7800 in 1984. Sometime between then and the 1986 rerelease, they lost the original rights? If they had released it in 84, wasn't it still theirs?

Here's how I understand it: even though GCC was developing Atari product, their contract was with Warner, not with Atari. So when Atari was split off from Warner and sold to the Tramiels, the rights to the GCC product (particularly the launch titles they developed for the 7800) didn't come with it and had to be renegotiated.

Yep, and that's one of the prime examples of the dual manage bureaucratic mess that Atari Inc/Warner was at the time.

 

It's really too bad that Atari's working relationship with GCC ended with the Tramiels. Considering how desperate they were later to find 7800 developers who weren't already tied to exclusive contracts with Nintendo or Sega, it would have been helpful to have GCC on board to develop new games after the relaunch; after all, they created the 7800 in the first place.

The crash probably did a lot to hurt that too, but the biggest issue was, once again, Warner's crap mangement of the split. (a normal transition with thing being distributed in an orderly manner, Morgan's plans continuing and/or adapting to the Tramiels', etc, etc -keeping the 7800 fully on scedule as well as a working relationsip with Atari Games, retaining some of the console programmers -possibly following Morgan's downsizing plans in general with much more selective layoffs, then the stuff with the Advanced Technologies division, the Amiga contract CGIA -could have possibly ended up with a faster and more favorable outcome on that one, let alone if Atari Inc had rejected the check in the first place and if CBM had no grounds to counter sue with Atari Corp using all in-house AInc ATD hardware)

 

The mess from the split almost certainly hurt the A8 line as well, and probably put them in an even worse position against CBM for the 1984 sales season. (after the unfortunate halt in late '83 that also caused them to miss the holiday sales season -especially with the 600 and 800XL in quantity)

 

 

So in essence Warner still held the ProSystem, Jack couldn't/wouldn't buy the rights and was haggling for it. He couldn't get the rights on the front with no money down. He couldn't afford it (or may have been stingy). Is this correct?

It was an issue over who was to pay GCC for the initial work: Tramiel had thought the purchase of Atari Consumer would mean the 7800 stuff coming over along with it, but Warner didn't do that. (again, one of the main problems from Warner's sloppy management of the sale/split/transition)

With a proper transition, Atari Corp could have been much healthier in general, much less or even no delays, better relationship with AGames and possibly continued relationship with GCC, much cleaner completion of the downsizing started by Morgan, and quite possibly use of the existing (and very powerful) 16-bit AInc computer projects (hardware and UNIX based OS plus in-house "Snowcap" GUI).

 

 

 

 

Considering how desperate they were later to find 7800 developers who weren't already tied to exclusive contracts with Nintendo or Sega, it would have been helpful to have GCC on board to develop new games after the relaunch;

 

It's interesting that "they were desperate to find 7800 developers". If I hadn't gone "off the grid" right after IM was released, I wonder how different things would have turned out. Computer Magic was, at this time, late 1988, early 1989, insolvent, or so I was led to believe. I can't imagine they wouldn't have JUMPED at the chance to develop more games, nor would they have ignored me, as I had the most knowledge about my own development system. I didn't leave them on bad terms, neither, except for the "pay me to fix IM or nothing happens" thing.

They were more desperate for 3rd party licensed developers of which they got none other than 1 or 2 games from Activision. in-house or 3rd party commissions were a separate issue as Nintendo had no authority there (officially -ie aside from even more illegal strongarm tactics like witholding ROMs from developers to worked with Atari, etc).

 

I'm not sure if they ever pushed for European developers, but that might have been some good out of the box thinking on Katz's part. (ie beyond his route of pushing for computer game licenses when Nintendo had exclusives for many of the hot arcade games -especially from Japan)

 

 

Though I still kind of like the idea of the A8 game machine somewhat like the XEGS but basically a 600XL inside. (that could have been pushed ahead during the time of indecision over the 7800)

"Doing the 5200 right" as Lennard later called the XEGS was an interesting idea, but one that would have made FAR more sense in '84/85.

 

 

 

 

The Tramiels were rich off Commodore so I don't understand this "woe is me" attitude that some are posting about Jack having to put some of his money into getting Atari Corp. going. He certainly had more to spare than Jay Miner and the Amiga Inc. guys had to keep the financing going with their pet project.

 

It would be stupid to pour all of one's own finances into a business entity that is unproven. Obviously, he knew that, and is probably still rich because of it. Is it not standard practice for Corporate bosses to keep their personal finances separate from the company? What's "woe is me" about any of that?

Hadn't he already poured a ton of private funding into forming TTL in the first place?

 

Throwing around even more (to the point of risking personal bankruptcy) would really defeat the purpose of acquiring Atari at all. (especially with the massive debt they took on as part of the agreement) He could have instead have invested that in buying up Amiga Inc outright when he had the chance (unattractive as he still had much to invest for distribution/production/etc) and putting the rest towards securing manufacturing agreements and a distribution network for TTL, or kept going with the RBP alone and avoid investment with Amiga. (perhaps push harder for fining a chip vendor to partner with more tightly or even merge with -Honeywell might have been interested in offloading Synertek after their heavy decline from the video game crash )

 

 

But, again, the real problems were from Warner, not Tramiel and the 7800 delay/dispute is only one small facet of that mess. (hell, with a proper transition under Tramiel from Warner, Atari Corp could have actually helped along Morgan's reorganization and finally definitively cut away the mass of red tape tied to being part of Warner's bureaucracy -and I can't imagine Morgan's efforts to mold Atari into a lean and clean company wouldn't have been attractive to Tramiel other than perhaps pushing a bit harder for the ATG computers rather than Morgan's stronger emphasis on the entertainment size -in either case it would be a balance and strong sales in one area would push more to favor that over others as time went on)

 

 

as a sidenote: I do remember that the game gear had a rather novel add-on, the tv tuner! a friend of mine used one cladestinely at our boarding school, allowing us to secretly watch all kinds of boring public broadcasts... just a little trip down memory lane.

 

I believe the portable TG16 had one of those as well. I always wanted one back in the day. Funny thing is that these portable add-ons would have still worked until just a few years ago. Now they're just collector's items.

The GG actually had composite+mono AV in (via 1/8" mini jack), so it could still be used as a monitor. (and for analog cable broadcast)

[+wood_jl]

He could have instead have invested that in buying up Amiga Inc outright when he had the chance (unattractive as he still had much to invest for distribution/production/etc) and putting the rest towards securing manufacturing agreements and a distribution network for TTL, or kept going with the RBP alone and avoid investment with Amiga.

 

I don't think he ever HAD a chance to buy up Amiga. The deal was with Warner/Atari. (1) When Amiga heard Warner was dumping Atari, this would have scared them off, enough to make them look for a more financially-secure suitor. (2) When they heard it was Tramiel at Atari, they figured (by reputation) he'd take the chips and can the engineers, not wanting to pay them. Put those together, and I don't think he had the chance. I'm sure if he DID have the chance, he WOULD HAVE purchased them; he'd have the superior technology and Commodore wouldn't have anything good for the 16-bit generation.

[Retro Rogue]

He could have instead have invested that in buying up Amiga Inc outright when he had the chance (unattractive as he still had much to invest for distribution/production/etc) and putting the rest towards securing manufacturing agreements and a distribution network for TTL, or kept going with the RBP alone and avoid investment with Amiga.

 

I don't think he ever HAD a chance to buy up Amiga. The deal was with Warner/Atari.

 

That's correct, he had nothing to do with the Amiga deal or the investment in Amiga.

 

(1) When Amiga heard Warner was dumping Atari, this would have scared them off, enough to make them look for a more financially-secure suitor.

 

They started negotiations with Commodore in early to mid June, long before a buyout was announced. David Morse had always intended to sell Amiga, and had made that apparent from the beginning of the investment relationship with Atari. In fact, Atari was one of several investors in the company.

 

(2) When they heard it was Tramiel at Atari, they figured (by reputation) he'd take the chips and can the engineers, not wanting to pay them. Put those together, and I don't think he had the chance. I'm sure if he DID have the chance, he WOULD HAVE purchased them; he'd have the superior technology and Commodore wouldn't have anything good for the 16-bit generation.

 

The deal with Commodore was already in play before Jack bought Consumer, and in fact they returned the money before Jack even started negotiating. Jack had no idea about Atari Inc.'s investment in Amiga, and had zero plans to use the Amiga. In fact he had visited them as TTL that May while looking at several different companies to buy technology from and nixed the idea when they couldn't come to an agreement (he was interested in the tech and not the staff that came with it).