Slate knows why Amiga failed. It was too innovative for its time, they say. This article is an example of how easy it is too confuse correlation with causation.
Yes, Amiga was extremely advanced for its time but that was not the reason it failed. Amiga was successful for a long time. It failed mostly because it did not evolve as fast as PC did.
Amiga started with much better graphics and sound than PC but after a few years PC got good graphics and sound. And then got better. Amiga started without IDE (hard-drive) interface. When IDE started to becoming a standard, low-cost part of a PC, Amiga still didn’t have it. You had to buy external interfaces that cost as much as the drive itself. The OS didn’t improve much either while at the same time hundreds of programmers in Redmond were busily adding new features to Windows.
Commodore apparently thought that computer business is a sprint: create great product, ship it, go to sleep and start collecting money. Repeat after a few years. But computer business is a marathon, you cannot go to sleep. The moment you ship version N of your product you should already be working on version N+1.
|« Profitable open-source business||•||High-level not so good »|