The reason the Amiga failed.

[English Invader]

I don't recall any "failure" of the Amiga over here in the Uk, it was everywhere, it sold well, software and hardware availability was extremely mainstream and Commodre UK pushed the promotion of the machine at every possibility.

 

I think the word "failure" here refers to the Amiga's inability to compete for a long term position in the computer market i.e. why are we able to buy Apple machines now and not Amiga ones? There is no doubt that the Amiga was a short term commercial success in Europe, but the question is why were they unable to build on that?

[skosh]

Lack of penetration into the business market where a large portion of the money was at the time made it hard for 68k systems to gain acceptance. PCs were more expensive and delivered less however prevailed. The old adage of "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM(PCs)" was the force at the time. The same holds true for companies now who rely on Windows.... they won't budge. It really was not an issue of capabilities but loyalty to those who had applications.

[Osgeld]

applications applications applications

 

commodore made their money being a toy computer you bought at K mart, by the time the 16 bit machines dragged in they cost as much or more than a clone PC, why waste your time hoping that your wordperfect or lotus "work alike" actually worked?

 

then there was marketing... in the states, it was non existent, totally reliant on the computer sales guy who has 2 dozen other cheaper machines to sell you. There's even a computer chronicicles episode I like to point out showcasing the Amiga with the Amiga guys, Stuart (the host) asks, what does the graphics and sound get be outside of games?

 

The reply was "oh multimedia and blah blah blah, check out this game" FAIL, end, game over man, your asking a premium for yet another toy game computer with limited software, and jack squat zero backwards compatibility with very expensive software / hardware already owned.

 

THAT is one of the main reasons behind the "Silicon Valley shakedown" just earlier that year, and its the main selling point of both Commie and Atari

[am1933]

 

I think the word "failure" here refers to the Amiga's inability to compete for a long term position in the computer market i.e. why are we able to buy Apple machines now and not Amiga ones? There is no doubt that the Amiga was a short term commercial success in Europe, but the question is why were they unable to build on that?

In that case machines like the c64 would also be classed as a failure as it was pretty much dead and buried by 1991. Commodore were subject to some serious mis-management in the US which may well have given a very different impression of things in US in comparison to the UK where the Amiga was still doing decent business up until 1994, the Amiga was a huge success here proven by the fact that it Commodore UK was still a prfitable concern whilst the parent company was disintegrating.

[am1933]

applications applications applications

 

commodore made their money being a toy computer you bought at K mart, by the time the 16 bit machines dragged in they cost as much or more than a clone PC, why waste your time hoping that your wordperfect or lotus "work alike" actually worked?

 

then there was marketing... in the states, it was non existent, totally reliant on the computer sales guy who has 2 dozen other cheaper machines to sell you. There's even a computer chronicicles episode I like to point out showcasing the Amiga with the Amiga guys, Stuart (the host) asks, what does the graphics and sound get be outside of games?

 

The reply was "oh multimedia and blah blah blah, check out this game" FAIL, end, game over man, your asking a premium for yet another toy game computer with limited software, and jack squat zero backwards compatibility with very expensive software / hardware already owned.

 

THAT is one of the main reasons behind the "Silicon Valley shakedown" just earlier that year, and its the main selling point of both Commie and Atari

These comments are completely foriegn to me, I have to assume that things in the US were vastly different. Over here we had an absoloute mass of software-both serious and games. As far as software availability, Amiga software was available off the shelf at practically all electrical retailers, all music/video retailer chains and most computer retailers. With regards to price, when the Amiga a500 gained a foothold over here it would have still cost you three to four times as much for a PC with anything approaching the spec of the Amiga.

[English Invader]

In that case machines like the c64 would also be classed as a failure as it was pretty much dead and buried by 1991.

 

The difference is that the Amiga had the potential to be more. There was never any chance of the C64 gaining a stronghold in the professional/business markets and it more than fulfilled its potential as an 8-bit games machine.

[+save2600]

As hinted above, the Amiga did not "fail" per se. Its life was ended abruptly, but somewhat temporarily as it turned out, by the dickhead(s) that "ran" the company was all.

 

Amiga in general was/is so successful, that there are and have been, new compatible systems and OS's. Have for years.

 

You want a lower priced modern Amiga? Sam and Pegasos might be for you. Want the latest and greatest system? The Amiga X1000 is an option. Want to turn an x86 PC into an Amiga? Look into AROS. Have an older PPC Mac laying around? Can always give MorphOS a try. And then there's the appropriately named Amiga Forever package.

 

Lots of modern options and solutions currently being developed and supported. Not too shabby for a system that "failed" decades ago.

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

These comments are completely foriegn to me, I have to assume that things in the US were vastly different. Over here we had an absoloute mass of software-both serious and games. As far as software availability, Amiga software was available off the shelf at practically all electrical retailers, all music/video retailer chains and most computer retailers. With regards to price, when the Amiga a500 gained a foothold over here it would have still cost you three to four times as much for a PC with anything approaching the spec of the Amiga.

 

And that is exactly it, the Amiga presence, availability and adoption was a mere shell of what you guys enjoyed and even worse in Canada, I was always aware of this form all the import magazines I bought back in those days, I drooled over the articles and wished we had even half of the popularity the Amiga enjoyed in the UK.

[KiwiArcader]

I think "some' people just create a thread like this to make themselves feel better that even a superior computer to their old Atari's also failed to last the distance even though the distance that the Atari lasted was shorter by some margin than the Amiga.

 

Both the Atari and Amiga failed in the market place due to their respective companies not keeping up with the changing face of competition (from both console and PC markets) and failing to keep the computers relevant with those changes. Add to that the massive amount of piracy occurring on disk based systems and it was little wonder game publishers saw the potential for greater return on revenue from the cart based consoles of the time on one hand and the potential for greater revenue from mainstream business computers on the other.

 

Personally I think the nail in the coffin for them was Compaq and others creating the ISA architecture thus making IBM-PC clones cheaper through not having to pay IBM royalties for their Micro-Channel architecture. It opened up the IBM market and it has never looked back.

I owned an Amiga 2000 with upgraded RAM and onboard HDD's and as soon as I saw Chuck Yeager's Air Combat on my brothers 386-33 running VGA/sound blaster and using an analog joystick the Amiga went out the door. Flight sims were my thing and the Amiga couldn't hold a candle to the PC at the time and that was it for me.

[+wood_jl]

The Amiga lasted longer than the Atari so what does that tell you of Atari?

 

Actually, it doesn't tell you jack fucking shit of Atari. They're both gone, but they both filled significant niches in the history of Home Computing. Commodore croaked before Atari, btw, for whatever irrelevant (to this discussion) reason(s).

[+wood_jl]

What is failed? The Amiga (and the Atari) were SHORT-TERM SUCCESSES. Short-term success? Long-term failure? I think the Amiga was a short-term success. Hi-tech is a mercurial endeavor. History is rife with short-term successes that significantly-influenced later generations. That's what the Amiga did. That's what Atari did, too. Look how long Atari (Atari "proper") has been dead, yet we're ALL HERE paying homage to the legacy of a relatively short-lived entity. Atari and Amiga were relatively short-lived (considering they've been making Playstations for 20 years, now). But they both inspired legacies that live decades-beyond the life of the original companies. That's what really matters, or you'd be on NintendoAge instead of AtariAge right now.

[MarkO]

<< SNIP >>

 

Personally I think the nail in the coffin for them was Compaq and others creating the ISA architecture thus making IBM-PC clones cheaper through not having to pay IBM royalties for their Micro-Channel architecture. It opened up the IBM market and it has never looked back.

I owned an Amiga 2000 with upgraded RAM and onboard HDD's and as soon as I saw Chuck Yeager's Air Combat on my brothers 386-33 running VGA/sound blaster and using an analog joystick the Amiga went out the door. Flight sims were my thing and the Amiga couldn't hold a candle to the PC at the time and that was it for me.

Your thinking of Compaq and the Gang of Nine developing EISA..

 

MarkO

[KiwiArcader]

What is failed? The Amiga (and the Atari) were SHORT-TERM SUCCESSES. Short-term success? Long-term failure? I think the Amiga was a short-term success. Hi-tech is a mercurial endeavor. History is rife with short-term successes that significantly-influenced later generations. That's what the Amiga did. That's what Atari did, too. Look how long Atari (Atari "proper") has been dead, yet we're ALL HERE paying homage to the legacy of a relatively short-lived entity. Atari and Amiga were relatively short-lived (considering they've been making Playstations for 20 years, now). But they both inspired legacies that live decades-beyond the life of the original companies. That's what really matters, or you'd be on NintendoAge instead of AtariAge right now.

 

Well, the way the Wii-U is going who knows if Nintendo won't be exiting the hardware market at some point either? The handheld gaming world is way different with game capable tablets/phones now compared to when the Gameboy & NDS arrived on the scene.

 

I purchased Cloanto's Amiga Forever package and pay for every update so for me the Amiga still lives. I still get a kick out of powering up Deuteros, Sidewinder every now and again along with Garrison just to listen to the lovely intro music. I also do the same with Atari800Win just to play Jet Boot Jack, Computer War and listen to Ball Blazer. Can't say when I last thought about the ST? I don't miss it all that much. The 800XL is how I prefer to remember Atari :-)

[Keatah]

My very first experience with pen/mouse graphics was the Apple Graphics Tablet and the Koala Pad with MicroIllustrator on the Apple II. And while I did some (and still have them) nice pieces with it, it was all still very toy-like. I also dabbled with the Gibson LightPen System too, but it was limited because nothing was really written for it.

 

Through the magic of emulation I enjoy the Amiga from time to time these days. My next "outing" will be with PhotonPaint, as it was one of the first professional programs I used when learning about mouse-based paint programs; such was the level of improvement and rich feature set.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Keatah

[Chilly Willy]

Heh - I had the Koala Pad and MicroIllustator for the Atari. Still have the Koala Pad...

[cimerians]

Nobody cared about Commodore and Atari by that time.

 

I as many others I knew who didn't have a lot of money back then had a Commodore 64 (or Atari computer) up until 1990 or so. At which point we started looking for a PC. By 92' we all had PC's running Microsoft's DOS with their crappy little Windows program on top of it.

 

I'm not bashing the Amiga, but come on now...everyone bolted to PC.....where every game was coming out for by that time and what every business was switching to. Throw in the switch to VGA and later cheap sound boards and the start of dominance was unavoidable.

[+wood_jl]

Yeah, by the time VGA/SVGA and SoundBlaster cards became dominant, the Amiga was outclassed. So was everything else.

 

But that took a while. Amiga graphics still look pretty sharp to me, and Amiga sound still sounds *really* good (compared to the ST, competitor of the time). I don't see that the Amiga was a failure, as this thread suggests. The Amiga sure made everybody else pick up their game.

[Mr SQL]

I think "some' people just create a thread like this to make themselves feel better that even a superior computer to their old Atari's also failed to last the distance even though the distance that the Atari lasted was shorter by some margin than the Amiga.

 

Both the Atari and Amiga failed in the market place due to their respective companies not keeping up with the changing face of competition (from both console and PC markets) and failing to keep the computers relevant with those changes. Add to that the massive amount of piracy occurring on disk based systems and it was little wonder game publishers saw the potential for greater return on revenue from the cart based consoles of the time on one hand and the potential for greater revenue from mainstream business computers on the other.

 

Personally I think the nail in the coffin for them was Compaq and others creating the ISA architecture thus making IBM-PC clones cheaper through not having to pay IBM royalties for their Micro-Channel architecture. It opened up the IBM market and it has never looked back.

I owned an Amiga 2000 with upgraded RAM and onboard HDD's and as soon as I saw Chuck Yeager's Air Combat on my brothers 386-33 running VGA/sound blaster and using an analog joystick the Amiga went out the door. Flight sims were my thing and the Amiga couldn't hold a candle to the PC at the time and that was it for me.

 

Excellent point about MicroChannel architecture KiwiArcader! It didn't matter that it was a powerful technology far ahead of it's time - better than ISA, EISA, and even PCI as you could double up the send and recieve lines for 64-bit throughput (burst mode).

 

It took some time for the clones to catch up to the Amiga though, we had never seen anything like the aptly named Video Toaster - the Penn and Teller presentation on the technology was phenomenal!

[atarian63]

The Amiga lasted longer than the Atari so what does that tell you of Atari?

Um no

[roland p]

PC Clones. Same reason everything else failed. Next.

Apple was not a PC Clone and did not fail. It probably has to do with productivity software.

 

I am wondering what if: The amiga had been branded as a games console. Or what if the amiga 1200/4000 was the same quantum leap as the 500/1000/2000. (The Atari Falcon was imho, but atari decided to focus on gaming, ironically)

 

And let's face it, the blue and white default colors of the CLI were campy. Whereas the professional looking monochrome text of a real computer.

Yeah, I remember other PC owners did not care for colors/sound until the buzzword 'Multimedia PC' was invented. Then it was suddenly cool to have graphics and sound Edited November 13, 2014 by roland p

[BSA Starfire]

The reason the Amiga failed was because it was cheap and manufactured by a toy company. For all the might and mighty graphics & sound (of the day) it sported, businesses wanted nothing to do with cheap plastic machines that had limited expansion.

 

And let's face it, the blue and white default colors of the CLI were campy. Whereas the professional looking monochrome text of a real computer.

 

It had slots you say? That didn't matter, the custom chips weren't upgradeable because they were too entrenched in the backbone. While you could put a faster CPU in there, the custom chips were the real limiting factor. In fact making the whole system go faster would require redesign of those 3 parts - so intimate were they to memory and i/o.

 

It might have been better to have taken "Amiga technology" and package it into a multi-media board for the PC. And make it cheap. Had that passed through we might not have needed Creative Labs or 3Dfx/Nvidia or all those sound and videoboard add-ins we so painstakingly upgraded throughout the years.

 

Instead we'd have a board that would be known as the AM³. Amiga Multi-Media-Module. This was discussed but rejected due to the typical infighting and inability to settle on a standard, which was the downfall of many 80's companies.

 

 

You sir are a knob of monumental size and scope. At what point did the Amiga fail? It was king of the hill from 1987 till the mid 90's. Really I despair of rubbish like this.

tosser.

[Bill Loguidice]

PC Clones. Same reason everything else failed. Next.

 

This. Even with all the ineptitude of the advertising, the too modest technological leap from ECS to AGA, lack of standardization on hard drives, etc., there's no real scenario where, like all but one of its competitors, it could have succeeded against the ubiquity, low cost, and rapid technological advancement of PC clones. The Amiga's niche was video (too early to catch the YouTube phenomena), the ST's niche was music production (way too niche), and the Mac's was desktop publishing. Naturally, the latter was sustainable, along with solid margins and the impression of a more premium brand (and even then, Apple was a Microsoft-money-infusion-away from oblivion at one point).

 

Interestingly, we have a similar parallel in smartphones (at least for the forseeable future), with Android taking the place of PC clones, and Apple once again carving out a highly profitable niche. To a lesser degree, we see the same thing on the console side, with only three of the same major players remaining for the past three generations. These types of industries love nothing more than to shake out and standardize on a very small selection of platforms. In many ways that's good (more support with fewer options), but obviously in some ways that's bad (fewer viable choices), etc.

[Bill Loguidice]

I have barely ever seen a Tandy CoCo. Well, I did own one for a short period of time, but I found it to be utter trash so I only powered it on twice before letting it go.

 

Based on statistics, I can safely say that the CoCo line was a total failure, and when I consider how terrible the keyboard was on my unit, I can fully see why. Also none of my friends ever had a CoCo, so no possibility to share programs with them, which even more adds to the failure counter.

 

It was mostly a North American success. While it never sold anywhere near the competition (probably in the range of 1 million - 3 million units max), the fact that the platform survived on the market (mass market sales) for nearly a full decade when most of its competition was lucky to last a year or two says a lot.

 

Again, this is all really irrelevant. It's clear that there would have had to have been monumentally different market forces for anything but PC clones to dominate. In that regard, the usual suspects were all successes (and the obvious failures, failures), and, to go back to the original topic, the Amiga platform certainly qualifies as one of the great successes, again lasting roughly a decade on the market.

[JamesD]

Amiga died for several reasons but the Amiga drew an audience because it could do what other computers couldn't.
Once it fell behind in capabilities it was done for.

Doom popularized 3D games and Amiga's bitplane graphics weren't suitable for it.
AGA was too little, too late and too slow.
The architecture and OS were too tightly coupled to make upgrades easy.
Motorola was falling behind in the processor wars but multi-processing and DSP projects that would have kept the Amiga speed competitive had been cancelled.
Businesses refused to buy anything but a PC.

Etc...

Edited November 13, 2014 by JamesD

[+wongojack]

 

(and even then, Apple was a Microsoft-money-infusion-away from oblivion at one point).

 

 

The companies still share IP agreements to this day because of this. Apple would have died without Microsoft. They "failed" just like the TS claims Amiga did except their close friend (MS) chose to keep them alive.