From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: 80,000,000 pc's can't be wrong
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.070312.1053@msus1.msus.edu> lkoop@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU writes:
>In article <mykes.0d40@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.200314.8579@clipper.ingr.com> kontos@clipper.ingr.com (Thorne Kontos) writes:
>>> Mike Schwartz (author of many programs and doesn't mind telling you so)
>>> now has a strong desire to flame the Amiga by claiming that pc's number
>>> 80,000,000, and a day spent programming the Amiga is a day wasted by
>>> not programming for pc's. I love how people keep pushing this number
>>> at me. Mike, what does it prove?
>>
>>The numbers prove that the Amiga is a flop in the marketplace.  That's
>>what it proves.  It proves that a few small businesses can make it on
>>the Amiga and that's it.  It proves that no matter what the Amiga has
>>offered, not many people bought them.
>
>    No, not at all.  It proves the installed base of PCs is larger than
>Amigas, but the pure numbers mean nothing at all.  Given that the PC had

In case you didn't  know, 'larger installed base' of PCs equates to
Mike saying 'not many people bought [Amigas]'.  What does a statement
like your mean?  It seems to only state the obvious, that Amigas have not
made too much of a dent in PC sales.  Just what Mike said.  Read on:

>the jump start, the IBM name and backing behind it, and the large amount of
>competitive diversification which exists today to give buyer incentive, the
>fact that the Amiga has achieved roughly 4% penetration in 6 years compared
>to the PC figure is actually not an indicator of a 'flop'.

Perhaps this would work better by indicating growth in PC sales from
1985-1992 vs Amiga sales from 1985-1992?  Really, 4% isn't much. That
other 96% minus Macs is what makes PCs effective.  That competition isn't
there for the Amiga.

>    The PC had a large head start in the market, as well as the IBM name
>guaranteeing that it would be purchased in business regardless of other
>offerings.  The clone market today is saturated to the point that competition
>makes prices low enough that clones will continue to be purchased based upon
>that alone.

PCs did have a head start.  I wouldn't be so proud of an original IBM PC
today, but I might of an A1000.

Amiga missed the 'business' market.  That is the heart of computer uses today.
All the rest follows.

Is it completely true that the fierce competition between clone dealers is
what makes PCs attractive.  This is what has made the Amiga a flop in terms
of sales.

Your post is curious.. I feel an attitude of defending the Amiga's lousy sales
by pointing out some reasons why they are lousy..is that supposed to change
my mind about the Amiga?

Sorry, but your post was most confusing in that regard.

>>Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
>            LaMonte Koop -- SCSU Electrical/Computer Engineering
> Internet: lkoop@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu -OR- f00012@kanga.stcloud.msus.edu
>               "You mean you want MORE lights on this thing???"
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Dan Stephenson                                           das9674@usl.edu
" BERLIN WALL FALLS.  3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS.  CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
        -George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy