Why C128 did stay longer than 1989?

[Serguei2]

Why did Commodore decide to gave up on c128 in 1989 but still support c64 until 1994?

[krslam]

Profits. The C128 cost about the same to manufacture as an Amiga 500 but sold for much less, thus generating less profit. The 64C by that time was cheap enough to make that even at its lower selling price it made more money than the 128.

 

Commodore was also simplifying its product line due to limited resources. If you wanted an 8bit games machine, you could buy a 64, if you wanted 16 bits and better productivity, you bought an Amiga or PC-clone. Not much software of any type was being produced for the 128.

 

Having said all that, I love my 128 and consider it the best 8bit machine ever made.

[Serguei2]

Ok.

 

C128 has 3 computers in one: C64/C128/CPM.

 

That's why C128 has the same price than a 16bit computer Amiga.

 

Note: I just noted I made mistake in the title.

 

It should read 'Why C128 didn't stay longer than 1989'?

[RobertB]

7 hours ago, Serguei2 said:

...but still support c64 until 1994?

Production of the Commodore 64 stopped in 1992.

 

           Truly,

           Robert Bernardo

           Fresno Commodore User Group - http://www.dickestel.com/fcug.htm

           Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network - http://www.portcommodore.com/sccan

[carlsson]

Three computers in one is an exaggeration. The C128 has two different CPUs: a 8502 (6510 compatible) and a Z80, which is used when the computer is started in C128 mode. It allows it to boot a CP/M floppy and thus run this operating system before switching over to the C128 BASIC mode. Furthermore it has two different graphics systems, the VDC for 80 column output and the VIC-II for 40 column, and two sets of ROMs to run in either C128 or C64 mode.

 

Here is a breakdown of manufacturing costs per October 21, 1985. The C64 cost $65-68 to manufacture, the C128 cost $136-147.

https://archive.org/details/commodorecostanalysis19851021/mode/2up

 

By January 1, 1986 the manufacturing costs had dropped so a C64 cost $62-63 to manufacture, the C128 cost $127-128 (the C128D model $300). The Amiga 1000 by then cost $396.

https://archive.org/details/costcomparisons19860205

 

I haven't seen any documents from 1987 or onwards, perhaps the people who compiled material had left Commodore by then, but one should remember that cost savings is what enabled Commodore to release the Amiga 500 in 1987.

[Serguei2]

2 hours ago, carlsson said:

Three computers in one is an exaggeration. The C128 has two different CPUs: a 8502 (6510 compatible) and a Z80, which is used when the computer is started in C128 mode. It allows it to boot a CP/M floppy and thus run this operating system before switching over to the C128 BASIC mode. Furthermore it has two different graphics systems, the VDC for 80 column output and the VIC-II for 40 column, and two sets of ROMs to run in either C128 or C64 mode.

 

Here is a breakdown of manufacturing costs per October 21, 1985. The C64 cost $65-68 to manufacture, the C128 cost $136-147.

https://archive.org/details/commodorecostanalysis19851021/mode/2up

 

By January 1, 1986 the manufacturing costs had dropped so a C64 cost $62-63 to manufacture, the C128 cost $127-128 (the C128D model $300). The Amiga 1000 by then cost $396.

https://archive.org/details/costcomparisons19860205

 

I haven't seen any documents from 1987 or onwards, perhaps the people who compiled material had left Commodore by then, but one should remember that cost savings is what enabled Commodore to release the Amiga 500 in 1987.

Amiga was released in 1987, interesting.

 

A C64 in a chip would help for C128 to stay afloat.

 

A C128 in 1985 cost $127-128 but the disk drive was not included.

 

Amiga 1000 cost $400 but it has a disk drive.

 

How much for a 1571 disk drive in 1985?

 

[KG7PFS]

I don'r really know, but I'd like to blame it all on The Final Cartridge III. To this day there isn't a C128 version, and that irritates me.

[carlsson]

Well, the original Amiga 1000 was launched in July 1985, intended for artistic people and at a price tag closer to a professional computer than one for the gamers. At the CES Las Vegas in January 1987, the two new models, the cost reduced Amiga 500 and the fully professional Amiga 2000 were launched, to reach the market later that year.

 

The 1571 had manufacturing costs of $113-114 in October 1985, compared to $84 for a 1541. By January 1986, the 1571 cost $117 to manufacture, so actually a price increase by a few dollars in a quarter of a year. If you take $128 for the C128 + $117 for the 1571 you get $245, compared to $300 for the C128D so somehow there's about $55 of glue logic + the separate keyboard in the later model which I don't fully understand.

 

Sure you can compare the C128D which cost $300 to manufacture with the Amiga 1000 which cost $400 to manufacture in January 1986, a full year before the cost reduced Amiga 500. You can also see that the manufacturing costs of the C64 had dropped by 1/3 in two years time while the C128D actually had become almost $50 more expensive to manufacture between January 1985 and January 1986. While we yet don't have numbers for 1987-89, much suggests that like @krslam mentioned, over time the Amiga 500 and C128D probably cost as much to manufacture, and the market for 8-bit computers dwindling down to low end gaming (cmp. with the C64GS experiment).

 

 

[motrucker]

You also need to take into account the fact that Commodore had two crooks who had gained control of the company. In the Ali/Gould era, very little made sense in the workings of Commodore International.

 

[carlsson]

Also true. Just like someone commented the other day when a document to the shareholders signed by Gould was scanned: "So that is the signature of the devil?"

[RobertB]

On 12/27/2020 at 3:21 PM, carlsson said:

By January 1, 1986 the manufacturing costs had dropped so a C64 cost $62-63 to manufacture...

According to the television show, the Computer Chronicles, by the time the C64 was marketed in Toys R Us in the early 1990's, the parts cost for a C64 was $5.

 

     Happy New Year!

     Robert Bernardo

     Fresno Commodore User Group - http://www.dickestel.com/fcug.htm

     Southern California Commodore & Amiga Network - http://www.portcommodore.com/sccan

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by RobertB

[carlsson]

Hm, is that even possible? I can see $30 or perhaps even $20, but that the parts for PCB, all chips, case, keyboard, power supply (if we omit packaging and all other items) could be manufactured at $5 in an era where sales volumes must've dropped quite a bit (I wasn't even aware it still was sold in the US by early 1990's, but surely in Europe). In that case, Commodore must've made about 1000-1500% profit on the C64 in the very end.

[krslam]

I can't see that $5 figure as possible, either, unless it's an accounting trick.  Perhaps those last 64's were being assembled from parts that were built and financially accounted for earlier so that very little has to be bought or built to finish them?

 

That sort of accounting, by the way, partially accounts for why early 128's were cheaper to make than later ones.  128's used some components left over from other products (the VDC came from the cancelled C900, for example) that had already been built and written off, but when the system proved popular thay had to start building those things again.

 

[carlsson]

Aha. I didn't consider that already built and cost accounted parts might record as "free" once a system was assembled from those. I wonder if it means they had leftover unassembled stock that they wrote off financially but kept in the factories instead of burying in the desert?

 

We'll see if Dave, Don, Andy & c:o will dig out even more internal Commodore documents, in particular for the years 1987 - 1992 or how long people stayed on the slowly sinking ship.

[+hloberg]

I was working at Sears, while in school, during when the 128 was being sold and the general feeling with the public was the 128 was just a more expensive C64. No one, and I mean no one, ever asked me about it's CPM or the 80 column display. It was always, does it play C64 games? I would tell them yes and it does this and this and this more than the C64 and they go, oh. Then proceed to ask me about buying the cheaper C64c. I think I sold maybe a dozen the entire year and they were usually to diehard Commodore users. Thing is I actually liked the machine so I always did my best to try to sell it but it was always a hard sell.

[krslam]

What was the price difference at the retail level at the time? You should have told them that the 128 was a better deal because it wouldn't die from a crap power supply like the 64 ?

[+hloberg]

56 minutes ago, krslam said:

What was the price difference at the retail level at the time? You should have told them that the 128 was a better deal because it wouldn't die from a crap power supply like the 64 ?

I'm not sure but I'm thinking the price difference was over $100 between the c64c and the c128? The problem was the audience for what the C128 was shooting for, the small business man, was going to Radio Shack for a TRS-80 or getting a PC clone. And to be honest, there really wasn't enough software out there that used the extended capabilities of the C128 to justify the extra cost. Plus CP/M was on it's way out by then. One package that might helped was GEOS 128. But it came along a little too late & with too little fanfare (I don't remember if they ever bundled it with the c128) so it didn't help at all.  

[carlsson]

Yes and the Z80 runs at 2 MHz making the C128 one of the slowest CP/M computers ever made.

 

Now if it had a 8088 or even been a PC clone with built in C64 mode...

[Serguei2]

Just now, carlsson said:

Yes and the Z80 runs at 2 MHz making the C128 one of the slowest CP/M computers ever made.

 

Now if it had a 8088 or even been a PC clone with built in C64 mode...

 

Was CP/M popular/useful at this time?

 

To be honest, I never heard CP/M in 1980s and I'm doubt I would buy a CP/M computer.

[carlsson]

CP/M had been popular at least up until just a few years ago. The urban legend says that Commodore had no plans for it until a sales rep told a customer that the new computer would be compatible with the CP/M cartridge for the C64 (which itself didn't work on every C64 model). It turned out the cartridge would not run on the C128 prototype which was one reason to integrate it.

 

OTOH I don't know much of the C128 was specified by then. Commodore had the previous B128 lines, the prototype D128 and the much bigger business computer C900 in the line, when the Amiga project was acquired that threw things around I'm sure.

[+hloberg]

6 minutes ago, carlsson said:

The urban legend says that Commodore had no plans for it until a sales rep told a customer that the new computer would be compatible with the CP/M cartridge for the C64 (which itself didn't work on every C64 model). It turned out the cartridge would not run on the C128 prototype which was one reason to integrate it.

 

Bill Herd, the engineer for much of the c128, said as much in a interview.

[+hloberg]

CP/M was already being supplanted by MS-DOS by the time the C128 came out.

Thinking about it, I believe our demo C128 stopped working while I was there (may be the reason I remember so few sales). But we did get a (working) 128D just before I quit to go to college. I remember the clean design of the 128D rather impressed me. But I don't remember us selling the Amiga at Sears for some reason. 

[+hloberg]

1 hour ago, Serguei2 said:

 

Was CP/M popular/useful at this time?

 

To be honest, I never heard CP/M in 1980s and I'm doubt I would buy a CP/M computer.

CP/M, or a variant of it, was popular on the TRS-80 line at the time. Apple II had a very popular CP/M card made by Microsoft for it. There were various CP/M business oriented machines (Kaypro for one) that sold directly to business. Also MSX and Coleco ADAM ran CP/M both being Z80 based machines. Even to Sinclair 1000 could been massively modified to run CP/M, it also being Z80.

CP/M was mostly business and never really expanded beyond that area. It also had some limiting factors that kept it from really catching on. It was text only and only ran on Z80 machines. CP/M disk also wouldn't read between manufacturers; so an Apple/MS CP/M disk wouldn't read on a Kaypro that wouldn't read on a Tandy that wouldn't read on a MSX. So you couldn't create a Wordstar document on your work Kaypro then take it home to your Apple II/MS CP/M drive and read it easily. Oddly one of the more advanced features of the C128 was that it could read disk from several of the other manufacturers as well as it's own CP/M format.

[Casey]

BITD I had a 128 and a 1571 (purchased from Sears actually!) that was given to me for Christmas.  I used it 99% of the time in 64 mode as I didn't have a monitor for it (TV only).  Aside from a few 128 BASIC games published in magazines, the only thing 128 mode had going for it was a lot of the later 64 games were set up to autoboot on a 128, set up the cartridge identifier, reset into 64 mode and continue loading.  

 

CP/M had one useful feature for me.  It was possible to take an MS-DOS formatted disk, read in an ASCII file in CP/M, and transfer it to a CBM disk that I could use with a C64 word processor.  But it was an elaborate procedure to do that.  Otherwise I never used CP/M.

[Serguei2]

32 minutes ago, Casey said:

BITD I had a 128 and a 1571 (purchased from Sears actually!) that was given to me for Christmas.  I used it 99% of the time in 64 mode as I didn't have a monitor for it (TV only).  Aside from a few 128 BASIC games published in magazines, the only thing 128 mode had going for it was a lot of the later 64 games were set up to autoboot on a 128, set up the cartridge identifier, reset into 64 mode and continue loading.  

 

CP/M had one useful feature for me.  It was possible to take an MS-DOS formatted disk, read in an ASCII file in CP/M, and transfer it to a CBM disk that I could use with a C64 word processor.  But it was an elaborate procedure to do that.  Otherwise I never used CP/M.

A 1571 disk drive can read 160k - 360k IBM diskettes?

 

Can it write IBM diskettes too?