The UK home computer market (circa 1983)

[carmel_andrews]

Linky only

 

 

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/03/charted_1983_home_computer_sales_in_uk/

 

 

Interesting that the Speccy pipped the c64 to top spot on some occasions and also the BBC series did as well

 

Atari didn't do too badly 7th spot with the 400

 

I wonder if similar data is available for the later years

[Tickled_Pink]

That's an interesting graph with a few surprises. Didn't realise that:

 

a) The Dragon32 was once the UK's second best selling system. I've only ever owned one - and that was faulty when I was given it.

b) The ZX81 was still selling strong a year after the launch of the Speccy.

c) The BBC Micro, if only for a short time, managed to leapfrog some much cheaper systems for the No. 1 spot.

d) The 600XL ended up selling the same amount as the 400, which makes you wonder about the wisdom of spending all that money developing a new machine when it sells in around the same quantities as the more expensive machine it replaced.

e) That the 800 was in decline, which makes you wonder why they didn't spend more money to release the cheaper 800XL sooner.

f) The Apple II was never really that popular in the UK.

 

Okay - maybe the last one wasn't really a surprise. Having said that, in 1985/86 whilst at college I had one of my early tastes of workplace computing ... on an Apple IIe. The college was using an old school as an IT centre and the machines they had were the IIe.

[oracle_jedi]

That's a really fun graph, thanks for sharing that.

 

a) The Dragon32 was once the UK's second best selling system. I've only ever owned one - and that was faulty when I was given it.

 

I remember a lot of fan fare over the Dragon 32 when it was launched, and I knew quite a few kids who had them. The graphics always looked blocky to me and the colours were garish. And that from a kid who had a VIC-20 at the time.

 

b) The ZX81 was still selling strong a year after the launch of the Speccy.

 

The ZX81 was selling for like 60 pounds and you could get it at W.H. Smiths, whereas for the longest time the Spectrum was mail order and the delays were legendary. Magazines of the era were full of letters from irate readers complaining about their Spectrum orders taking months and months.

 

c) The BBC Micro, if only for a short time, managed to leapfrog some much cheaper systems for the No. 1 spot.

 

I was wondering about that too, and I wondered if the launch price of 200 pounds for the Model A might have caused temporary inflated demand, before Acorn raised the price to 300 - much to the loud annoyance of Sinclair Research. Also the Government was handing out money to schools to buy computers and a clear preference was given to the BBC micro (how long would a Spectrum have lasted in a classroom!?)

 

But this graph is from 1983 and something is fishy here - where is the Electron? The Electron wikipedia page claims the Electron was at one time the number 3 best selling machine, and from my memory that sounds about right. The Electron was launched mid 1983 as I recall, and was available in sufficient volume by December 83 to at least out sell the MZ80A, the Colour Genie or the Grundy Newbrain.

 

Maybe I am reading this graph wrong, but it looks like the Electron is showed briefly outselling the Colour Genie and the Epson HX20 - stealing the position of the Nascom 3 - before vanishing again. The Nascom 3? Has anyone ever seen one of those in the flesh?

 

d) The 600XL ended up selling the same amount as the 400, which makes you wonder about the wisdom of spending all that money developing a new machine when it sells in around the same quantities as the more expensive machine it replaced.

 

I am sure Atari UK would have liked the 600XL to take market share away from its competitors, but the wisdom of the new launch was more than just that. The price of the 400 had largely been dictated by Sinclair and Commodore, forcing the price of the 400 down from its 1981 level of about 300 pounds to by mid 1983 a level of about 150. The problem for Atari was margin - the 400 was just too expensive to manufacture and the 600XL allowed them to add a real keyboard and more conventional looking appearance and at the same time add back in a healthy margin.

 

e) That the 800 was in decline, which makes you wonder why they didn't spend more money to release the cheaper 800XL sooner.

 

They might have been clearing inventory. The famous "Now with 48K RAM" retail box stickers make me wonder if Atari U.S. had a huge stock pile of parts they wanted to assemble and ship before they introduced the 800XL. Again from memory I think Atari continued manufacture of the 400 and 800 systems for some time after the 1200XL came out in the U.S. when the 800 no longer made any sense in the market place.

 

f) The Apple II was never really that popular in the UK.

 

My first experience with a computer was an Apple II in December 1981. My best friend's Dad worked at British Leyland in Coventry and he brought one back from the office. I don't remember which model it was. Wonder if that machine ever helped design the Maestro or the Montego....

 

Didn't see another Apple computer until a 128K Macintosh about 1986.

Edited January 9, 2013 by oracle_jedi

[Tickled_Pink]

But this graph is from 1983 and something is fishy here - where is the Electron? The Electron wikipedia page claims the Electron was at one time the number 3 best selling machine, and from my memory that sounds about right. The Electron was launched mid 1983 as I recall, and was available in sufficient volume by December 83 to at least out sell the MZ80A, the Colour Genie or the Grundy Newbrain.

 

I think the Electron did take some time to catch on. Usually when a new machine comes out there's a flurry of buying activity. I don't think that was the case with the Electron. I personally only knew one person with an Electron and he was a PC programmer. This was around 1986. I do doubt that it was the third highest selling computer in the UK, unless it was the result of price cutting later in its life. It's always been considered a flop.

 

Maybe I am reading this graph wrong, but it looks like the Electron is showed briefly outselling the Colour Genie and the Epson HX20 - stealing the position of the Nascom 3 - before vanishing again. The Nascom 3? Has anyone ever seen one of those in the flesh?

Nope. Not here. Not ever.

 

I am sure Atari UK would have liked the 600XL to take market share away from its competitors, but the wisdom of the new launch was more than just that. The price of the 400 had largely been dictated by Sinclair and Commodore, forcing the price of the 400 down from its 1981 level of about 300 pounds to by mid 1983 a level of about 150. The problem for Atari was margin - the 400 was just too expensive to manufacture and the 600XL allowed them to add a real keyboard and more conventional looking appearance and at the same time add back in a healthy margin.

 

I was thinking the other way when I wrote about that. Typically the more expensive a product is, the bigger the margin. At least when it comes to retail. I think from a manufacturer's viewpoint, where margin is closer to a fixed sum rather than a percentage, making the machine cheaper was imperative in giving them a bigger margin and making the Atari more competitive.

 

They might have been clearing inventory. The famous "Now with 48K RAM" retail box stickers make me wonder if Atari U.S. had a huge stock pile of parts they wanted to assemble and ship before they introduced the 800XL. Again from memory I think Atari continued manufacture of the 400 and 800 systems for some time after the 1200XL came out in the U.S. when the 800 no longer made any sense in the market place.

Well, if you see what the likes of Best and B&C have had in their inventories since they cleared out the warehouses, they still had tonnes of Atari 400 and 800 parts lying around. Best seem to have had enough parts to build a pile of old-style Ataris, as well as the XL series.

[akator]

The sales information is interesting... once you get past the stupidity of that chart and can figure things out. Charts are supposed to make comparative information easier to visualize. That chart fails on every level. It would have been easier to comprehend the sales figures if the information was left in a tabular format with numbers