Did Jack Tramiel KILL Atari?

[pocketmego]

The guy's "business" tactics alienated the company from the rest of the market and his son Sam was a moron. Even Kassar was a better businessman then Jack and he was just as thickheaded..

 

Now this one I'm not sure about. Kassar was an Asshole (admittedly I have heard Tramiel was too), but Kassar made some good choices and arguably these do outweigh his bad choices to a great degree. I mean you can virtually define Kassar's tenure with Atari in 2 deals. The Space Invaders deal and the ET deal. Everything else reflects one or the other. I'd say he has more Space Invaders than he does ETs.

 

Kassar (and this is coming from someone who HATES Ray Kassar) knew his products and he knew what people liked to buy. Tramiel could have given a rat's ass what Atari did best , Software, in favor of making a cheap computer or line of cheap computers that he could use to kill Commodore.

 

So, I'm of the mind that he did kill Atari. First he did so by inventing the Affordable Home Computer, and then he made the C64 even more affordable and got computers into the hands of kids, and finally he drove the last stake through the Atari company that WE knew in 1984 when he bought and then re-directed the company into a computer business.

 

-Ray

[dendawg]

Not only did he kill Atari, he raped the corpse, cremated the body, and sold the ashes.

[EmOneGarand]

The guy's "business" tactics alienated the company from the rest of the market and his son Sam was a moron. Even Kassar was a better businessman then Jack and he was just as thickheaded..

 

Now this one I'm not sure about. Kassar was an Asshole (admittedly I have heard Tramiel was too), but Kassar made some good choices and arguably these do outweigh his bad choices to a great degree. I mean you can virtually define Kassar's tenure with Atari in 2 deals. The Space Invaders deal and the ET deal. Everything else reflects one or the other. I'd say he has more Space Invaders than he does ETs.

 

Kassar (and this is coming from someone who HATES Ray Kassar) knew his products and he knew what people liked to buy. Tramiel could have given a rat's ass what Atari did best , Software, in favor of making a cheap computer or line of cheap computers that he could use to kill Commodore.

 

So, I'm of the mind that he did kill Atari. First he did so by inventing the Affordable Home Computer, and then he made the C64 even more affordable and got computers into the hands of kids, and finally he drove the last stake through the Atari company that WE knew in 1984 when he bought and then re-directed the company into a computer business.

 

-Ray

It was because of Kassar that many of the great Engineers and Programmers such as Al Alcorn were "sent to the beach" (I still love that line lol) and Cosmos could have been released if he hadn't been in his "protective bubble" with his concrete stance on the continued sale of the VCS, now.. we might not have had so many great titles for the VCS since Nolan wanted to pull the plug on the VCS and start development on a new console but then again, I still wonder what the future of Atari would have been if Time Warner hadn't ousted Nolan from Atari. And I totally agree with you on Tramiel, turning Atari's attention to affordable computers did somewhat killed their image as a video game company.

[DracIsBack]

Loads and loads of armchair CEOs.

[jbanes]

Warner-Atari was the corpse, and Tramiel was the vulture.

 

Tramiel didn't kill Atari, he didn't want Atari. He wanted Atari's resources so that he didn't have to take the time building them himself. The Atari computer lines continued to sell, making Atari profitable again. But at that point, Atari was no longer Atari. It was a different company. The 7800 was an echo of the former company, but the real one was gone before Tramiel ever got there.

 

The Jaguar and Lynx showed how much different the later Atari was. The styling, the games, and the very feel of them failed to evoke the same Atari of old. Nintendo, in comparison, has been consistent from the day they released the NES. You can always look at a Nintendo system and say, "Yeah, that's a Nintendo!"

[JamesD]

There were so many contributing factors I don't think you can pin it on one donkey... er... person.

[Retro Rogue]

I don't mean after he bought Atari, I mean did he kill Atari and help bring on the Videogame crash of 1984.

 

Cause the crash? Huh? He was able to buy Atari Consumer *because* of the crash. Where'd you get that idea?

 

The crash (which actually first got underway during the 4th quarter of 1982) occured during 1983 and had its culmination during the first half of 1984. It was an almost 2 year crash, not something that suddenly started when Atari was sold.

[shadow460]

I still think Nolan was right about the VCS. It should've been euthanized long before it died naturally.

 

We would still have awesome homebrews for it anyway, since each system retains a small but dedicated following. Some third party companies might have continued to produce software for it, too. I think the only titles we would really have missed out on are ones like Solaris.

Pitfall II, Moonsweeper, and some others would still be around, just without the glut of horrible games like Squeeze Box, Fire Fly, and anything by Froggo.

Edited September 20, 2006 by shadow460

[Retro Rogue]

I still think Nolan was right about the VCS. It should've been euthanized long before it died naturally.

 

We would still have awesome homebrews for it anyway, since each system retains a small but dedicated following. Some third party companies might have continued to produce software for it, too. I think the only titles we would really have missed out on are ones like Solaris.

Pitfall II, Moonsweeper, and some others would still be around, just without the glut of horrible games like Squeeze Box, Fire Fly, and anything by Froggo.

 

 

Actaully, we would have missed out on a lot more than that. Nolan was talking during 1978 about killing the 2600 - before much of its eventual software library had been created. That would mean no Activision, no Imagic, etc. as well (though in some parallel universe sort of way they still could have happened, just on a "different" Atari console).

[mos6507]

It was because of Kassar that many of the great Engineers and Programmers such as Al Alcorn were "sent to the beach" (I still love that line lol) and Cosmos could have been released if he hadn't been in his "protective bubble" with his concrete stance on the continued sale of the VCS, now.. we might not have had so many great titles for the VCS since Nolan wanted to pull the plug on the VCS and start development on a new console but then again, I still wonder what the future of Atari would have been if Time Warner hadn't ousted Nolan from Atari. And I totally agree with you on Tramiel, turning Atari's attention to affordable computers did somewhat killed their image as a video game company.

 

While they should have tried to retain the engineers, the fact is that the Cosmos was going to be a flop. It was nothing but an LED game on top of holograph backgrounds.

 

The engineers immediately went to work on what would become the Atari 400/800 after the VCS was released. Warner Atari did not stall on that. They just redirected it into a home computer. Some of the engineers didn't like the idea of it being a home computer, but not all of them. Nolan didn't mind it being a home computer. He just didn't like the way it was being marketed--downplaying the games.

 

The big mistakes started happening around 1982/83. Arguably, the chipset was too costly to market as a straight console in 1979, but Atari should have more aggressively cost-reduced the 400/800 the instance when it had become possible. Instead they let C= set the bar on pricing, and responded with the deliberately incompatible and nonexpandable 5200, and the atractive but kludged 1200XL.

[mos6507]

I still think Nolan was right about the VCS. It should've been euthanized long before it died naturally.

 

We would still have awesome homebrews for it anyway, since each system retains a small but dedicated following. Some third party companies might have continued to produce software for it, too. I think the only titles we would really have missed out on are ones like Solaris.

Pitfall II, Moonsweeper, and some others would still be around, just without the glut of horrible games like Squeeze Box, Fire Fly, and anything by Froggo.

 

Actaully, we would have missed out on a lot more than that. Nolan was talking during 1978 about killing the 2600 - before much of its eventual software library had been created. That would mean no Activision, no Imagic, etc. as well (though in some parallel universe sort of way they still could have happened, just on a "different" Atari console).

 

 

Nobody would have argued the point of killing the VCS in 1978. The VCS didn't become a true success until 1980. For those first 3 years it was really a mediocre selling product.

[Rik]

The whole TRAMIEL family treated ATARI like their own personal bank accounts,they were greedy,its a well known fact that son SAM,and probably others in the TRAMIEL CLAN,AND OTHER EMPLOYEES AT ATARI,or FROGGO, were DOPE FIENDS,judging by the games he put out for FROGGO,I wouldnt doubt it a bit,looks like they were just pumping out games to finance their drug habit.I dont think JACK was responsible or helped the game crash though,everthing MUST END at one time or another,it was just a NATURAL occurance,because of consumer demand for better games,graphics,and the ever so FAST changing technology.I can kind of see why JACK wanted out of the video game part of it,and wanted to concentrate on home computers instead,at least he was SMART enough to realize home pc's was going to have a huge profitable future.I do not however,like the fact that he cheapened ATARI'S reputation and quality,by skimping and penny pinching,to FATTEN HIS OWN BANK ACCOUNT,WHICH IS OBVIOUS,is all he cared about.My opinions have changed since reading up on this clown JACK,i used to have a more positive opinion of him,not anymore,the more i read about the TRAMIELS the more i detest that name,and the more disqusting facts i round up on them.This is just my observation,i could be wrong on some things,i JUST DONT LIKE THE WAY HE RAN a great company like ATARI,HE SHOULD HAVE RESPECTED THE NAME AND THE ATARI FANS BETTER!!!!!!!!!But i guess he was no different than other execs,who are in there to make money,after all,its all about money,morals go out the window in the corporate world,and you just have to watch todays news to see examples of that!!!!!!!!!....ENNNRRRROOOOOOOOON

Edited October 16, 2006 by Rik

[mos6507]

Atari used to be a trademark for quality. That trademark took a hit with things like ET and Pac-Man, but what the Tramiels should have done was attempt to restore that reputation rather than always going the budget route. I think the highest quality product the Tramiels had if you consider both hardware and software was the Lynx.

[phitter]

Yes and no. Did you have the capital to save Atari in 1984? If your answer is "No" then shut the @#$% up. Seriously, what difference does your opinion make in 2006????

 

Next thread.

 

-phitter

[Cybergoth]

Yes and no. Did you have the capital to save Atari in 1984? If your answer is "No" then shut the @#$% up. Seriously, what difference does your opinion make in 2006????

 

Next thread.

 

Wether it makes a difference or not, a respected community member like mos6507 is certainly entitled to voice his opinions on a matter like that.

On the other hand, it's definitely not your business to attack him personally or telling him to shut up.

Consider this a moderator warning.

[Atarifever]

Though, admittedly true, one does have to look at history in a practical light. Tramiel's Atari (if not his Commodore) made one TRULY momentous mistake after another, over and over again. I mean in the cas eof Atari, it is pretty easy to see the forks in the road he should have taken and in some cases how easy it was just to apply a bit more effort.

 

-Ray

 

How does any of this apply to the original question - did Jack Kill atari pre-1984? This whole thread is wayyyyy off track.

I thought I was the only one who noticed.

[phitter]

Yes and no. Did you have the capital to save Atari in 1984? If your answer is "No" then shut the @#$% up. Seriously, what difference does your opinion make in 2006????

 

Next thread.

 

Wether it makes a difference or not, a respected community member like mos6507 is certainly entitled to voice his opinions on a matter like that.

On the other hand, it's definitely not your business to attack him personally or telling him to shut up.

Consider this a moderator warning.

 

It appears my late night attempt to be funny wasn't very funny. I was just being a smart ass and was certainly not trying to attack or offend anyone.

 

I need to remember that straight-faced sarcasm does not necessarily translate in this forum. My fault - warning accepted.

 

-phitter

[Albert]

I think it's easy to put the blame in the Tramiel's hands since they were the ones at the reigns when the company ultimately imploded. As a loyal Atari computer user at the time, I watched with dismay one mistake after another being committed by this family. The company seemed to lack focus, had very poor marketing, was horrible at delivering product in a timely fashion, and seemed to be losing developers left and right. Products that did make the market seemed rushed, like the Atari ST (to compete with the Amiga). I enjoyed the ST quite a bit, but it had many weak points. If you could even find one to purchase at a local dealer!

 

At one point I became fed up enough with Atari that I abandoned the ST line (this was about the time the STe and/or Falcon was released, I don't remember) in favor of using PCs. I was doing C development at the time, and the tools on the PC were much evolved over those on the ST (I did like the Mark Williams C Compiler though).

 

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback, though. Who knows what would have happened if the Tramiels did not buy the company. Things could have gone better or they could have been even worse and we may not have even seen the Lynx and Jaguar.

 

..Al

[jaybird3rd]

I need to remember that straight-faced sarcasm does not necessarily translate in this forum. My fault - warning accepted.

For some reason, that kind of humor rarely comes across well in writing for anyone; that's probably why emoticons were invented. I always thought they were for silly high school girls myself, but I've gotten into the habit of using them (sparingly) to punctuate my non-serious remarks, just to avoid misunderstandings. Edited October 18, 2006 by jaybird3rd

[jaybird3rd]

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback, though. Who knows what would have happened if the Tramiels did not buy the company. Things could have gone better or they could have been even worse and we may not have even seen the Lynx and Jaguar.

Yes. It's too bad the Tramiels seem reluctant to discuss their Atari years publicly; I for one would love to hear them talk about that period from their own perspective. I'm sure there were many challenges and lots of things going on behind the scenes that most of us still aren't aware of. The one interview with Leonard that I've seen shed some interesting light on the 7800/NES issue in particular. Edited October 18, 2006 by jaybird3rd

[HP Atari King of Michigan]

As far as Tramiel is concerned, he may have not completely killed Atari. The Czar had got the ball rolling early on, with the inside trading scandal; Tramiel, with his cheapness, just finished what Kassar started.

[Retro Rogue]

Products that did make the market seemed rushed, like the Atari ST (to compete with the Amiga).

 

I'm not sure I agree on that (being rushed to compete against Amiga), since it was a good 90 - 95% done by the time they bought the Atari Consumer properties and formed Atari Corp. It was really just the OS that still needed to be fleshed out at that point. This also lends credence to the claim that much of the design had been done by Shiraz while still at Commodore. The whole reason for purchasing the Atari Consumer properties was to gain access to the manufacturing and distribution capabilities that Atari Consumer had, while using remaining stock to finance the completion. Don't forget, both companies had injunctions filed against them during that summer starting with Commodore against Atari Corp. and then Atari Corp. against Amiga. Amiga wasn't really on their radar as a competitor until that time (though I know a lot of the Mical missiniformation is out there regarding Tramiel wanting the Amiga technology and then rushing a product to market when he couldn't have it). I could see possibly OS development being rushed once the injunctions freed up.

 

 

I enjoyed the ST quite a bit, but it had many weak points. If you could even find one to purchase at a local dealer!

 

I think the initial ST's were great - for 1984 technology. They tried stretching it out for to long only doing minor updates in later models, before doing the major upgrades they should have been doing all along. Too late by that time though.

 

As for getting them, I never had a problem here. Most of the major computer chains at the time were carrying them and ST software. Amiga's were less common here in my experience.

Edited October 20, 2006 by wgungfu