NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/misc-part1/2656

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 11.8 KB

Path: cup.portal.com!Gemini2
From: [e-mail] (Gary Alan Peake)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: The March Amiga?
Date: 22 Jan 1996 22:20:03 -0800
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.151.4.12

>
>In a message dated 01-10-96 23-00 Gary Alan Peake writes:
>
>GP> >What I was referring to in that last
>GP> >fragment above was your feelings about whether I wanted the Amiga to
>GP> >survive.  I want it to thrive, live, germinate, and grow in the hearts
>GP> >and workrooms of the world.  I wanted to make that perfectly clear not
>GP> >only to you (because I think you know that), but to the people out
>GP> >there who might think that because I'm not "loyal" to AT, I'm against
>GP> >the Amiga.  I'm no Marc Barrett or Sinclap, folks.
>
>GP> I'd never believe that you were for a second! We just sometimes see
>GP> different leaves sprouting from the same tree.
>
>George Noel pooh-poohed my membership in Team AMIGA because he thinks
>that I'm anti-Amiga.  Hell, I don't even own another box other than my
>2000!  And I don't think that we're seeing different leaves on the same
>tree, but we're disagreeing in the type of fertilizer that AT's
>spreading on that tree.  You think it's SuperGrow; I think it's
>bullshit.
>
>GP> Maybe the difference between me and some here is that I believe them when
>GP> they say they see a bright future for the Amiga and are going to make it a
>GP> household name. So far, from a business standpoint (again, my opinion)
>GP> they are making the right decisions for cashflow and R&D purposes.
>
>That's where most of our differences lie in.  You're a natural
>optimist; I'm not only a natural pessimist, but a cynic as well.  I
>believe that only with specific correct moves, most of which I've
>outlined in our discussion over the months we've had it, can AT get any
>sort of foot in the door, especially in NA.  They have to design,
>build, and properly market the proverbial better mousetrap, and
>especially concentrate on the marketing.  I don't begrudge them the
>cash they're earning; I just begrudge the fact that they seem to be
>unwilling to spend money to make money (in the area of marketing, that
>is; they've been doing it in other areas, including, apparently, R&D).
>
>GP> We keep forgetting that Amiga Technologies/Escom has over tripled their
>GP> initial investment. That's a LOT of cash just to make a run or two of
>GP> computers and bail out. Nope, I don't see that happening unless the market
>GP> dries up BEFORE they can get the R&D done.
>
>I did the math a long time ago on that.  It is possible, of course, for
>Escom to get out with a profit from their investments by selling out
>the run they've already completed.  But it does look like they're in
>for a slightly longer haul than that.  End of that argument, Gary.
>
>GP> Why contract out the coding as they are?
>
>Does that scare you a bit?  We're still not sure about the
>subcontractor for the OS.  I'd love to know what AT told them about the
>requirements for OS4.
>
>GP> Why keep fervently looking for a NA 'partner'?
>
>But in what capacity?  Financial?  R&D?  Mass-market distribution?
>Or to eventually sell out?
>
>GP> Why the 'Surfer Package' (that took extra money and time)?
>
>Well, to make money, for one thing.  Only Oracle seems to be entering
>that type of market right now.  The problem is that by providing a
>full-fledged 1200 with the Net suite, the price is significantly higher
>than Oracle's product.  And that Net suite had better be good, or the
>Surfer package (what an awful name!) will fail.
>
>GP> The first three months I would not have argued so strongly FOR
>GP> Amiga Technologies. But, if you add up all these 'Why' type things
>GP> you will begin to see that they DO have a plan.
>
>They may have some sort of plan, but I'm still not sure what it is, AT
>isn't volunteering information, and I have reservations about the parts
>we do know about.  And I'm not alone, Gary.  You can tell just from the
>posts here.
>
>GP> >There are questions that have to be asked when it comes to this
>GP> >subject.  We as Amiga users have incredible power over the decisions
>GP> >made at AT due to the fact that we're the ones buying this system.
>
>GP> True with 1 caveat! Amiga Technologies understands that we
>GP> (Usenet/Fidonet) represents a SMALL minority of current/former Amiga users
>GP> and an even smaller minority of current Amiga purchasers. Long term, our
>GP> voice is important.
>
>Well, I meant "we" in the sense of the larger community of Amiga owners
>who have stayed loyal.  I don't pretend to acknowledge that
>Usenet/Fidonet participants are a majority of those people.  We on the
>nets are just the ones with the immediate feedback capability.
>
>GP> For this year, Amiga Technologies should be chasing
>GP> the new 'entry level' people with the 1200 Surfer Package. These entry
>GP> level users now will be what adds to the current user base when the PPC's
>GP> come out. THAT will make this a viable solution again.
>
>But can AT cut through the M$ brainwash factory that "more power =
>better"?  Or will the public see the 1200 package (I refuse to call it
>"Surfer") as a toy?
>
>GP> >I think that these questions are valid, but corporations, like any other
>GP> >physical entity, tend to follow the path of least resistance:
>
>GP> >1) By buying the 1200s and 4000Ts out there, we are contributing to the
>GP> >coffers of AT's R&D efforts.  But do we want outdated machines?
>GP> >Especially with the PPC announcement.  Amiga owners are patient by
>GP> >nature when it comes to the system.  How many people won't wait a year?
>
>GP> See, made my point. We WILL wait a year. They are/should be chasing new,
>GP> entry level buyers who will expand into that new PPC later on.
>
>These are rhetorical questions, Gary...
>
>I didn't make a point.  I asked a question about current Amiga owners,
>since they're the only ones who seem to know about the 1200s/4000Ts.
>
>GP> >2) By buying the 1200s and 4000Ts, are we showing approval as a group
>GP> >toward this technology, which most everyone here says is outdated?  If
>GP> >we are, will AT also think we approve and delay, or even worse, not
>GP> >really bother with the PPC for a while?
>
>GP> No long term money can be made from current models. Those of us buying the
>GP> new stock are just upgrading from 500-600 or ECS or we are the ones who
>GP> wanted a 4000 and couldn't get one back when.
>
>Again, rhetorical questions.  But you must admit that it's cheaper not
>to do R&D if these models are selling.
>
>GP> >3) If we wait and not buy the systems available now, will AT go
>GP> >belly-up, in which case we'll never see a new Amiga system?  It looks
>GP> >like Escom is looking to see whether or not AT will sink or float, and
>GP> >if it starts to sink, will Escom pull the trigger?
>
>GP> Nope, too much invested now.
>
>Guess what I'm going to say?  You didn't have to answer these.  I just
>wanted to clarify the questions that a lot of people are asking.
>
>So a corporation is going to keep a money-losing subsidiary afloat in
>order to lose more money?  I hope the German tax code is as lax about
>businesses as the US's is.  That's the only reason I'd do something
>like that.
>
>GP> >I hope that none of these are true, and that AT does have the best in
>GP> >mind for the Amiga, but illustrated like that, it is a no-win
>GP> >situation.  The question has to be put out, and I hope that
>GP> >Kittel/Bourdin can refute this line of argument.
>
>Notice you didn't respond to this section, Gary...
>
>GP> >Well, we can argue about the 1200 until the cows come home.  I don't
>GP> >think it's "excellent", but it's good on a marketing standpoint for
>GP> >attracting people to eventually buy the bigger systems.
>
>GP> Again, my point exactly. And what better can it get (at it's level) than a
>GP> web surfing ability. Again, an excellent entry level computer. Give em a
>GP> taste of the Internet, then tell them next year how much faster, better,
>GP> etc the PPC is. Migration right to the PPC this way.
>
>It's not "excellent", dammit!  It's a deficient computer system from an
>engineering standpoint.  It's a very draconian proposition.  It's feast
>or famine with a 1200; either a user gets sick of its low capabilities
>and lack of ease in upgrading and ditches Amiga, or upgrades.  A great
>gamble, but one that could pay off.
>
>GP> >The biggest market for the Amiga isn't NA, but NA is still the biggest
>GP> >market in the world for computers (until the EU becomes a little more
>GP> >technologically sophisticated and capable in all its member countries;
>GP> >no insult, Eurofriends, because you have been catching up quickly, but
>GP> >we in NA are still the biggest).  The PPC Amiga can make a killing
>GP> >here, but there's a limited time frame.  It has to be done and
>GP> >introduced prior to the abolition of the P6.  In order to make inroads
>GP> >into the computer market, AT has to gain the worldwide acceptance of a
>GP> >DOS or Mac box, and that means NA.  They can't focus simply on Europe,
>GP> >unless they want to accept second-class citizenship in Cyberworld.
>
>GP> Lot's of changes are going on with our brethren overseas and the way telco
>GP> works, etc. I look for the European market to get much bigger on the
>GP> Internet. The Surfer package will fit right in with that movement.
>
>But you didn't answer my point about NA, did you?  That was only the
>purpose of my statement, after all.  Until telecommunications systems
>in the EU are fully deregulated and demonopolized, telecom there won't
>grow as fast as you think.  My proof is Britain; it's virtually the
>only point I agreed with the Thatcherites.
>
>GP> >No, what I really want to see, Gary, was your justification on the
>GP> >technological end of it all.  I wanted to see you fly through hoops
>GP> >saying that this was the greatest thing in the universe and that
>GP> >everyone at AT were geniuses for putting the 1300 out.  However, I
>GP> >don't think you'd really do that, even if you are the most gormless AT
>GP> >camp follower on occasion.  But the disguises are off.  If AT does the
>GP> >1300 for money, that's perfectly fine and a good thing in the minds of
>GP> >everyone here.  But trying to disguise that with other reasons would be
>GP> >disingenuous.  Glad you and I both see it that way.
>
>GP> Still think the Surfer stuff is going to do great! That in itself is
>GP> something we've never had.
>
>I don't think it's going to do as great as you think it is.  It's going
>to be a fair-to-middling success at best.  It makes the fact that
>they'd better not make any false moves with the PPC even more
>important.
>
>GP>  TEAM AMIGA is a grassroots
>GP>  movement designed to provide
>GP>  support to all Amiga users
>GP>  and to Amiga Technologies!
>
>Could you please define "support"?  Is constructive criticism part of
>your definition (you yourself have even acknowledged that my criticism
>has been uniformly constructive)?  The last thing Team AMIGA should be,
>and I think that even Rick would agree, is a hotbed of monolithic,
>uncritical opinion.  If Amiga owners didn't have differences with the
>company that produced the machine, we'd be abandoning an eleven-year
>tradition.
>
>Eric Szulczewski
>[e-mail]
>Member, Team AMIGA
>The Devil's Advocate
>
>
>* Offline Orbit 0.75a *
>

Gary
-----------------------------------------
[e-mail]    'Mystic Meg'   |  TEAM AMIGA is a grassroots
                                         |  movement designed to provide
Avid Supporter of Amiga Technologies     |  support to all Amiga users
                                         |  and to Amiga Technologies!
Charter Member ---> *TEAM AMIGA*         |
-----------------------------------------


... URA Redneck if sitting on your porch shooting chickens is fun.

-*- ASTG 1.9