The Tramiels

[+Stephen]

I must admit, with all of this new (non-speculative) information out, as welhaving made many more trips around the sun, I do have a completely different outlook towards the Trameil era.

[kool kitty89]

After upgrading my 600XL to 64K, I thought about the marketing idea behind the 600XL.

I believe the 600XL was to be a cheap computer and they thought they'd make money selling the 1090 memory expansion.

A 64K 600XL can be made today with $3.00 worth DRAMs and three wires, it would have cost probably less than

$1.00 to make the 600XL 64K to start with, but I think they were looking to sell the 1090, sorta like

selling 16K modules for the 800. Hoping to make money on upgrades.

Umm, what?

The added 48k of RAM alone would have been at least $25 for pure component costs, and then add that to the added traces, larger PCB, and added assembly costs and you inflate it a bit more. The final retail cost increase would likely be a good bit beyond that as well even if keeping to the same profit margin. (they could have cut costs even more if they left the MMU out and put it in the RAM module, but I don't think that was the case -it would have also meant that a 32k module with no MMU could have been significantly cheaper)

But that's what the 800XL was for, a fully expanded unit with the MMU onboard. (albeit a 48k unit with no MMU probably could have been noticeably cheaper as well -but a 16k expansion would still require the MMU to be onboard)

 

 

 

They were not liked by their vendors either. As Commodore did, Atari tried to push toward opening up new channels such as mass retail and mail order, both of which were seen as PURE EVIL by obsolete computer dealers who knew they would go extinct. Atari later tried to deal with the computer dealers, but of course they went extinct anyway. Atari didn't get to benefit, the way the Dells and Gateway 2000s did.

 

The Tramiels couldn't have succeeded anyway, since the PC clones were an unstoppable force that killed EVERYBODY: From the #1 seller of PCs in the 80s (Commodore) to the biggest workstation vendors (SGI). Even IBM was forced out of the PC business... and Apple was on life support until they started selling iPods.

Aren't there a lot of claims that Commodore could have continued pushing ahead had Tramiel stayed? (or at least with different management in any case) Had they been fairly open about licensing the Amiga and making it a more open architecture, that could have been substantial. (and it was complex enough to not be practical to clone, thus allowing money from license agreements/royalties for Commodore) But it goes deeper than that in any case in Europe and the US with CBM and Atari and others (CBM screwed around with the likes of the C16, Plus/4, Educator 64, C128, on the hardware side, then there's marketing among other things).

 

In Europe it seems like there was a real chance for the ST or Amiga to create a long-term competing standard with the PC, but that all fell apart with a lack of strong clone/licensed support and generally lagging enhancement of the original hardware and OS on both machines. (up to the early 90s, most PC clone hardware directly followed IBM's successive standards, especially with Graphics -and Tandy cloned the PCJr Graphics and sound but that became exclusive to them after the PCJr was dropped- but then you saw a break from that with VESA and EISA opposed to MCB though VGA certainly still applied, but audio became a defacto 3rd party standard set with Adlib/SB and SVGA expanding to a broad array of general standards of which IBM's XGA became a part of) So had ST clones (or amiga licenses) gotten really strongly established, they likely would have held closely to developments of the original parent companies rather than expanding on their own. (aside from simpler things like CPU speed)

 

Hell, had the 68k based platforms held onto the mainstream in Europe it might have pushed for broader extension of the 68k architecture. (especially if Motorola opened up licensing again like with the original 68k and later PPC, though technically I suppose the existing 68k licensees like Hitachi could have built directly onto the old design themselves or at least consolidated things more and offered ever faster versions rather than stopping at 16/20 MHz -unless there were specific restrictions on such development in the original license agreements... but there could have been loopholes around that too -even without expanding the architecture they could offer faster versions, had the full 32 address lines, and/or integrated FPU and MMU -assuming the bugs were fixed for the latter if not tweaked a bit more for better support, but things like caching -internal or external-, significant extension to the ISA, or addition of a 32-bit ALU would be more substantial modifications)

 

 

 

Atari was already a VERY dysfunctional organization by the time they took over, and employee morale was incredibly low. They weren't exactly welcomed with wide-eyed optimization, especially in the wake of the immediate layoffs which were entirely blamed on them. (Which does seem a little unfair, since they saved the company from 100% layoffs.)

The Tramiels didn't "take over" though, they bought the Consumer Division (not the people) including Atari Inc.'s consumer manufacturing and distribution network, and folded it in to TTL. Atari Corp. was a completely separate company, the Inc. employees were all tecnically still employed through Atari Inc. (which existed as a separate entity for a good year or so after the purchase). That's the reason for the interviews in June they all had to go through to see if they'd be "fired" or hired by Atari Corp. That's the irony, they were 100% laid off but didn't know it. We've seen the documents on what was all purchased at that time.

 

And when I talked to Leonard recently about this, he conveyed they felt horrible having to go through the process but that they knew going in they weren't going to be able to take everyone i.e. there was no way around it. They took on both of Atari's Inc.'s debts (what Inc. owed and what was owed to Inc.) as part of the valuation, with the collected debt intending to pay for operations - which didn't work out that way. People have no idea how Corp. was running on fumes all that time until things were hashed out well in to '86. And the fact that he was able to pull it all together and pay off all that debt (with no credit line) and bring Atari Corp. in to the black by the end of the year, as well as get the ST and XE lines finished is simply amazing.

Was Atari really so disfunctional when Warner made the split? I'd gotten the impression that things have come a long way under Morgan in spite of the short amount of time.

 

Would it have been likely that Morgan would have had to make many more cuts as well a la Tramiel, or would the circumstances have been different? (mitigating factors like Natco, more products launching in a timely manner, ongoing reorganization, etc -vs the semi-chaos that resulted from the poorly timed and managed split by Warner)

Then again it likely would have been managed far more smoothly had Morgan and Senior Atari staff been kept in the loop regarding the sale and thus facilitating Morgan/Atari Staff to make preparations for the shift and make the transition to the new company as smooth as possible under the circumstances.

 

Obviously there were still conflicts and meddling on Warner's part (the split itself being the biggest example), but on the Atari Inc side at least, I'd thought Morgan was making astounding progress.

 

 

 

 

 

That's Inc. that left us with the 7800, not Corp. And the Computer Expansion was around then as well, just not in the all in one updated format Curt's doing. Remember, the idea came from the module originally proposed by GCC in '84 combined with the high score module.

Hmm, the keyboard only interfaces through the koystick port, so would that mean they were planning on a separate RAM upgrade? (it would have made sense to have an all-in one RAM+I/O expansion module that used the cart slot -designed to facilitate FCC restrictions- that included a POKEY for enhanced sound and I/O -key scanning and SIO port; and have a separate keyboard plug into that module and be read by POKEY -hell, maybe even have that module for general expansion offered without the keyboard for use with cart games)

 

 

 

 

All the original ST had really was Glue and Shifter, and had no real special graphics ability other than greater bitdepth over 8-bit machines and the Macintoshes of the time.

It also managed it all at an extremely competitive price point and with universal superiority over all by high-end workstation PCs. (and even EGA was limited to 6-bit RGB or only RGB-I for the 320x200 and 640x200 res modes I think -it was the default at least and the main palette supported -so if it wasn't fixed to that it was used by default for users with CGA monitors and low-end 64k EGA cards)

 

 

 

 

The sound chip was a travesty. Here was a 16-bit computer that sounded no better than 8-bits of the day (and in some cases worse). I have no real nostalgia for the ST although I owned everything from a 1040 to a Falcon030... maybe because I rode the decline all the way to the end.

It was still better than what PCs got until 1988 (with the first game to support Adlib coming that year and Adlib being the first PC synth/music sound card in '87 surprisingly). Before that you had the Tandy machines and (very breifly) PCJr, but those had sound chips that were not as good as the ST's even (similar but more limited frequency range, noise generation, and no ADSR envelope).

 

However, it's a much bigger issue that it took so long for the ST to upgrade that sound. AMY may have been a no go (and may have ended up fairly expensive in any case), but there were other options like the YM2203 (fully backwards compatible with the YM2149 in the ST and adding 3 4-op FM channels -ie 1/2 of what the Genesis had and 3/8 that of what most Arcade machines were using in the mid/late 80s with the YM2151). And beyond that push DMA sound, or even sooner, something that at least facilitated software PCM playback a bit more. (like a simple IC with built-in DAC and FIFO full/empty flags and possibly built-in timer -or requiring the use of one of the ST's timers... and the YM2203 also added 2 interval timers --- a later revision could add DMA as well)

 

 

 

 

Some of the demos on the STE show just what could have been.

 

For the millionth time - it's the machine that should have been the launch vehicle. It addresses all the main deficiencies vs the Amiga, except for open hardware architecture, multitasking OS, and hardware sprites.

Except it came way too late and the enhacements weren't enough to match the Amiga let alone the evolving standards of other platforms. (especially PCs which got VGA and Adlib in '87 and Sound Blaster in '89 with VGA games appearing by '89 as well)

The blitter was still weaker than the Amiga, still only 4 bitplanes, 2 hardware sound channels, 8 MHz CPU, etc. (had it used the TT shifter or a lower-end derivative thereof and a 16 MHz 68k, that might have been reasonable for '89)

 

But they could have focused on more modest enhancements sooner, like purely adding scrolling registers to the SHIFTER and replacing the YM2149 with a YM2203 and adding a simple IC that aided a bit with software PCM playback. (short of DMA you could have other simple set-ups at lower cost and less R&D expense... if you went really cheap you could use PWM DACs rather than resistor DACs, but those have issues with squeal and other artifacts as the 32x and Game Boy Advance show at times -it's not bad at high sample rates but gets terrible at lower rates -especially anything below 22 kHz) And then simply offering higher speed CPU versions too. (12 or 16 MHz, maybe 10 MHz -16 is the simplest to go with from the 8 MHz clock of the original, 12 MHz might be possible depending what the master clock is, and 10 MHz would probably be more of a pain unless they went up to a fairly high master clock or used additional multiply/divide circuits for the clock generator -48MHz would give nice values for 8, 9.6, 12, and 16 MHz though)

 

Hell, most of that could/should have been added by '86. (especially if the upgraded chips had identical or nearly idenitical pinouts to the originals with few patch wires needed before new PCBs were ready -or design the initial PCBs to allow an easy switch in production as new parts became available) And most/all of that should have been possible to facilitate as upgrades as well. (at least via service center modifications -and specially made kits with clip/piggyback chips and riser boards could have smoothed that further in spite of the lack of expansion slots)

 

 

A lot of this came up in this thread recently: http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/171509-were-the-atari-sts-big-for-gaming-or-just-the-8-bit-line/page__st__75

Edited November 5, 2010 by kool kitty89

[+wood_jl]

Was Atari really so disfunctional when Warner made the split? I'd gotten the impression that things have come a long way under Morgan in spite of the short amount of time.

 

Haven't you heard the stories (unsure as to authenticity/reliability) of warehouses (!!!) of product that had been lost track of? Managers who did not even know what they were selling? During the game craze prior to the crash, there was such explosive growth that so much money was being made that such situations could exist along with profit. But soon as the crash happened.......

[kool kitty89]

Was Atari really so disfunctional when Warner made the split? I'd gotten the impression that things have come a long way under Morgan in spite of the short amount of time.

 

Haven't you heard the stories (unsure as to authenticity/reliability) of warehouses (!!!) of product that had been lost track of? Managers who did not even know what they were selling? During the game craze prior to the crash, there was such explosive growth that so much money was being made that such situations could exist along with profit. But soon as the crash happened.......

Yeah, I knew about those problems... but that's what Morgan was fixing with extensive reorganization starting in late 1983 and hence my comment was regarding the state of things by mid 1984 just before the split. Curt and Marty's comments on the issue seem to point to very promising positive changes due to Morgan's efforts and Atari moving to become a lean and clean company. (with a ton of bureaucratic red tape to cut through along the way)

 

The confusion would have obviously flared up again with the split in '84... and Atari Corp was a totally different company who'd gained possession of Atari Inc's former computer and consumer electronics divisions.

 

That confusion likely fed into the myths (like the 7800's "cancellation") that have only recently been corrected. (Warner contended ownership of the 7800/games as GCC's contract had been with Warner and not Atari)

Edited November 5, 2010 by kool kitty89

[svenski]

From experience I got an Amiga 500 secondhand after working for several months selling the ST and Amiga side by side and being able to see the differences sound and graphics wise on a daily basis. I then switched to an A1200 with hard drive and loved it although some of the reception the A1200 got at the time was quite similar to that received by the Atari 1200XL some years before.

 

Shortly after getting my A1200 I started work for a PC builder and it didn't take me long to sell off the Amiga and use the money toward buying a PC. The main reason was the internet was just taking off and I wanted to be a part of it.

 

It is a shame that the platform didn't evolve enough. I read that Atari were looking at CD drives in 1985 , amongst other things . I guess the sheer success of the 520ST which was supposed to be mid-range but ended up being half of the range , if you ignore the Mega STs etc perhaps made them lose focus a bit.

[kskunk]

Yeah, I knew about those problems... but that's what Morgan was fixing with extensive reorganization starting in late 1983 and hence my comment was regarding the state of things by mid 1984 just before the split.

I haven't studied the history like others have. But I've heard plenty of great yarns from guys in the trenches during the takeover. Human memory is faulty, and it may be that things had changed for the better, even if just from a business or organizational perspective.

 

But the people I talked to seem to remember the Atari of 1984 as the sinking Titanic. Maybe the rank and file didn't get the message that things were starting to turn around... Especially since the press was still declaring home video games permanently finished, and Atari was still losing money by the billions.

 

- KS

[kool kitty89]

Yeah, I knew about those problems... but that's what Morgan was fixing with extensive reorganization starting in late 1983 and hence my comment was regarding the state of things by mid 1984 just before the split.

I haven't studied the history like others have. But I've heard plenty of great yarns from guys in the trenches during the takeover. Human memory is faulty, and it may be that things had changed for the better, even if just from a business or organizational perspective.

 

But the people I talked to seem to remember the Atari of 1984 as the sinking Titanic. Maybe the rank and file didn't get the message that things were starting to turn around... Especially since the press was still declaring home video games permanently finished, and Atari was still losing money by the billions.

Curt and Marty have uncovered a ton of new stuff (much of it only in the last year or 2) that puts a lot of vague speculation, fuzzy/embellished memories, and myths to rest on the topic including many things that they'd believed only a few years ago. (like Tramiel's position on the 7800)

 

Morgan was apparently pushing ahead by leaps and bounds and had already substantially reformed and leaned out the company by mid '84. (the one unfortunate action was the hold for several weeks in all production back in fall of 1983, thus weakening them considerably for the holiday season for both consoles and computers -the 800/600XLs thus being available only in limited quantity among other things)

 

The 7800's 1984 test market was apparently recieved positively enough to push for an expanded market released late in the Summer (which was stopped by the split) and they were planning on a full launch by the fall. The 2600 Jr was on the way, the Amiga console was also planned for a fall 1984 release as well... or it would have been had they delivered the LSI chips in September as agreed upon, but this happened:

Wow, I hadn't realized plans had gotten so far along with the Amiga deal.

 

I'm pretty sure that was already mentioned in one of the other threads on it by Curt and I. The plan was for the Christmas release console, and they had the full test PCB for the console ready to go for the chips - they were literally taking delivery of a set of them at the same time. Amiga kept stalling and pushing back the IC delivery while secretely negotiating with Commodore. The plan was supposed to be for them to settle on the final terms and licensing (Atari was only licensing the technology and due to pay royalties) on the delivery of the chips. They had hashed out the initial contract early March of that year (which is how we know about the details). That's why the entire thing with the 7800 would have been up in the air IMHO as you would have had the cost reduced 2600, the 7800 console they were already positioning as their "high end" console, and then this.

 

Were there any related/competing plans to adapt any of Atari's in-house 16-bit hardware (Gaza/Sierra/etc) into consoles?

 

I believe some of the RAINBOW stuff was being looked at, at one point. I'd have to go through my notes.

 

The Atarimuseum XL overview page mentions the Amiga chipset was supposed to be delivered by June 30 of '84 (so several days before the split) but that Amiga had already backed out of the contract and partnered with CBM. (granted the split likely would have confused things and acted as a smokescreen)

 

They were backing out on June 28th (Thursday), the 30th was a Saturday. Jack entered in to the secret negotiations with Warner that Friday.

 

 

I was under the impression that they were considering putting the Amiga/Lorraine chipset into a computer called the 1600XL (or was it the 1800XL - something like that).

 

No, Curt and I got a hold of the original agreement as well as lawsuit documents and testimony last year and started a thread here about it. It was for a console only targeted to be released later in '84, that would only allowed to be a expanded in to a computer in '85 via the attachments to give time for Amiga to finish and release their computer in '84. Then Atari would be allowed to release their own full computer in '86, which was the planned 1850XL.

 

What you're confusing that with are some of the advanced 68000 based computer projects Atari already had in the works as well via their Advanced Computer Technologies Design Center. None of which relied on the Amiga technology - they were being pursued already in '83 and '84.

 

If that's true, they would have had the 7800 servicing the low-price, video game market, and a modern computer for the growing, home-computer market. At that point in time, the Mac 128 had been released, and Warner Atari would have needed a compelling computer system to compete with it.

 

Actually it seems they would have had three levels of consoles. Don't forget they were going to be releasing the 2600jr. as well. So they would have had the Jr. as low end, 7800 as mid, and whatever the Amiga one was going to be called at high end.

 

Unfortunately it never got that far. Atari had the test pcb done and waiting to lay in the three custom chips, Amiga stalled and just before negotiations between Jack and Warner started, Dave Morse abruply walks in returning Atari's investment and interest claiming they couldn't get the chips to work. As in he completely lied. Apparently he was spooked that Atari might try and screw with his goal to eventually sell the company (which he was already in the process of doing), even when they assured him that wasn't the case.

 

 

This is a bit ironic though:

As was already pointed out, Jerry was not there, he was recounting a story told to him which was just that - a story. Jerry's a friend of mine via rgvc, and I'm fully aware of what his work did or did not entail at Atari Inc. and very briefly at Corp. (Which apparently you're not). Likewise Curt and I exhaustively researched this, pouring over actual internal emails, documents, talking *directly* to people involved at Atari and GCC, and more. The cost reduced 2600 project started up immediately. Negotiations for various projects that had actually been under Warner and not Atari, which included the 7800 and Amiga, started in very early August '84. The Amiga contract was successfully negotiated over to Jack, the 7800 was not and there was haggling over who owed GCC for the MARIA and 10 launch titles. This is when Jack was approached by Saville, apparently not knowing what was going on, and pushing for Jack to release something he didn't have the rights for yet. Jack finally relented to Warner's position that he and not them were responsible if he wanted ownership, and paid GCC that May '85 for MARIA, that is *fact*. Both people on the GCC side (which Curt has directly talked to) and Atari Corp. side (I directly talked to Leonard Tramiel) have verified that. He then paid for the 10 launch titles that summer of '85 and began looking for someone to head a consumer entertainment division, that is *fact*. He approached Mike Katz, then heading Epyx, that August of '85 to begin wooing him over to run the division, which is *fact*. When I talked to Mike myself in an over hour long phone interview, he point blank stated that the 7800 was mentioned to him by Jack *from the beginning*. And in fact it was he who talked Jack in to doing more than just the cost reduced 2600 and 7800 and expanding in to other consumer enetertainment products before he'd come on board. There was nothing in response to Nintendo, they weren't even a blip on anyone's map. And in fact it was when he came on board in late October (officially announced in November) that he started looking at expanding the 7800 titles beyond the initial 10, and first came across Nintendo as a possible competitor (in Katz's word a minor competitor at that point) after hitting walls with all the exclusive arcade titles that had been locked up. That's when Katz reached in to his connections and started licensing formerly computer platform only titles to port over.

 

Now we're talking about actual documentation and actual people "WHO WERE THERE" and "DIRECTLY INVOLVED", and directly spoken with, not half diluted stories passed through the grapevine and regurgitated with nonsense claims of "debunking". Unless you can come back with the same level of research and resources, I don't see how you basing such claims about us on a single questionable story comes off as anything other than silly if not completely amateurish (and insulting to those who actually put in the time, effort, and money).

 

So Tramiel got the rights to the Amiga contract without much hassle, but the 7800 was contended over for several months until he finally paid Warner for the development costs. But of course, Amiga never delivered the chips and tried to back out of the contract... otherwise Atari Corp would have had full access to the Amiga chipset by 1986. (the contract was for a 1984 console release, then the right to add a keyboard and have up to 128kB in 1985, and finally a standalone computer with no restrictions in '86, though Tramiel still might have pushed ahead with the ST to make the '85 launch... but that doesn't mean the ST couldn't have been tweaked with provisions to later accept some or all of the Amiga chipset later on -if they couldn't have used part of the chipset in the ST from the start) it did give good grounds for a countersuit to CBM's claims of the ST being stolen technology.

 

 

And Atari Inc had their own very advanced 16-bit computers which had been shelved and it's quite possible that greater interest would have been put into them in leu of the Amiga debacle had Morgan stayed. (Marty already mentioned the rainbow chipset may have been being looked at for a game console) And Tramiel was at least somewhat aware of them, but either not fully clued in, or they couldn't have been brought to market as fast as the ST. (or at the price point he wanted -several were configured to be very high-end workstation type systems but that didn't mean all of them or that the same chipset -or parts of it- couldn't be applied to a low-cost design)

 

That and Atari Inc already had their own UNIX BDS OS with "Snowcap" GUI being developed for the 16-bit platforms (both the in-house ones and the Amiga)

[Retro Rogue]

So Tramiel got the rights to the Amiga contract without much hassle, but the 7800 was contended over for several months until he finally paid Warner for the development costs.

 

No, they paid GCC. The haggling was over who owed GCC for the MARIA and 10 launch games, Warner or Tramiel.

 

But of course, Amiga never delivered the chips and tried to back out of the contract... otherwise Atari Corp would have had full access to the Amiga chipset by 1986.

 

The contract was dead, it was only signed over from Warner for countersuit purposes.

 

but that doesn't mean the ST couldn't have been tweaked with provisions to later accept some or all of the Amiga chipset later on -if they couldn't have used part of the chipset in the ST from the start) it did give good grounds for a countersuit to CBM's claims of the ST being stolen technology.

 

The ST was never based or considered around Amiga technology, not before, during, or after the sign over.

Edited November 5, 2010 by wgungfu

[kool kitty89]

But of course, Amiga never delivered the chips and tried to back out of the contract... otherwise Atari Corp would have had full access to the Amiga chipset by 1986.

 

The contract was dead, it was only signed over from Warner for countersuit purposes.

That might have contributed to Warner being more forthcoming then... except with the Amiga (unlike the 7800), it had been Atari who'd made the contract directly, right? (so it would have been more straightforward in either case)

 

but that doesn't mean the ST couldn't have been tweaked with provisions to later accept some or all of the Amiga chipset later on -if they couldn't have used part of the chipset in the ST from the start) it did give good grounds for a countersuit to CBM's claims of the ST being stolen technology.

 

The ST was never based or considered around Amiga technology, not before, during, or after the sign over.

Sorry, I was thinking purely in hypothetical terms on that one... probably thinking in the context of this statement from Curt last year:

It is difficult to say... the timeline still has the breakdown of talks between Amiga to Atari just days prior to the June 30th deadline. The Tramiels did look at using the AMY sound processor, however they did not use the Silver & Gold graphics chipset. Why? Its unknown without getting input from specific individuals with whom we are awaiting responses from.

 

So had the Amiga chipset in fact been a part of the available technologies afforded to the Tramiels, the agreement only allowed the chipset for use in a video game console until June of 1985, at that time, then a keyboard could be added to the system, the system could have no more then 128K and no 2nd floppy drive. This of course would highly limit the system - 3rd parties of course could've done whatever they wanted... It wouldn't be until 1986 when Atari under the license could then produce a standalone computer. So since the Tramiels were not focusing on video games until financial resources permitted, they would've still forged ahead with their ST computers most likely.

 

Curt

 

 

 

 

But that would only be in the context of Amiga nbot breaking the contract as they had... as it happened, Atari Inc's own hardware would have been a more realistic possibility for Tramiel, but as you said before they were focused on the ST and the AInc projects might not have even been ready as soon as the ST. (depending on other factors like how well Tramiel or TTL engineering staff aware of the Atari projects in general or when they took notice) It seems like they could have at least taken a look at possibly including provisions in the ST design to facilitate integrating some of the Atari hardware later on. (and accelerate evolution of the ST as well as saving on R&D costs -depending on the actual functionality of the existing Atari prototypes, some things might have been rather feasible to use without specifically including tweaks/provisions to the ST ... but that's all open ended and I'm sure a lot of it would become clear once more information comes out on the subject -be it posted on AA, Curt's site, or printed in your books )

 

And in the context of Warner not splitting Atari, it seems likely that going with one of the in-house chipsets would be the most straightforward option after Amiga backed out. (you mentioned they might have already been looking at rainbow for a similar purpose)

[Retro Rogue]

That might have contributed to Warner being more forthcoming then... except with the Amiga (unlike the 7800), it had been Atari who'd made the contract directly, right? (so it would have been more straightforward in either case)

 

No, the contract for Amiga was with Warner, hence Jack having to negotiate for it from Warner.

 

But that would only be in the context of Amiga nbot breaking the contract as they had... as it happened, Atari Inc's own hardware would have been a more realistic possibility for Tramiel, but as you said before they were focused on the ST and the AInc projects might not have even been ready as soon as the ST.

 

No, they had stuff pretty far along and some really advanced projects as mentioned and some stuff was mentioned to Tramiel. Tramiel just didn't care, they already had a plan of the RBP as the high end computer and a series of upgrades to the 8-bit line.

[+wood_jl]

Ha! The Atari story reminds me of the band AC/DC. Some only like the Bon Scott era. Some prefer the Brian Johnson era. Some like both, and some hate the whole thing.

[Bryan]

Ha! The Atari story reminds me of the band AC/DC. Some only like the Bon Scott era. Some prefer the Brian Johnson era. Some like both, and some hate the whole thing.

Ah, like Van Halen vs. Van Hagar.

[The Usotsuki]

I like Van Cherone. ♪ There's a fire in the hooooooooooooole, FIRE IN THE HOOOOOOOOOOOLE ♪

[Big_Mo]

Everyone has an opinion on the Tramiels. I was recently chatting with a long-time Atari veteran employee and he said "Anyone who talks about [Jack] Tramiel without employing the term 'scumbag' clearly never worked for the man."

[kool kitty89]

No, they had stuff pretty far along and some really advanced projects as mentioned and some stuff was mentioned to Tramiel. Tramiel just didn't care, they already had a plan of the RBP as the high end computer and a series of upgrades to the 8-bit line.

To the point of having LSI chips fabbed for some of them?

 

Did all of the stuff mentioned to Tramiel stop at him alone, or was the RBP design team ever consulted on the issue?

[carmel_andrews]

Idek Tramielski, Jacek Trzmiel, Idek Trzmiel (are they Jacks Brothers...or just clones)

[flashjazzcat]

Idek Tramielski, Jacek Trzmiel, Idek Trzmiel (are they Jacks Brothers...or just clones)

Jack's name in Polish?

[almightytodd]

We could all of us "what if" ourselves to death here. I _do_ wish that some of the upgrades and peripherals discussed in 83-85 would/could surface in one way or another, but I don't lose sleep over it. I'm tickled pink to be able to back up my own personal documents to flash media and run games on my 8bits the same way. The Lynx was love at first sight for me, and even though I briefly owned an ST, it just wasn't the same for me as my 8bits. Some things I do wonder about, but entirely academically (again, none of this keeps me up at night, just things to think about):

 

If the right people had held onto Atari in 1983 (Warner? Someone else?), would they have had the Amiga, or wound up with something more like Apple's IIgs?

If the TTs and Falcons had taken off in the 1990s, what would have been next? TS computers? (Thirty-two/sixty-four)?

And maybe the biggest what if - what if Bushnell had said yes to Steve and Steve in the 70s and there had never been an Apple? Maybe he would have let them set up their own shop a la Kee Games?

...and don't forget that there were talks of Atari being the distributor for the U.S. version of the Nintendo Famicom before Nintendo decided to go it alone in the U.S. market... ...at a time when some were proclaiming the home console concept a passing fad.

[+save2600]

There's way too much speculation supporting this notion that the Tramiels were competent people to be doing business on such an important or grand scale (relatively speaking), so I'll water it down and just say that I "hate(d)" them for their laziness, greed, incompetency and downright outdated methods and mindsets on how to run a tech business such as this. Rehashing and re-branding ancient technology over and over and over again, for an American market, was just plain dumb in the late 80's. The old Tramiel M.O. had a backbone of talented developers and their own in-house MOS manufacturing, so while they couldn't really "afford" to keep making the same mistakes at Commodore, they did have more leeway that way, it would seem vs. their time at Atari.

 

There's nothing wrong with re-packaging old 8-bit technology, but don't insult the intelligence of the American consumer, trying to pass that stuff off as something "new" or different. Since Tramiel was an ex-concentration camp victim, one would think he would have had a better understanding of just where to market their old patently outdated goods: middle Europe! But they again contradict and instead of focusing on selling these 'good', but seriously outdated computers to lesser developed corners, they tried and tried and tried to stuff them down the throats of consumers that didn't even really want an ST, let alone an 8-bitter from the late 70's. Why they felt they could market some of their console stuff better in South America and parts of Europe, but not feel that way about their computer line astounds me.

 

Multiple personality syndrome I suppose. lol

 

Going back to this assumed notion of competency, seemed to me that the Tramiels were not only in denial about many things, but were also becoming too used to suing and trying to develop capital that way instead of obtaining it a more legitimate way. No different a mindset than the guy who's always looking for a handout instead of working to feed himself. It's not a good way to live, nor is it a good business model. Ethics aside, seemed to me that their hearts just weren't in it toward the end. You see this a lot with so many CEO's and upper management as they know they're taking their companies nowhere fast. Sort of like having an 'abandon ship' type of mentality. Mix all this with arrogance and there you have it: Atari and Commodore throughout the late 80's and early 90's. Commodore's story is more sad to me, knowing Tramiel left the way he did. All of it and the demise of both seem totally unnecessary to me. There *was* room for such competition back then. But not by the hands of people who didn't know what in the hell they were doing.

 

Amiga should be here and viable today still.

 

ST should have elegantly faded away into obscurity - not as abruptly as it did. AND Atari should still be marketing consoles that compete with M$, Sony & Nintendo.

 

 

(just my $.02, opinions and observations of course)

Edited November 7, 2010 by save2600

[+save2600]

Whoops, too late to edit. Regarding the Tramiels... HATED THEM with two snaps around the world!

 

 

[MEtalGuy66]

Yeah, they'd have done good to take all the capital they invested in the ST line, and further develop the 8-bit line for sale in Europe and South America, where they would have had a huge market, instead of trying to compete with the likes of the AMIGA and MAC, using lower price as their only valid selling point.

[Tezz]

From December 10th 2007: Jack Tramiel talks about his days with Commodore and Atari:

Commodore 64 - 25th Anniversary Celebration

 

It's a long video 1h 32m featuring also Steve Wozniac, Al Alcorn and others.

 

Jack Tramiel

said in jest after the question put to him previously ... 1:09:17 "My aim... and I won, was to destroy Atari ... I did a pretty good job"

Edited November 8, 2010 by Tezz

[SpaceDice2010]

That might have contributed to Warner being more forthcoming then... except with the Amiga (unlike the 7800), it had been Atari who'd made the contract directly, right? (so it would have been more straightforward in either case)

 

No, the contract for Amiga was with Warner, hence Jack having to negotiate for it from Warner.

 

But that would only be in the context of Amiga nbot breaking the contract as they had... as it happened, Atari Inc's own hardware would have been a more realistic possibility for Tramiel, but as you said before they were focused on the ST and the AInc projects might not have even been ready as soon as the ST.

 

No, they had stuff pretty far along and some really advanced projects as mentioned and some stuff was mentioned to Tramiel. Tramiel just didn't care, they already had a plan of the RBP as the high end computer and a series of upgrades to the 8-bit line.

 

The contract that Amiga had with Atari was really a joke. Amiga was so cash strapped that they basically gave the company away with that agreement. There were two issues at play at the time - 1. Negotiating the rights to the chip set while Atari was floating them capital or 2. Just paying Atari back the money if they couldn't agree on the terms for the chipset. I wouldn't say that Amiga "backed out" of any deal. Atari was trying to take advantage of a cash strapped Amiga and Amiga found someone that actually wanted Amiga for more than just the chipset.

[atarian63]

From December 10th 2007: Jack Tramiel talks about his days with Commodore and Atari:

Commodore 64 - 25th Anniversary Celebration

 

It's a long video 1h 32m featuring also Steve Wozniac, Al Alcorn and others.

 

Jack Tramiel

said in jest after the question put to him previously ... 1:09:17 "My aim... and I won, was to destroy Atari ... I did a pretty good job"

Not to mention commodore had no idea what they were doing without Jack.. Killed both companies though Atari lasted longer. Amazingly..

Power without the price was a great strategy! Work very very well for us. Just the vaporware and supply problems made for the decline. Like a mac a so much cheaper and better in some ways, Ran pc software and it's own ST software. It was a slam dunk easy sell for the 1st few years 85 to 88 even into 89.

[+wood_jl]

I thought the 8-bit market was practically already lost to Commodore 64. They couldn't have the Amiga. I think they did quite well with what they had (nothing) to come up with the ST when they did. By 1985, were 8-bit computers still "hot?"