Update on Jack Tramiel Appearance
Brian Bagnall
10th appearance of Jack Tramiel at the Computer History Museum in California.
The event will include key people from Apple, IBM, and Amiga (see below). When
writing the book "On the Edge: the Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore" I
tried getting an interview with Jack by calling him almost a dozen times,
writing several letters to him, and getting his son Leonard to convince him -
everything short of showing up at his ranch and demanding an interview. I'm in
awe that Karen has been able to make this happen. Apparently she and Leonard
convinced Jack that it was important for him to talk about his experiences
before it was too late.
Karen wanted me to pass on some information. Basically Jack is done with the
confrontational period of his life where he had to be hard nosed in order to
run a company in a cutthroat industry. He's now a retired grandfather who
spends most of his time traveling with his family. Karen wants Jack to feel
welcome, where everyone in the audience can listen to his history with an open
mind. Hopefully if he feels welcome at the museum he will participate in other
events and we can eventually piece together his experiences in the early
computer industry. Karen knows that most people will be receptive to Jack, but
she was a little worried that a few might decide to throw his kind gesture
back in his face by confronting him. If you know of anyone who plans to do
this, please discourage them from attending.
From what I could gather, this is in celebration of the 25th anniversary of
the C64. There will first be a one-on-one interview with Jack moderated by
John Markoff of the NY Times. After that, Steve Wozniak (Apple II), Bill Lowe
(IBM PC) and Adam Chawniac (Amiga) will take to the stage for more discussion.
The discussions will probably focus on Commodore, though it's possible his
Atari history will be included. Everyone is welcome and if you aren't in the
area there will be a video webcast of the event available on their website.
This promises to be a great event, and I hope to see you there!
More information should be available soon at:
http://www.computerhistory.org/events/
All the best,
Brian Bagnall
David Murray
Chronicals. I have an MPEG2 of the interview. He was already old
then.. he must be a geezer by now.
Wildstar
hair as usual for being a CEO/Chairman - running an international
corporation.
I doubt there will be much of any confrontation and a few people are
expected and likely but not much since Jack is no longer in the running of
business matters anymore and wishes to not be in the confrontational front.
Basically, he can make that clear from the start. This is about the
rememberance and not about actually confronting. There probably be a little
from Jack being Jack. Steve Wozniak and everyone knows that he is out of the
"game".
Jack is alot like Donald Trump but of the early computer era and now
retired. He shouldn't worry too much. We all know that he is now retired and
is now just enjoying his remaining years.
"David Murray" <adr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194466556....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Sam Gillett
"David Murray" wrote ...
> Jack participated in an interview years ago with the Computer
> Chronicals. I have an MPEG2 of the interview. He was already old
> then.. he must be a geezer by now.
Barring accidents and major illness... You too could become a geezer
someday! ;-)
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!
Ladmo
Can you share the MPEG2?
Thanks!
David Murray
> Can you share the MPEG2?
> Thanks!
You can download the computer chronicles episodes for free. Just go
here:
http://www.archive.org/details/computerchronicles
I've watched tons of these and it is a really neat way to relive the
olden days.
bud
Group: comp.sys.cbm Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2007, 12:35am (CST+6) From:
sgillet...@diespammergte.net (Sam Gillett)
script:
>"David Murray" wrote ...
>
>>.. he must be a geezer by now.
>
>Barring accidents and major illness...
>You too could become a geezer
>someday! ;-)
Now, Sam,… let's don't us OFs pick on the whippersnappers! ((-;
salaam,
dowcom
To e-mail me, add the character zero to "dowcom". i.e.:
dowcom(zero)(at)webtv(dot)net.
--
http://community.webtv.net/dowcom/DOWCOMSAMSTRADGUIDE
MSWindows is television,… Linux is radar.
super_...@yahoo.com
> Basically Jack is done with the
> confrontational period of his life where he had to be hard nosed in order to
> run a company in a cutthroat industry.
Does being "hard-nosed" include treating employees like crap and not
paying vendors and sub-contractors? Sorry, but when someone pulls
shit like that for years, they simply can't brush it aside with a wave
of their hand. I'm fully aware that his attitude with how he treated
people was very likely the result of his Holocaust experiences as a
Nazi death camp prisoner. It's just a shame that he passed on all
that anger and disrepect, which resulted in him making a lot of
enemies throughout his career. Maybe that's why he's been so
reclusive ever since retiring, hmm?
Wildstar
major corporations in high competition was that way.
In that day, if you can't handle it, "get the F*** out" was the rule. So
Jack is no different than any other CEO coming from the 50s. Jack's
ruthlessness is no different then IBM of the 50s/60s. Remember, Jack was an
old school businessman. Donald Trump is much the same way.
It was also common that vendors and sub-contractors also try to charge a
higher rate than they had agreed and signed on. It was cutthroat. But that
was the entire world of business. Kill or be killed. Business is war.
Remember that?
Also don't believe all the stories that you hear. Jack may have been tough
and change decisions like a dime but remember it is what he does to keep the
business in competition or it'll be destroyed. Jack did what he did to
squash competition because that was exactly what the others *WILL* do. The
game was monopoly and to control the entire industry. To rake in as much
money as possible. Jack was a shrewd and tough businessman but lets all
remember that.
It isn't just his time in the concentration camp but if you were being
tortured and seeing your father die in front of your own eyes - it will
effect you and you wouldn't be the same. Often, you'll be tough. Lets not
forget that alot of the businessmen were former WWII soldiers and started
business after the war. For many cases, they were a tough, no-nonsense,
no-bullshit people who you don't talk back to. They are serious and Jack was
just that. Sure, he wasn't a "soldier" but he sure lived and seen shit that
sometimes soldiers have to go through and if you haven't had to see it,
thank your lucky stars.
Enough said. I think the point is clear.
<super_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194536164.8...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Joel Koltner
news:uwGYi.51$e61...@newsfe06.lga...
> Being a hard-ass was "law of business" and about 99% of businessmen running
> major corporations in high competition was that way.
That doesn't mean that Jack should be "forgiven" any more than the former
Nazis who imprisoned him were.
Doing anything because "99% of other guys are going it" has always been
piss-poor policy. Being "hard-driving" and a "cutthroat deal-maker" are not
mutual exclusive with being honest, ethical, and treating people fairly.
> The game was monopoly and to control the entire industry.
You have to wonder about the ethics of anyone who would willingly participate
in such a "game" -- it's quite clear, at least in the U.S., that by law it's a
game you can never win, given that monopolies are illegal.
---Joel
Payton Byrd
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13j6joj...@corp.supernews.com...
Monopolies are not illegal in the USA, but undertaking specifically spelled
out anti-competitive practices to maintain a monopoly is illegal.
Joel Koltner
news:yrIYi.221$iB2...@newsfe02.lga...
> Monopolies are not illegal in the USA, but undertaking specifically spelled
> out anti-competitive practices to maintain a monopoly is illegal.
Interesting, I didn't know that; thanks for the clarification.
Dragos
tense changes in that blob of idiocy you typed, noone know WTF you
were trying to say beyond that you think you have important stuff to
say.....
Zero dB
?
He is retired. It's over. Let it go.
As an elder and retiree he does indeed deserve both respect and a
dignified approach. That's how civilized people will see it anyway.
Wildstar
monopoly is illegal. The question is what kinds of practices were deemed
illegal. There was a different culture of what is deemed fair and not fair.
Honestly Joel, you seem to be a kid. Wake up, the world isn't fair and nor
will it ever be. The world is dominated by desire of pocession and the
business world is like that. It isn't a matter of "doing it because the
others are doing it". It is about doing whatever it takes for business to
survive. If you look into the history of every business that has existed for
any length of time over multiple generations, you'll find businesses doing
things that today is illegal but then was not. Businesses uses every loop
hole to get the edge over their competition. They did it then and do it now.
If you don't do it, you fall. The timid dies first. The survival of the
fittest is the "law of the lands". The timid are the ones who dies. The
aggressive yet not taking more then needed type survives. The key was to be
aggressive enough to hold off competition and keep edge while not taking on
too much or getting everyone upset at you. Jack Tramiel did was any savvy
businessman would do in the cutthroat environment. If you let them cut your
throat you fall. Jack been there. 1960s - TI cut-throatted Commodore and
many others. Commodore almost bit the dust. By the mid-70s, Commodore but
everything in a "vertical" order of business by having their own in-house
chip manufacturing, they can cut the prices because when you order chips
from someone else - you pay for their "inflated prices". TI did a cut-throat
tactic that C= used in return to TI in the computer wars. TI - maker of
chips used in calculators sold chips to other companies with a profit
margin. (Manufacturing Cost + TI Profit margin) Then those companies have to
add an additional "profit and assembling cost margin". When TI made their
own calculators, they can cut the extra profit margin per component. For
them, it was just manufacturing and assembling cost and one "profit margin".
In short, they can reduce price of items where the competitor can not.
That was perfectly legal. The business world isn't about "ethics". It is
about doing what it takes for business to survive the competition. Do what
is legal. Law does not equal ethic. Business is war and war is not for the
timid "goodie-tooshoo". Even today. It may not be as viscous as it was but
it still is.
Lets remember that Microsoft is still a monopoly. The courts are a joke on
that one. Even breaking up Microsoft who's stock(s) would still be in Bill
Gates ownership would be a joke because he would still legally be entitled
chairmanship of all the units and the courts really couldn't legally prevent
that. So it be 4-6 Microsofts, each of which Bill Gates would still be in
ultimate control of. So, it wouldn't have done anything. It would be the
same with any of the other companies.
It isn't a matter of forgiveness, it would be just the plain "get over it".
Jack was a hard-ass and they knew it. Some of them try to screw him so Jack
screw them. So, they might have well deserved getting screwd. They knew it.
Try to throw a fast one. If you are not willing to screw the competition
over when they are trying to screw you, then you don't belong in corporate
business leadership because you are too timid. You'll cause the company to
fall.
Really, those people who knew Jack Tramiel don't hold any hard ill-feelings.
Jack had his rough and tough way. Sometimes, when people first meet him
would think he's an asshole but when you know him, you realize that he wants
straight answers. Bil Herd and Chuck Peddle and those who worked for
Commodore had no problems with him. Sometimes, he is difficult to satisfy
but you had to know how to talk straight to him and you know that he wants
straight concise answers and he challenges his employees to work hard. Don't
be a defeat-ist. If a project won't make it, he'll cut it and redirect the
staff to projects that are. He is looking at how to bring the right product
out at the right time at the right price. In some cases, he'd expect you to
be ingenious. At first, alot of projects that were going to be sold or made
as individual products were combined into one product (Commodore 64 for
example). So work wasn't redone. Jack realized that his engineers did that.
So instead of a video chip product and a sound chip product. They combined
it into one product. Saving cost, making one product with these
technologies. The VIC-II, SID and all that.
He didn't care how you did it. Just that you make the schedule and
deadlines. Those that didn't get the idea and complained got booted. Makes
fair sense.
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13j6joj...@corp.supernews.com...
Joel Koltner
> The business world isn't about "ethics". It is about doing what it takes for
> business to survive the competition. Do what is legal. Law does not equal
> ethic. Business is war and war is not for the timid "goodie-tooshoo".
To put it simply... not everyone views the world like this. Plenty of
businessmen are perfectly happy *not* trying to take over the world and put
all their competitors out of business -- as long as any company makes a
reasonable return on investment, who's going to complain? Not the investors
(since they were the ones who defined "reasonable return"), not the employees,
etc.
At least here in the U.S., you can run a business *incredibly* poorly and
still stay in business; plenty of people have first-hand experience working
for such companies. This super-tough, "winner takes all, business is war"
mentality does apply to some markets (CPUs and operating systems perhaps?),
but the vast majority of companies (by number) extant today don't take
themselves nearly as seriously as you suggest.
I'm not convinced that Tramiel's being less of a jackass would have in any
significant way lessened Commodore's performance -- and it might have even
helped it... but I admit there's no way to ever know that for certain.
For the guy asking what Jack could do to attone: Simple apologies go a long
way. You don't even have to say (or think) that you were wrong, simply that
you regret the hardships and grief you caused for others.
> If you are not willing to screw the competition over when they are trying to
> screw you, then you don't belong in corporate business leadership because
> you are too timid.
Again, plenty of successful businessmen today don't believe that sort of
philosophy; it's just as arbitrary (if not downright bogus) today as it was
half a century ago. Ever heard the saying, "Turn the other cheek?" (And
folks "selling" religion make *plenty* of money...)
There would be more of a discussion here if Commodore, under Tramiels
leadership, had performed spectacularly with well-above-market-average returns
and a steady stream of solid products, but that didn't happen -- while the
C-64 was obviously a huge success, the release of the C16 and Plus/4 were
market failures, and none of his post-Commodore companies were particularly
notable either. Hence Tramiel can't even claim, "might makes right" -- the
guy jumped out of what he thought was a sinking ship, after all, when he'd
been at the helm for decades!
Sounds to me there's a much stronger case that he's a decent businessman who
happens to have been something of a jerk than a case that he was some
visionary superstar businessman whose "achievements" couldn't have been
obtained through less-abrasive-to-others means.
---Joel
Wildstar
my name on it.
Also, the person appears to understand to some degree as to what I said.
Dragos, don't talk to me. Talk to other people. It doesn't matter if you can
understand what was written by me. You are not the best person to determine
if the message is understood. Lets hope that you understand the following:
Dragos, please talk to someone else.
I understood what you wrote. I don't care to comply to you. You do not own
this newsgroup. I do not hold claim to this newsgroup. If you don't want to
ever read any of my messages then you might want to consider unsubscribing
to this newsgroup. I am not ordering you to leave. It is all that I can
suggest to you. It is clear that I am not leaving this newsgroup. It is
clear that I am not going to comply with your 'demands'. It is clear that I
told you that I do not care about the grammar in these "chats". I will only
care about grammar in writing reports and official business letters. There
is too many grammer rules in the English language to give a damn about when
I am not being paid a single penny for. By the way, sentences longer than
seven words does not mean a run on sentence.
In traditional grammar rules, you don't use parenthesis inside a sentence.
Frankly, I don't give a...., I use it to place other tangent of info. To
understand my writings here, just read through the sentence as if the
parenthesis and content between parenthesis wasn't there. Then read the
content between parenthesis. Then move on to the next sentence. Otherwise,
at first word, skip to next message.
I do agree that my messages are hard for some people to follow. I know that
you understood what I wrote. Just go away. You are only responding to me to
harass me.
Sir, find something else better to do and leave me alone. Also, it appears
that people understood what I wrote. Although from different perspective.
You just exaggerate alot.
"Dragos" <mgla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194549018.2...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Dragos
>
> news:1194549018.2...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Wildstar, there are so many incoherant thoughts, run-on sentences, and
> > tense changes in that blob of idiocy you typed, noone know WTF you
> > were trying to say beyond that you think you have important stuff to
> > say.....
incoherant ramblings all of it,you dont know shit about 99% of what
you talk about, at least you keep this moronic shit out of irc..... of
course you had lots of help there...
Wildstar
nothing to do with you.
You rant about shit that you don't have to read or respond to. Makes you
look stupider than me.
Have a nice day.
"Dragos" <mgla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194580594.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Dragos
look stupider than me.
that is totally not possible :)
Wildstar
> "Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:NvMYi.262$iB2...@newsfe02.lga...
>> The business world isn't about "ethics". It is about doing what it takes
>> for business to survive the competition. Do what is legal. Law does not
>> equal ethic. Business is war and war is not for the timid
>> "goodie-tooshoo".
>
> To put it simply... not everyone views the world like this. Plenty of
> businessmen are perfectly happy *not* trying to take over the world and
> put all their competitors out of business -- as long as any company makes
> a reasonable return on investment, who's going to complain? Not the
> investors (since they were the ones who defined "reasonable return"), not
> the employees, etc.
>
> At least here in the U.S., you can run a business *incredibly* poorly and
> still stay in business; plenty of people have first-hand experience
> working for such companies. This super-tough, "winner takes all, business
> is war" mentality does apply to some markets (CPUs and operating systems
> perhaps?), but the vast majority of companies (by number) extant today
> don't take themselves nearly as seriously as you suggest.
Different industries and different conditions involved. In case of lumber
industry, they own the land that they harvest and they don't have to fight
competitions. Others are different. Lets remember that the computer industry
is more "civilized" but the average cost is higher than it was in the 80s.
Even with deflation. Fierce competition brings the price down. Today, it is
pretty well stagnant. That is because there is a lack of competition.
> I'm not convinced that Tramiel's being less of a jackass would have in any
> significant way lessened Commodore's performance -- and it might have even
> helped it... but I admit there's no way to ever know that for certain.
>
> For the guy asking what Jack could do to attone: Simple apologies go a
> long way. You don't even have to say (or think) that you were wrong,
> simply that you regret the hardships and grief you caused for others.
What did Jack do to you?
>> If you are not willing to screw the competition over when they are trying
>> to screw you, then you don't belong in corporate business leadership
>> because you are too timid.
>
> Again, plenty of successful businessmen today don't believe that sort of
> philosophy; it's just as arbitrary (if not downright bogus) today as it
> was half a century ago. Ever heard the saying, "Turn the other cheek?"
> (And folks "selling" religion make *plenty* of money...)
Lets remember, Jack Tramiel was from that "half century ago". He was a
dinosaur and he was at the waning years of that philosophy. Also, remember
that Jack Tramiel started Commodore in the 1950s and 1960s. He was an old
school businessman then. Donald Trump is one of the few remaining hard-ass
types in the computer industry. In the building/construction industry, that
still exist prevelently. There also is good reasoning for being a hard ass
in that industry.
Remember, IBM's Thomas Watson, Jr. and others. Remember, Aikens and others.
Those guys were the guys who will fight hard.
> There would be more of a discussion here if Commodore, under Tramiels
> leadership, had performed spectacularly with well-above-market-average
> returns and a steady stream of solid products, but that didn't happen --
> while the C-64 was obviously a huge success, the release of the C16 and
> Plus/4 were market failures, and none of his post-Commodore companies were
> particularly notable either. Hence Tramiel can't even claim, "might makes
> right" -- the guy jumped out of what he thought was a sinking ship, after
> all, when he'd been at the helm for decades!
Actually, Commodore did phenomenally while under his leadership. Over 4
Million C64s in a single year. It was after Jack Tramiel left that Commodore
had problems.
> Sounds to me there's a much stronger case that he's a decent businessman
> who happens to have been something of a jerk than a case that he was some
> visionary superstar businessman whose "achievements" couldn't have been
> obtained through less-abrasive-to-others means.
Commodore's success is a result of both Jack Tramiel's aggressive leadership
and the engineers creative working under strap budget and tight
time-windows. Sure, there was alot of products that were dropped for one
spectacular product. However, those products were combined to become one
spectacular product. Instead of a video chip product and a sound chip
product, they combined it to be the Commodore 64.
I don't think he was as much of a jackass as you have interpreted him to be.
He was tough and fired people who isn't going to do the work and complained.
Argue with him and you are out. Jack been in business to know that if his
employees just did the work, they'll find a solution. Instead of whining to
him, "We can't do it." Those that did the work, made it happen. Those that
complained, got ousted because he isn't going to waste his time with people
who aren't going to work.
There are various reasons for various cases. If you allow the engineers to
have free reign, they'll make fancy "projects" not products. Products is the
result of putting a deadline and budget of "projects" and price level. Jack
didn't want a bunch of fancy projects. He wants products. Engineers tends to
be full of featuritist. Of course, you need a hard-nose, down to earth,
businessman saying - "Enough. We need a product not a project." So, yes,
some dreams didn't make it. That is the difference between making a product
and some engineers wet-dream being engineered.
The thing is, engineers will keep fiddling with it and adding more features
and more features and eventually it will become too pricy. That is the
difference between a C-1 and C64DTV. That is the difference between a
project and a product. If we had a "Jack Tramiel", the we would have a
$99-199 C-One.
There is reason for people like Jack. As for atoning, who worked for
Commodore is even asking Jack to atone? Why does he have to atone? There is
nothing he has to answer to anyone. Nor is anyone who worked for Commodore
who had been "Jack attacked". No one demands Donald Trump to atone for his
"You're Fired!" when he does his "Trump attack". You would think Donald
Trump is an jackass. You know what, if you can't handle working for those
hard-nose, hard-ass employers, don't apply. They run their business their
way. It's his money and his investors had no problems. It was under Jack's
reign that the Vic-20 and C64 - (the best selling personal computer model in
world history)
Lets be honest, there are many businessmen and none of them have to atone
for anything. Why should Jack. Many of those who got fired by Jack, respects
Jack and don't even ask Jack to atone for anything. Besides, its Jack's
money anyway. So what the hell do you have any stake in the matters?
super_...@yahoo.com
> As for atoning, who worked for
> Commodore is even asking Jack to atone? Why does he have to atone? There is
> nothing he has to answer to anyone.
Guess there's no arguing with a 'deity', anymore than there is with a
blind follower...
*rolls eyes*
Joel Koltner
> Lets remember that the computer industry is more "civilized" but the average
> cost is higher than it was in the 80s.
The average cost of computers today is higher than it was in the '80s? I
don't think so.
> Today, it is pretty well stagnant. That is because there is a lack of
> competition.
I don't agree there either; the industry has just "matured" into a form where
product cycles are evolutionary rather than revolutionary... but there's still
plenty of competition.
> Those guys were the guys who will fight hard.
I trying to impress upon you that there's a huge distinction between "fighting
hard" and "being a jackass."
> Actually, Commodore did phenomenally while under his leadership. Over 4
> Million C64s in a single year.
That doesn't imply that it was entirely or even largely due to Tramiel. I'm
not suggesting he had nothing to do with it either, just that a lot of the
low-level technical decisions that many an engineer or programmer make
probably played just as much of a roll in making the C-64 as successful as it
was.
> It was after Jack Tramiel left that Commodore had problems.
Mmm... this history paints it a little differently:
http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/commodore.html
> I don't think he was as much of a jackass as you have interpreted him to be.
You may be right about that; I've never meant the man personally nor worked
for him directly or indirectly.
> Argue with him and you are out.
In a good engineering company, arguing about technical topics is very much
encouraged; no one has a monopoly on creativity or genius.
Arguing about stuff like why your office only has one window rather than two
is a good reason to be fired. :-)
> There are various reasons for various cases. If you allow the engineers to
> have free reign, they'll make fancy "projects" not products.
That's a stereotype that -- like most stereotypes -- certainly has a grain of
turth to it, but no more so than the stereotype than running a successful big
business in a fiercy competitive envinroment requires being a hard-nosed
S.O.B. :-)
Good engineers are acutely aware of how the business cycle works and how to
prioritize and categorize features in order to make shipping deadlines.
Sometimes tight deadlines just make for crap products -- look at the E. T.
video game, written in five weeks
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial_%28Atari_2600%29).
The management at Atari who pushed to get it down to fulfill their desires to
rake in the money over the 1982 Christmas season ended up largely contributing
to the "video game crash of 1983," putting thousands of people out of work and
losing millions of dollars in the process. (Granted, the market in '83 was
over-saturated anyway and plenty of people were inevitably going to lose money
and jobs, but overly-greedy business decisions made it far worse than it might
have otherwise been.)
> No one demands Donald Trump to atone for his "You're Fired!" when he does
> his "Trump attack".
Thta's just an act.
> Lets be honest, there are many businessmen and none of them have to atone
> for anything.
Businessmen have to atone all the time... sometimes it just requires a court
order to make'em do so. :-) (Not that I'm suggesting anything Tramiel did was
illegal, mind you.)
> So what the hell do you have any stake in the matters?
I don't, particularly, I just find it an interesting discussion.
---Joel
Dragos
It was under Jack's
reign that the Vic-20 and C64 - (the best selling personal computer
model in
world history)
It was under Jacks reign that the vic-20 and c64 WHAT??????
is it an incomplete sentence? is it a tense change? WTF do you mean?
Diarrhea of the mouth is curable.... STFU
Wildstar
You must be a miracle.
"Dragos" <mgla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194584397....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Wildstar
he did to bring Commodore into the forefront of the computer industry. So
what.
The point is, no one fucking cares about it but a couple of loony fruitloops
like yourselves who had absolutely nothing to do with the matters and
wanting him to atone for sins. So shall Bill Gates and everyone who violates
one ethical rule or another. So fucking what. How hard is that to
understand. No one asked you to police the world with your own personal
values of ethics.
The world doesn't follow you or Jack or Dragos or me or anyone's views of
ethics.
<super_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194587662.1...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Wildstar
in wasting your so precious time and do yourself a favor and get laid. Find
yourself something better to do.
I forgot to write the following in quotes:
"came to the marketplace." I forgot to finish the sentence. I got distracted
at that time. If you read my previous responses to you, I am not going to
get nitpicky about grammer and if I missed completing a sentence, so what. I
told you that if you don't want to read my messages then don't.
You are just annoying. It won't get me to go away. You are wasting your
time.
"Dragos" <mgla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194642560....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Wildstar
> I trying to impress upon you that there's a huge distinction between
> "fighting hard" and "being a jackass."
Yeah, there is. There was never a argument of that. I ask you, "Did you work
for Commodore while Jack Tramiel was CEO?"
You read posts and personal interpretation. Then again, who the hell cares.
>> Actually, Commodore did phenomenally while under his leadership. Over 4
>> Million C64s in a single year.
>
> That doesn't imply that it was entirely or even largely due to Tramiel.
> I'm not suggesting he had nothing to do with it either, just that a lot of
> the low-level technical decisions that many an engineer or programmer make
> probably played just as much of a roll in making the C-64 as successful as
> it was.
Technical decisions is directly relates to the criterias in which your boss
puts yopu under. You make a decision based on budget. At Commodore, Jack
sets the budget and price. He controls the money. So the engineers have to
work to that. So Jack has equally the engineers and the programmers during
that time. Jack also makes the decisions of when products are released and
what products that will be sold. Jack made that decision. Each has their
important role. Without Jack, the C64 might have not been made or even be
more pricier. Look at the Plus/4 price jump from initial price mark that was
under Jack's reign and how it changed under new leadership and the price
went up. Then it failed.
You think Jack was a jackass but then you are taking one person's
perspective. Your own perspective. Then I ask you, who are you to determine
whether or not Jack was an asshole or not. I ask you to talk to Bil Herd and
anyone who worked for Commodore and ask them if he was or wasn't and whether
or not they want him to atone for anything.
If you ask someone right after they got fired, they'll say nothing but bad
words about their former boss. If you ask them 10-20 or even 30 years later
or anytime after they calmed down, they won't have anything negative to say.
Jack was Jack. He was a tough, no non-sense, hard-ass. It was how he manage
business in a very competitive marketplace. It worked well. In a highly
aggressive competitive marketplace, you have to be tough and aggressive. You
have to give respect to Jack who didn't care about how you achieve his goals
but that you achieve it. If you say "It can't happen", "You're fired". Get
the idea. This is how you put the engineers and employees under fire to get
the product made and be ingenious. If the engineers weren't under the fire,
the engineers would have done things differently but also that "C64" would
have been more expensive as the engineers would not have been driven to find
innovative methods in less space. Jack put them in that environment. It was
a tough environment but nothing negative. Bil Herd had nothing negative to
say about Jack.
You interpret him as an asshole but do you even know Jack Tramiel? Do you
know how Jack Tramiel was like at Commodore? Were you there?
> Mmm... this history paints it a little differently:
> http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/commodore.html
>
>> I don't think he was as much of a jackass as you have interpreted him to
>> be.
>
> You may be right about that; I've never meant the man personally nor
> worked for him directly or indirectly.
>> Argue with him and you are out.
>
> In a good engineering company, arguing about technical topics is very much
> encouraged; no one has a monopoly on creativity or genius.
True. Jack Tramiel didn't fire his techs because of mere constructive
arguments on technical topics. It is the defeat-ist attitude that would get
you fired. I ask you, " I want a 4GB RAM computer that runs at 4 GHz made
for a market price of $699 by Christmas of 2008". I challenge you to do
whatever it takes to make it happen. If you tell me, "there is no way to do
it" then I'm inclined to fire you. Of course, we would have our own chip
manufacturing facility like Commodore.
> Arguing about stuff like why your office only has one window rather than
> two is a good reason to be fired. :-)
True. The point is being defeatist or wasting money on trivial bullshit
would be reasons to be fired. When you are in a competition environment
where customers may by one brand of computers then another. Remember this is
about domination of computer platforms to be the standard. It is like the
VHS/BETA wars or the casette vs. 8-track wars.
>> There are various reasons for various cases. If you allow the engineers
>> to have free reign, they'll make fancy "projects" not products.
>
> That's a stereotype that -- like most stereotypes -- certainly has a grain
> of turth to it, but no more so than the stereotype than running a
> successful big business in a fiercy competitive envinroment requires being
> a hard-nosed S.O.B. :-)
>
> Good engineers are acutely aware of how the business cycle works and how
> to prioritize and categorize features in order to make shipping deadlines.
Wrong. "Experienced engineers" not good vs. bad engineers. The issue is
engineers look at providing the "best tech" but that means prices. Sure, the
C64 could have been a better computer but to make it what they "dream it to
be", the end price might have been twice as expensive.
The challenge of the environment of Jack's leadership was a driving point.
Jack also had the tendency to reduce the introductory price level of the C64
throughout the development. So, it challenged the developers to reduce cost
and find ways to do more with less. The less made the price be reduced. The
ingenuity of the engineers (as expected) would be to do the job and make it
happen. I don't care how you achieve the goal but you would be asked to make
it happen. (Back to the *challenge*)
> Sometimes tight deadlines just make for crap products -- look at the E. T.
> video game, written in five weeks
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial_%28Atari_2600%29).
> The management at Atari who pushed to get it down to fulfill their desires
> to rake in the money over the 1982 Christmas season ended up largely
> contributing to the "video game crash of 1983," putting thousands of
> people out of work and losing millions of dollars in the process.
> (Granted, the market in '83 was over-saturated anyway and plenty of people
> were inevitably going to lose money and jobs, but overly-greedy business
> decisions made it far worse than it might have otherwise been.)
>
>> No one demands Donald Trump to atone for his "You're Fired!" when he does
>> his "Trump attack".
>
> Thta's just an act.
Donald does that in real life when there is that case. I know the show is an
act. He expects no less of his employees than on the show.
>> Lets be honest, there are many businessmen and none of them have to atone
>> for anything.
>
> Businessmen have to atone all the time... sometimes it just requires a
> court order to make'em do so. :-) (Not that I'm suggesting anything
> Tramiel did was illegal, mind you.)
Bill Gates shall atone for his company's piracy under his leadership. That
ain't going to happen and no one really cares to or demands him to. Get the
idea. Businessmen do what they do. Business is war and always has been. I
haven't seen businessmen really atone for shit. None of them say, "I'm
sorry."
Joel Koltner
> Technical decisions is directly relates to the criterias in which your boss
> puts yopu under.
Not as much as you might expect. Have you ever worked at an engineering-type
job? (Hardware or software...) The specs usually just talk about *what* a
widget has to do, i.e., the *interface*, and leave the particular
*implementation* up to the engineer. Hopefully it's self-evident that two
different designs that meet the letter of a spec can end up being much better
or worse than one another when it comes to user preferences, and this (the
particulars of the implementation) is where engineers and not CEOs are the
ones who help to make or break a company.
This does vary from industry to industry, certainly, but I'm quite certain
that Jack Tramiel wasn't the one specifying, e.g., the *exact* architecture of
the VIC-II or SID chips -- just that they have to have, say, so many colors
with such-and-such resolution, so many voices, etc.
> Without Jack, the C64 might have not been made or even be more pricier.
A true statement, but it's also true that "without Jack, the C-64 might have
been even better." :-) There's no way to know...
Klompmeester
> It isn't a matter of *blind* following. Jack was a businessman and did
> what he did to bring Commodore into the forefront of the computer
> industry. So what.
Others did that for him under some pretty hard conditions by some accounts.
It was the passion of his employees that brought us some great products like
the C64. Management only serves to sacrifice features and development for
bottom line profit, or make stupid decisions about what products are
actually needed for which markets. Commodore has a history of mismanagement
that goes way back.
> The point is, no one fucking cares about it but a couple of loony
> fruitloops like yourselves who had absolutely nothing to do with the
> matters and wanting him to atone for sins.
That's rich coming from a mentally challenged person.
Joel Koltner
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:by6Zi.3$FU...@newsfe03.lga...
> Technical decisions is directly relates to the criterias in which your boss
> puts yopu under.
Not as much as you might expect. Have you ever worked at an engineering-type
job? (Hardware or software...) The specs usually just talk about *what* a
widget has to do, i.e., the *interface*, and leave the particular
*implementation* up to the engineer. Hopefully it's self-evident that two
different designs that meet the letter of a spec can end up being much better
or worse than one another when it comes to user preferences, and this (the
particulars of the implementation) is where engineers and not CEOs are the
ones who help to make or break a company.
This does vary from industry to industry, certainly, but I'm quite certain
that Jack Tramiel wasn't the one specifying, e.g., the exact architecture of
the VIC-II or SID chips -- just that they have to have, say, so many colors
with such-and-such resolution, so many voices, etc.
> Without Jack, the C64 might have not been made or even be more pricier.
A true statement, but it's also true that "without Jack, the C-64 might have
been even better." :-) There's no way to know...
> I ask you to talk to Bil Herd and anyone who worked for Commodore and ask
> them if he was or wasn't and whether or not they want him to atone for
> anything.
That's fair; I'll do so if I get the opportunity.
> If you ask someone right after they got fired, they'll say nothing but bad
> words about their former boss.
I dunno, some people purposely try to fired... or at least laid off. :-) But
I take your point -- certainly few if anyone has an objective perspective on
their former boss when they've just been unexpectedly fired.
> You have to give respect to Jack who didn't care about how you achieve his
> goals but that you achieve it. If you say "It can't happen", "You're fired".
Funny how Jack left on his own accord after he felt he had "lost control" of
Commodore -- guess that too many people gave him the cold shoulder, having
learned not to directly confront him but perhaps simply ignore his rants
instead? A good businessman *wants* to be told "it can't happen" immediately
followed by *good reasons* that's the case. It's just plain stupid to assume
that an employee who tells you something's "can't happen" is doing so out of
laziness or inemptitude and fire them.
> This is how you put the engineers and employees under fire to get the
> product made and be ingenious.
It's also how crappy products come to market. I already told you about E.T.
for the Atari 2600... there's another anecdote somewhere about how, during the
Microsoft push for Windows 3.1 or 95 (I've forgotten which), there were very
tight deadlines for getting the product to a shippable state, but it was
acknowledged that there would be plenty of bugs in that first release and that
was OK. One programmer was tasked with writing a routine to calculate the
height, in pixels, of a text string given its font, etc. Knowing that in most
cases the regular system font would be used anyway, he simply wrote the
routine as, "return 12" and called it good, figuring he'd met the objective of
being able to ship on time even though he'd purposely introduced a bug into
the code.
Microsoft today still makes plenty of money, and while some may think (or
hope) that they're slowly imploding, it's not because they haven't completely
changed their policies on acceptable coding practices. Writing "return 12"
and checking it in is *now* the kind of thing that'd get you fired...
> I ask you, " I want a 4GB RAM computer that runs at 4 GHz made for a market
> price of $699 by Christmas of 2008". I challenge you to do whatever it takes
> to make it happen. If you tell me, "there is no way to do it" then I'm
> inclined to fire you.
Don't you see, though, that unless the CEO has technical expertise himself
(which I don't believe Tramiel did), he's simply in no position to judge
whether or not someone telling him "no" regarding some technical topic is
inept or it simply, truly can't be done. A CEO without technical expertise
has to trust his subordinates to be providing him with good information (can
it be done or not?) -- the attitude you're promoting there seems to encourage
an environment of "yes men," and no good businessman wants that.
I think we're probably rather in agreement here, it's just the way we're
wording things and our assumptions about Jack's motives that probably differ.
I agree with you that there are plenty of "defeatist" would-be employees out
there who do say "no" well before making any real effort to solve the problem.
>> Good engineers are acutely aware of how the business cycle works and how to
>> prioritize and categorize features in order to make shipping deadlines.
>
> Wrong. "Experienced engineers" not good vs. bad engineers.
In my mind "good" tends to imply "experienced" much more than "experience"
along implies "good." :-)
> Jack also had the tendency to reduce the introductory price level of the C64
> throughout the development.
He was competing with TI; if the had never existed I doubt the C64 would have
dropped in price as quickly as it did.
> Donald does that in real life when there is that case. I know the show is an
> act. He expects no less of his employees than on the show.
OK, fair enough. That probably means at at least... half? two-thirds? of all
people out there simply wouldn't want to work for the man. Nothing wrong with
mutual disinterest. :-)
---Joel
super_...@yahoo.com
> It isn't a matter of *blind* following.
In your case, it sure is b/c you feel Jack was absolutely justified in
everything that he did - good or bad. "He's got nothing to atone
for....". Sorry, but if anyone does in this conversation, it's him.
He left more of a wake of destruction than Exxon's Valdez.
> The world doesn't follow you or Jack or Dragos or me or anyone's views of
> ethics.
... especially yours. And we can all rest easier for that :)
As far as Jack's business ethics are concerned, they sucked, for lack
of a better term. I have a stack of memos from angry developers,
detailing how he refused to pay them for work they did on Lynx and
Jaguar games. It's certainly not like he didn't have the money - even
with the millions Atari received in patent infringement from Sega
(thanks to Nolan Bushnell's foresight), he STILL refused to pay
people.
And since we're talking about your man, let's review his track record
at Atari:
He abandons the video game market when he had the perfect machine
(7800) to be competitive in it, in order to release business computers
(the STs). What possible advantage there was in buying a video game
company in order to turn it into another Commodore, we'll never know
(another question to ask him tomorrow...). No sooner does Atari win
over a new batch of retailers in a new marketplace that he decides he
wants in on the now-hot video game market -- the reason being, here
was a perfect opportunity to dump all that old Atari/Warner
inventory. The (now 3 years old) 7800, the XEGS (essentially a 1979
400/800 computer in disguise), and the (now prehistoric) VCS/2600 are
released with a smattering of new titles, and dozens of old ones --
all of which are virtually ignored by 3rd-party software developers
(except those sub-contracted by Atari). In yet another bizarro move,
Atari pretty much leaves all the U.S. ST dealers (and 100k or so
owners) at the altar and decides to push the ST in Europe. No big
loss there, b/c the only thing the STs (and TTs) were really good for
was its MIDI feature, and the Amiga (the true successor to the
400/800, and another missed opportunity by Atari/Tramiel) was the
superior machine overall. Most of Atari's R&D efforts at this point
are spent on developing multiple versions of the ST hardware (more
colors, better sound, laptops, etc.), the craptastic Portfolio (which
would have been completely forgotten about had it not appeared in a
popular movie), and the unreleased 16-bit Panther video game system.
Atari then buys a GameBoy killer from Epyx (the Handy) but once again
Jack's too late to the party as the far inferior GameBoy rolls right
over the Lynx (lack of major marketing and 3rd-party support doesn't
help). When Atari/Tramiel finally develops and releases its first
video game system, the Jaguar, it's cartridge-based and under-powered
(most of the so-called "64-bit" games look like something the 16-bit
Panther would have been capable of). Again, lack of support and
software kill an otherwise potential success. See a pattern here? LOL
To sum it up, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of Atari fans these
days are those who still actively use Atari products from the Bushnell/
Warner era. The web presence / fan base for the ST/TT/Lynx/Jaguar
machines these days is all but nonexistent.
And you sit there and wonder why Atarians don't love and worship
Tramiel as you obviously do?
Wildstar
> Not as much as you might expect. Have you ever worked at an
> engineering-type job? (Hardware or software...) The specs usually just
> talk about *what* a widget has to do, i.e., the *interface*, and leave the
> particular *implementation* up to the engineer. Hopefully it's
> self-evident that two different designs that meet the letter of a spec can
> end up being much better or worse than one another when it comes to user
> preferences, and this (the particulars of the implementation) is where
> engineers and not CEOs are the ones who help to make or break a company.
I didn't say whether or not the C64 would be a better device or not. Free
reign and the engineers would make a supercomputer. Jack set basic specs and
price level. How he did that was "I want a computer that has equal to or
better specs than the competitors computer for X price.".
If the C64 was twice its price at introduction, the sales of the C64 would
have been effected. Keeping in mind that the C64 was being marketed for a
specific market level. In the 80s, the industry of hardware engineering and
software engineering is different then it is today. Different culture and
different environment. Home Computer industry was in its infancy with
aggressive competition.
> This does vary from industry to industry, certainly, but I'm quite certain
> that Jack Tramiel wasn't the one specifying, e.g., the *exact*
> architecture of the VIC-II or SID chips -- just that they have to have,
> say, so many colors with such-and-such resolution, so many voices, etc.
at a price mark that was set by competition. C64 being priced at $300
instead of $600 was to compete with Atari. This was because of Commodore
stance for "computer for the masses not the classes". Price difference of
even $100 more can be a make or break. You see, in the 80s, people were
wanting to know what "computer platform" to buy and was weighing the options
on colors, sound, resolution, memory and price as it was the only way to
compare. The computer market was alot like the game console market. Remember
the aggressive Nintendo, Atari and Sega wars. That was how things were.
Since, it was a matter of trying to get as many customers as possible to buy
*YOUR* platform. Kind of simply put. The Computer industry was the same way.
Today, nobody cares what brand as they are all basically the same. It is
just a matter of warranty, specs and price where you are at. The platform
didn't matter. The brand didn't matter either.
> A true statement, but it's also true that "without Jack, the C-64 might
> have been even better." :-) There's no way to know...
True, better computer in technical way but improving the specs would have
probably meant higher price and less unit sold. Look at Amiga. Amiga was a
great example of a kickass computer. Amiga didn't sell as well for two
factors, price and advertisement. It would have sold better if advertised
better but not sold as many units as the C64. However, the A500 & A1000
would have been a perfect C64 contender if they advertised significantly and
sold the unit for $450 and $550 in 1985 & 86. The A500 at $500 in 1986 would
have been awesome. Then you are contending to bring advance tech at the
price market for everyone. Remember, this would have followed Jack's model.
If Jack stayed at Commodore, he would have switched to Amiga full speed and
brought Amiga out into the market the C64 was marketed in.
Jack knew how to sell to the masses. Bringing computer prices at the price
the average working folks can afford without spending half the year's
income. Considering the average minimum wage income in 1982 was at
$5000-6000 a year. One month's wage would be $416/417 to $500 a month. A c64
was perfectly priced for even the minimum wage blue-collar worker. He market
so they can afford a computer. This challenged the engineers to be able to
produce a computer functionally comparable to that of the Apple II, Atari,
IBM PC and other computers. He started that with VIC-20 then did the same
with C64. It was a marketing success because of that.
Jack can be contributed that along with everyone at Commodore. So don't
dismiss that. Jack being any different would have meant that Jack wouldn't
be Jack. Any change in one element will impact the way things were.
Wildstar
That is normal corporate conditions at the time in highly competitive
environment. I didn't say it wasn't harsh but it was that harshness that
driven the employees to do what they did. Classic way to drive employees to
show there magic and push the employees to do there best talents. Come up
with innovative ways to do things.
What would have driven them if there wasn't that pressure.
"Klompmeester" <whow...@andwhy.com> wrote in message
news:13ja1bm...@corp.supernews.com...
Wildstar
<super_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194663119....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 6:10 pm, "Wildstar" <wildstar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It isn't a matter of *blind* following.
>
> In your case, it sure is b/c you feel Jack was absolutely justified in
> everything that he did - good or bad. "He's got nothing to atone
> for....". Sorry, but if anyone does in this conversation, it's him.
> He left more of a wake of destruction than Exxon's Valdez.
> As far as Jack's business ethics are concerned, they sucked, for lack
Oki, I'll explain very short. Jack Tramiel did not like game consoles. He
bought Atari to fight Commodore in the computer market that Atari had a
competing computer system. I'll explain Jack's lack of passion for game
consoles. It didn't too well at Commodore. Remember Ultimax.
Jack was a businessman who raised Commodore as a business machines company.
He was businessman who wanted to sell products that had a "practical use".
Jack wasn't a great businessman for game console company but a computer
company. In the case of Atari, it had a very interesting position as a
computer and console company. In fact, Atari did alright with the computers
until late 80s.
As for atonement, oh well. Maybe for Atari folks, he isn't as liked.
Actually, they utterly sucked ass under his sons. Remember, Jack was not
that passionate about running Atari. He bought Atari so his sons would take
charge of it. Before leaving Commodore, Jack Tramiel was wanting to leave
Commodore to his sons. Jack Tramiel wanted to establish Atari to have a
steady foot in both computer and consoles. Ok, Atari has always had a steady
foot in console/arcade. He wanted Atari to also be in the computer industry
as well. So when his sons took charge, they have a company with a foothold
in both industries.
Jack was already wanting to retire to begin in 1984. Atari was dead in 1984
and in fact gave it another 10 years. Jack put his money in to buy it and
literally ressurrect it and bring it back in full swing to be able to
compete with Mac and Amiga and then Windows 1.0/2.0/MS-DOS computers. Not a
bad feat in 12-18 months.
I'm not saying he was perfect but for fuck sake. Who cares, now. Atari is
alive again - sort of in a way. Maybe not in the mainstream console industry
other than games but hey, they can still do it again but maybe later. Jack
Tramiel didn't run Atari like he did Commodore because it was not the same
for him and pretty much since 1989 - his sons were more in charge of it than
he was. He was, if anything, kept it alive as much as he has while his sons
SUCKED.
Remember, Jack did not want to take on the role and level of aggressiveness
over the operations of the company as he did with Commodore. He was
semi-retired since 1989 with periodic taking the helm to fix up mistakes his
sons made.
At Commodore, he made all the decisions and did the aggressive marketing
decisions. At Atari, his sons were in charge of that and they sucked. Sadly,
though. I blame the problems at Atari more on his sons then Jack. Jack made
the mistake of putting his sons in charge of Atari and he didn't keep the
aggressive role at Atari as he had at Commodore.
In fact, if you did your numbers right - the Atari ST was outselling the
Amiga in the 85-88/89 era.
Even underpricing Commodore Amiga line.
Jack had more aggressive control of Atari during that period.
It was the last 5 years that things sucked.
Sam Gillett
<super_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> And you sit there and wonder why Atarians don't love and worship
> Tramiel as you obviously do?
Jack Tramiel would have never had anything to do with Atari if Irving Gould
had not forced him out of Commodore. So, if you Atarians really need someone
to hate (and it seems that you do), then hate Irving Gould.
Have fun and enjoy your discontent.
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
Watch yourself, or your
reality check will bounce!
Klompmeester
> Majority of the mismanagement occured right after Jack left.
>
> That is normal corporate conditions at the time in highly competitive
> environment. I didn't say it wasn't harsh but it was that harshness that
> driven the employees to do what they did. Classic way to drive employees
> to show there magic and push the employees to do there best talents. Come
> up with innovative ways to do things.
Only a fucking pleb who has never had a job worth a shit would say that.
> What would have driven them if there wasn't that pressure.
>
Bullshit.
jt august
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oki, I'll explain very short. Jack Tramiel did not like game consoles.
Yet, he bought a game console company. He thought he could change the
public perception of what the company was and they would beat a path to
the door of his new idea. Then, when he realized he needed money, he
feebly offered some product to try and regain the legacy market he
pissed on the day he took over.
The guy was obviously a stooge for buying Atari in the first place.
Commodore was smart to dump his misguided ass. Atari loyalists wished
they had someone over Jack to reign him in and keep the company focused
on customer base.
And now, some 20 years later, there are Commie lovers who can't
understand why Aturkey fanatics don't see things their way. And despite
our numerous explanations, several of these guys still can't understand.
jt
jt august
"Sam Gillett" <sgillet...@diespammergte.net> wrote:
> Best regards,
>
> Sam Gillett
>
> Watch yourself, or your
> reality check will bounce!
As it seems yours already has.
jt august
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you allow the engineers to
> have free reign, they'll make fancy "projects" not products.
How many successful products in the world today started out as "fancy
projects?" And incredibly high number. The fancy projects that show
marketing promise are the ones that ultimately become products.
jt
jt august
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (Not that I'm suggesting anything Tramiel did was
> illegal, mind you.)
maybe not illegal, but it certainly was a crime.
jt
jt august
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I forgot to finish the sentence.
That is what makes reading your posts a lesson in futility.
> I got distracted at that time.
And at any time you type, it seems.
> If you read my previous responses to you, I am not going to
> get nitpicky about grammer and if I missed completing a sentence, so what.
So what? So what the hell are you trying to say? When you leave
sentences dangling, you usually miss the point. Then you get so upset
when others fail to get your point. Your communication skills are piss
poor, and then you get defensive because no one can understand you.
> I told you that if you don't want to read my messages then don't.
Better still, go back to school, and learn English as a first language,
so that you can conduct a coherent conversation here and in the real
world.
jt
Wildstar
Unethical, perhaps.
"jt august" <star...@net.att> wrote in message
news:starsabre-EF205...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
Wildstar
The fancy projects get cost reduced and is less than what the project may
have been.
Amiga was an exception but it failed to capture and harness market success.
Even with advertisment, the price would be a factor and prevent the kind of
sales the C64 had.
Apple I was certainly an exception but over time and through upgrading the
unit and consolidating components to use less components - it got better and
sold better.
Projects don't become product unless A) cost is reduced and B) Features are
reduced or re-engineered in such a way that it reduced cost and thusly
reduced cost. C) All the above until the price is affordable to average
people.
The lower the price something is and the more you put into it, the more
people would be inclined to buy it. Price relates to affordability. When
people don't have much money which the majority of the world population is,
then you can't buy a fancy computer that only the rich can afford. Also
people won't be trying to save money for a year to be able to buy it.
Especially, if they hardly known they really need it. That was especially
true in the 80s. Computers was questioned. People questioned, "Why do I need
to buy a computer?". "What can I do with this contraption that will benefit
me?"
The funny thing is with projects, it gets featuritis and feature after
feature is put in. All of which will ultimately raise the cost of the unit.
When a computer would be $1200 (eq. $2400-2600 today), it was kind of
difficult for people to buy and limited your marketplace.
A computer that was comparable at $300 was certainly more interesting to
people to buy. It didn't need 8 expansion slots and all that. That was
Jack's vision to take an aggressive stake in the computer market and get
volume of customers not fanciness of computers. Commodore didn't care about
trying to produce the geeks "wet-dream" computers. He was interested in
selling a product that was usable, functionable and affordable so they can
sell and sell in volume.
"jt august" <star...@net.att> wrote in message
news:starsabre-C7AEC...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
Wildstar
If the engineers had there way, the C64 would have been a geek's "wet dream"
but it would have been more expensive. Commodore execs would have had to
raise the price in order to pay the large advertisment costs, employee
costs, and have a decent proft.
That kind of pressure, (whether personally liked or not) drives engineers
"who want to provide a decent product" to be creative so it can be sold at
the price level.
The C-One is a perfect example of a "project" that got featuritis. If this
was going to be a product for a corporation (I know it wasn't but it was
going to be sold to people and thus a product), it became a disaster of a
product. As featuritis set in, it became an outright failure as a project
because it only has a small selective few even doing anything with it. Jeri
and Jens and others working on it are good engineers but Jens - for sure,
isn't a good businessman. Ok, not a good businessman for the kind of
marketplace like Commodore.
C64DTV - essentially fulfilling Jeri's dream for a "Single-chip Commodore
64", was by far a larger success with well over 250,000 units sold. If this
was a main-stream computer company in the 80s, 250,000+ computers sold would
be considered a pretty good number of units sold. IIRC: The total number of
units sold were something between 500,000 to 750,000 - including Hummer.
However, there was problems with the C64DTV, though. Where things were
over-cheapen and low-quality components were put in which made little to no
difference on price. To some degree, we can call this a relative success.
I would say more C64 users have and use the C64DTV then the C-One. In Jeri's
goals, this would be a bigger success then the C-One.
Sam Gillett
"jt august" wrote ...
>
> And now, some 20 years later, there are Commie lovers who can't
> understand why Aturkey fanatics don't see things their way. And despite
> our numerous explanations, several of these guys still can't understand.
And the Atari fanatics are too blind to see that there may have been other
factors.
Another possible scenario is that after Jack bought Atari and studied the
market that Atari was in, and Atari's position in that market, he saw the
handwriting on the wall (so to speak). Namely, Nintendo was positioned to
kick Atari's ass (as well as other game console manufacturers).
Jack tried to save Atari by shifting Atari's focus to personal computers. He
damn near pulled it off too. Jack almost saved Atari! He might have been
able to had he had more support from the no-change numbskulls entrenched
deeply in Atari's corporate organization.
Think about that possibility for a little while... unless it hurts your
brain too much when you try.
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!
Sam Gillett
"jt august" wrote ...
Has it really? :-p
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
It looks like your gene
pool could use a filter!
Cameron Kaiser
>>And now, some 20 years later, there are Commie lovers who can't
>>understand why Aturkey fanatics don't see things their way. And despite
>>our numerous explanations, several of these guys still can't understand.
>And the Atari fanatics are too blind to see that there may have been other
>factors.
For the moment, let's assume that all that the Tramiel detractors in the
Atari camp are saying is absolutely, positively true. Even if so, his
contributions to Commodore are worth listening to and should not diminished,
even if the Atari owners are totally, wholly correct and that he should be
burned in effigy. As far as I'm concerned, he's at CHM in the CBM slot, and
that's why I'm going.
--
Cameron Kaiser * cka...@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
super_...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Jack Tramiel would have never had anything to do with Atari if Irving Gould
> had not forced him out of Commodore. So, if you Atarians really need someone
> to hate (and it seems that you do), then hate Irving Gould.
I think you have enough Irving Gold hate for everyone. Next you'll be
making a case against Irving's mother....
Sam Gillett
<super_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
I didn't know that he had a mother. The way I heard it, he was hatched from
an alien egg.
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
UFO's are real.
It's the Air Force that doesn't exist!
super_...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> I didn't know that he had a mother. The way I heard it, he was hatched from
> an alien egg.
That xeno BASTARD....
lol
Lance Lyon
news:1194747691.3...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Well she did give birth to him........
Lance
--
// http://www.commodore128.org //
Wildstar
Anyone wants to dare exhume him. Zombie-fy him. I hope not.
He was scary enough.
"Lance Lyon" <ll...@landover.NOSPAM.no-ip.com> wrote in message
news:473699ca$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
jt august
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The fancy projects get cost reduced and is less than what the project may
> have been.
>
> Projects don't become product unless A) cost is reduced and B) Features are
> reduced or re-engineered in such a way that it reduced cost and thusly
> reduced cost. C) All the above until the price is affordable to average
> people.
Well, of course. But most products start off as projects, and those
with market potential get final development. Look at concept cars. None
ever make it to market as displayed, but some get refined (such as the
Dodge Daytona, the Dodge Viper and the Plymoth Prowler), but more often,
it is features of concept cars that get refined into production models.
jt
jt august
"Sam Gillett" <sgillet...@diespammergte.net> wrote:
> Another possible scenario is that after Jack bought Atari and studied the
> market that Atari was in, and Atari's position in that market, he saw the
> handwriting on the wall (so to speak). Namely, Nintendo was positioned to
> kick Atari's ass (as well as other game console manufacturers).
>
> Jack tried to save Atari by shifting Atari's focus to personal computers. He
> damn near pulled it off too. Jack almost saved Atari! He might have been
> able to had he had more support from the no-change numbskulls entrenched
> deeply in Atari's corporate organization.
>
> Think about that possibility for a little while... unless it hurts your
> brain too much when you try.
My brain isn't big enough to conceive the above fantasy. Jack Tramiel
didn't do any kind of market research. He bought the company on a fast
track. From when he approached Time Warner to close of sale was
regarded by some financial analysts back in the day as among the fastest
spin off sales then recorded. He came in with an offer, and within
weeks the sale was complete. He never entered Atari's offices until
after the sale, and on the second day in, he cancelled all video game
projects and started issuing pink slips.
He wanted the name and the icon for his own project, plain and simple.
What he bought and what he wanted never jibed, and thus he hastened
Atari's demise.
jt
jt august
Cameron Kaiser <cka...@floodgap.com> wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, he's at CHM in the CBM slot, and
> that's why I'm going.
That one statement is probably the most admirable I have read from
anyone (myself included) in this entire thread.
jt
jt august
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "jt august" <star...@net.att> wrote in message
> news:starsabre-EF205...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > In article <13j9fug...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Joel Koltner" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> (Not that I'm suggesting anything Tramiel did was
> >> illegal, mind you.)
> >
> > maybe not illegal, but it certainly was a crime.
> To be a crime, it has to be illegal.
> Unethical, perhaps.
>
From the Oxford University Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:
Crime - an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered
to be evil, shameful, or wrong: "they considered arpartheid as a crime
against humanity.
Thus, I reiterate.
jt
Sam Gillett
"jt august" wrote ...
From the concise edition of Merriam-Webster:
crime (noun) : serious violation of law
Which is most likely the definition Wildstar was thinking of.
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!
Wildstar
research. It was like 6 months since he left Commodore. He was already aware
of Atari's brand name. Hell, he helped to destroy Atari as a competitor. He
knew that. He has done marketing research his entire life. Remember, Atari
didn't have problems UNTIL after Jack Tramiel had stop running the day to
day business of Atari. That was in 1989. The last 5-6 years of Atari was
mostly under his son's control and operation. Blame his son for the screw
ups of the day to day operations of Atari.
Whether you like Jack or not, you have to admit that Atari was pretty much
dead in 1984. Remember, Jack was not the person running Atari during the
game console crash of 1983.
In fact, Atari was resurrected and given 10+ years on its life.
"jt august" <star...@net.att> wrote in message
news:starsabre-45378...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
Wildstar
put a control factor.
Commodore never was about "trying to make the best computer of the world".
Engineers always try to make something better than what exists. The
businessman or "Jack Tramiel" of a business would step into the lab and say,
"I want this on the market for $300". Long before the project or set of
projects are complete. Sometime a set of projects originally intended to be
a set of multiple products are then combined into one greater product. In
Commodore's case, "The c64 and vic-20.'
The purpose of a businessman leading and keeping a leash on the R&D is to
make sure the engineers isn't wasting time and company money on ideas and
new fangle gadgets that aren't going to be sellable. Jack's concern is the
money revenues as with any decent CEO/President is to be concern with.
Otherwise, the engineers may just be dabbling with ideas and then the
project ends up being infected by "featuritis". All engineers do when they
have free reign with money and time.
Sure, projects were cut and some interesting ideas may have been dropped.
Commodore couldn't dedicate money to sell all these "ideas". This isn't an
MIT lab. You are doing this work to product products not just a bunch of
projects/ideas. You have to sell your idea in order to get started. You have
to continue to sell your idea to Jack to continue. Normal. Jack is concern
like any other businessman in charge of company money and resources, about
your use of time and company money for things that won't bring in revenue.
Jack being a hard-nose on the matters was just a method that works. It works
and works in the highly competitive environment of the computer industry.
Especially, in the low cost market where you have many contenders.
Jack did what he had to do in leading a company. It worked and was the right
kind of management to drive Commodore. Today, it doesn't matter about how
Jack's management style. Really, we don't care. Even the people who WORKED
for Atari don't care anymore. Jack Tramiel was a tough, hard-nose business
leader. He was a competitive business leader. The right kind of leader in a
competitive market.
In case of Atari, Atari was in no place to compete with Nintendo at the time
he started. By the time Atari get back into the fray of the console market,
Jack handed over Atari to his sons. Atari's other leaders didn't listen to
Jack all too well. Sam didn't have the same aggressive control over Atari's
other leaders and employees like Jack did. They didn't get consensus in
decisions. Sam didn't "dictate" where needed to. Jack kind of stayed out of
things in those early 90s years unless things needed to be turned around.
Bail Atari out.
Could that be a mistake? Perhaps. Then again, Jack been wanting to retire
for sometime already.
If Jack kept a stronger control over things and did more "Jack attacks"
where needed, maybe Atari would have still be a strong contender in the
console market. We would never know.
"jt august" <star...@net.att> wrote in message
news:starsabre-B6E7D...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
super_...@yahoo.com
> Whether you like Tramiel or not, Jack Tramiel did some level of market
> research. It was like 6 months since he left Commodore. He was already aware
> of Atari's brand name. Hell, he helped to destroy Atari as a competitor. He
> knew that. He has done marketing research his entire life. Remember, Atari
> didn't have problems UNTIL after Jack Tramiel had stop running the day to
> day business of Atari. That was in 1989. The last 5-6 years of Atari was
> mostly under his son's control and operation. Blame his son for the screw
> ups of the day to day operations of Atari.
And who put them in charge? Oh, that's right...
Don't kid yourself. He was still very much involved with the company
beyond '89.
> Whether you like Jack or not,
Put me down for NOT.
> Remember, Jack was not the person running Atari during the
> game console crash of 1983.
Yes, everybody is fully aware of that...
> In fact, Atari was resurrected and given 10+ years on its life.
A slow, painful death is far worse than a quick one. It would have
been better if Tramiel renamed the company, rather than tarnish its
history by using it as a means to exact revenge on his enemies. And
then to sell it to (of all entities) a disk drive manufacturer?!
That was 11 years ago, and I still can't believe it.
Bushnell actually tried to buy it back at least a part of it - and
might have succeeded - if it weren't for Merril Lynch deciding to
take him for all he was worth...
Kelli Halliburton
Brought to you by your friends at Chrysler.
Why? Because there's simply no mention of VW's Concept One, Ford's Probe
series, or any number of other show cars that became production vehicles.
Wildstar
<super_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194827739....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> And who put them in charge? Oh, that's right...
> Don't kid yourself. He was still very much involved with the company
> beyond '89.
Sure, he was present but he really wasn't making all the day to day
decisions. He bought the company so his sons can run the company
(originally, that was what Commodore was.)
Jack had to step in several times to take control of the helm to straighten
out matters and did it several times. Other than that, Jack didn't want to
have continous control and it was his sons job to do with it accordingly.
>> Whether you like Jack or not,
>
> Put me down for NOT.
Ok.
>> Remember, Jack was not the person running Atari during the
>> game console crash of 1983.
>
> Yes, everybody is fully aware of that...
>
>
>> In fact, Atari was resurrected and given 10+ years on its life.
>
> A slow, painful death is far worse than a quick one. It would have
> been better if Tramiel renamed the company, rather than tarnish its
> history by using it as a means to exact revenge on his enemies. And
> then to sell it to (of all entities) a disk drive manufacturer?!
> That was 11 years ago, and I still can't believe it.
Yeah, because Jack had stockhold there. It was because it had some stable
finances and stable income. As years persued on, Jack had been having less
and less involvement of Atari's operation except periodic periods.
Atari's brand is still respected and competition. Atari can still at anytime
return to the forefront. If you want to hear an evil story, read about the
Commodore downfall and the Medhi Ali / Irving Gould story. Look at that
convoluted management. They were raking in millions of dollars. The CEO
could have personally reinstated Commodore on its feet. If you looked at the
story, you can see an outright attempt to destroy the company. Jack wasn't
all that bad. He attempted to save the company several times. There are many
factors involved and you can't rightfully place the blame solely on Jack
Tramiel. You have to look at the whole story. Why did Atari moved the ST out
of the American market - could a settlement agreement with Commodore be a
factor? Having to do with Amiga technology. I heard something about that but
I would think that if there is some truth to this rumor, it might. Atari
having to cut down its ST advertisment in the US. Though US sales continued,
it was not advertised by Atari much in the US if I recall. The Jaguar
situation, the gamepad screwed its sales. You must make consoles with
playability in mind. If the gamepad was hard to use, it will effect sales.
It did for the XBox. Microsoft straighten that issue relatively quickly.
Atari didn't. Atari had a very awkward gamepad for Jaguar.
> Bushnell actually tried to buy it back at least a part of it - and
> might have succeeded - if it weren't for Merril Lynch deciding to
> take him for all he was worth...
Sure, and Jack would have sold it to him.
jt august
"Sam Gillett" <sgillet...@diespammergte.net> wrote:
> From the concise edition of Merriam-Webster:
>
> crime (noun) : serious violation of law
>
> Which is most likely the definition Wildstar was thinking of.
From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry:
crime
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin crimen accusation,
reproach, crime; probably akin to Latin cernere to sift, determine
Date:
14th century
1: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission
of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender
liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
2: a grave offense especially against morality
3: criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>
4: something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it's a crime to
waste good food>
I site definitions 2 and 4 to my previous stance. I site Wildstars
track record to your stance.
And again, I reiterate.
jt
jt august
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The businessman or "Jack Tramiel" of a business would step in ....
To read this phrase as you posted it would imply that Jack was not a
businessman, which is what we have been contending the whole damn thread.
Do us a favor, wildy, up the dosage.
jt
Sam Gillett
"jt august" wrote ...
>
> 1: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission
> of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender
> liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
>
> 2: a grave offense especially against morality
>
> 3: criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>
>
> 4: something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it's a crime to
> waste good food>
>
> I site definitions 2 and 4 to my previous stance. I site Wildstars
> track record to your stance.
You should have sited definitions 1 and 3 to Wildstars stance.
My stance was that there is more than one definition for the word "crime." A
fact that I reiterate.
> And again, I reiterate.
Have a good evening.
Wildstar
misunderstood.
Jack Tramiel is and has been a businessman for 30 or so years when he bought
Atari. By the time that he has handed over the day to day operations of
Atari to his son, Sam Tramiel, it was like 35(+) years. Jack Tramiel has
raised Commodore during the aggressive typewriter/business machines wars of
IBM vs. All during the 1950s. This was a very aggressive period where IBM
would do aggressive tactics. Some of which are the same kinds of tactics
that Thomas Watson, Jr.'s father Thomas Watson, Sr. did in his early years
at NCR.
I contended you from the very basis that people don't care about him atoning
for shit. If you can't have every businessman this world has ever had to
atone for every "questionable ethics" to downright unethical actions, then
why pick on Jack. Just because he didn't make Atari dominate the entire game
console and/or computer industry. Guess what, even the mighty Nintendo no
longer dominates all. Nor is Commodore.
Competition, some mistakes and whoopy do. At least Jack was several margins
better than Medhi Ali of Commodore. This story reeks to levels comparable to
the Enron scandal. Due to Bahama laws, they got away with one of the biggest
scandal in history. When you pull the docs on this. Thanks for some, some of
it has. Too bad, not all of the corporate records of Commodore. Too bad a
mass majority of it is not available.
To put it frank, you're demanding restitution and atonement from one guy on
merits that 99% of the corporate leaders get away with doing worse and never
making atonement.
Have you ever thought that for some of the crazy nuts in the Atari
community, with all due respect and no ill-will intended against the Atari
community, death is the only accepted atonement. If you all can't come to a
unanymous decision of what the accepted atonement measure that is fair in
consideration of ALL factors, and histories (Atari and world as whole) ,
then we can't demand atonement from Jack Tramiel. You'll also have to be
fair and hear his side of the stories. How he makes his decisions. Before we
ask him to atone, ask him about how he made his decisions in a respectable
manner. How he lead Commodore and Atari and employees. Ask for background on
how he made his decisions, motives, driving elements and so on. Be kind and
respectful and CALM. Try to at least understand.
"jt august" <star...@net.att> wrote in message
news:starsabre-B3EAC...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
super_...@yahoo.com
> > And
> > then to sell it to (of all entities) a disk drive manufacturer?!
> > That was 11 years ago, and I still can't believe it.
>
> Yeah, because Jack had stockhold there. It was because it had some stable
> finances and stable income.
Who? JTS? The only reason JTS merged with Atari was for their cash
reserves. They were basically broke by that point. As for Atari, the
only income they were receiving by then was interest on the money they
got from Sega. Every product they had in the marketplace was dead.
> Atari's brand is still respected and competition. Atari can still at anytime
> return to the forefront.
No, Atari (Infogrames) is the laughing stock of the world. Look at
the utter shit they've released in the last few years. Take a look at
the value of their stock. The only respect the Atari name garners is
from a handful of classic games from the 70s and 80s - it's a 'retro'
brand now, nothing more. They're not going anywhere except towards
liquidation and/or bankruptcy.
> > Bushnell actually tried to buy it back at least a part of it - and
> > might have succeeded - if it weren't for Merril Lynch deciding to
> > take him for all he was worth...
>
> Sure, and Jack would have sold it to him.
Bushnell was trying to buy it from Hasbro, not Jack :)
Wildstar
news:1194849731....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Who? JTS? The only reason JTS merged with Atari was for their cash
> reserves. They were basically broke by that point. As for Atari, the
> only income they were receiving by then was interest on the money they
> got from Sega. Every product they had in the marketplace was dead.
> No, Atari (Infogrames) is the laughing stock of the world. Look at
> the utter shit they've released in the last few years. Take a look at
> the value of their stock. The only respect the Atari name garners is
> from a handful of classic games from the 70s and 80s - it's a 'retro'
> brand now, nothing more. They're not going anywhere except towards
> liquidation and/or bankruptcy.
Atari's brand name is now immortalized and all it takes is the will. Sure,
they probably won't produce anything under this incarnation but someone
would buy the brand in the end. Atari's name is and will in the future
continue to hold brand recognition because Atari's name is now in the
history book as well as Commodore. The brand is now "legendary". Don't
panic, it maybe 5 years or even 20 years down the road or somewhere in
between, the name sake alone has permanent value. So can a new game console
be made, absolutely. It can be made anytime, period.
> Bushnell was trying to buy it from Hasbro, not Jack :)
Ok, I missed that part. Anyway, even if Bushnell offered to buy the brand
from Jack, he would have.
Joel Koltner
> employees to do what they did. Classic way to drive employees to show there
> magic and push the employees to do there best talents. Come up with
> innovative ways to do things.
It may be the "classic" way, but it's no longer generally considered the most
effective way. Indeed, the best designers generally won't put up with the
kind of balogna scenario you're setting up there -- these days there are
plenty of jobs that treat them with respect and pay just as well.
> What would have driven them if there wasn't that pressure.
Mmm... their innate creativity and desire to excel while being fully aware of
the business realities of schedules and costs? Their good work ethic?
If you send me your address I'll send you a copy of John Wood's book for
Xmas... :-)
---Joel
Joel Koltner
> at a price mark that was set by competition. C64 being priced at $300
> instead of $600 was to compete with Atari.
Mmm... surely you remember the C-64 was introduced was $595, right? Seems
like it took at least a year before the prices were dropped.
I think you've made some good comments on the difference between "computers in
the '80s" and "computers today."
> Look at Amiga. Amiga was a great example of a kickass computer. Amiga didn't
> sell as well for two factors, price and advertisement.
You kind have to wonder how it was that Tramiel let the Amiga slip out of his
hands, don't you?
Even with much better marketing, I suspect the Amiga would have eventually
fell out of favor just as the Macintosh (for a while) did -- PCs were
advancing quickly enough and dropping in price (due to anyone being able to
make them) that eventually neither could have competed.
I agree that a $500 Amiga 500 in 1986 would have been quite the "killer"
computer, though.
---Joel
Wildstar
demand or continue to demand atonement UNLESS you can get every person who
ever was, is and ever will come to atone to every mistake they make.
It is unethical and unfair to pick one one person to atone and not others.
Right, the C64 was $595. Not going to argue. The price number of
introductory price in the first year. Amiga slipped onto the market in '85.
So in '86, it would be fair to say an Amiga 500 at $500 would have been
cool. Introduced at $595. Even an A1000 priced at this price mark would have
been a killer.
Basically the A1000 and A500 were comparably the same with main difference
being the form-factor. Since it was the A1000 that was introduced in '85, it
being priced at $595 then reduced to $500 in '86. The A500 being $550 would
have been still cool and killer in '86. Slipping to $500 at Christmas season
if introduced in Spring of '86. I forget exact time of year of introduction.
Jack being any different would also make Jack a different person. Being a
different person would have made cascading differences. Commodore not even
making the KIM-1 and PET. Commodore not even making it through the
calculator wars. Commodore never even getting business, All these factors
must be weighed. Atari continued on and is now legendary. People who knew
Atari knew of Atari for its arcades, consoles AND computers from start to
the Jaguar times. We knew of the ST computers as well as the 400 & 800 and
XL series 8-Bits. We remember the 2600 and 7800. We remember even the Lynx
and Jaguar. Many of us may not remember the Portfolio but I do. Well, not
until after the fact. We all remember this. From Nolan Bushnell to Jack
Tramiel.
If Atari was still alive, would we still remember Atari IN the way we do.
Would we STILL be supporting the classics. Look at Apple. It's classic Mac
scene is nothing like the Atari and Commodore. People come together to
celebrate these memories. Would these community exist anything like it does
now if Atari was leading the game console market. The community would likely
be more like the Nintendo community. Very little happens in the Nintendo
community towards its classic NES/SNES consoles. Not much. People focus
their energies on the new consoles. If Commodore continued on, we probably
wouldn't have much of a demo scene for the C64. People would have been on
the Amiga platform and alot of great devices may have never happened. No
IDE64, no 64HDD and other stuff. The very users wouldn't be inclined to
"make" these things. Jeri Ellsworth may not have even done the stuff she
done. Alot of these things may not have even occured for the C64.
I'm sure the similar people of the Atari community would not done their
stuff.
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13jh3gn...@corp.supernews.com...
Wildstar
Remember, it was a pioneering time.
Lets remember that people didn't go to college to enter those positions.
They didn't get BS degrees in Software Engineering or BS degrees in Computer
Hardware Engineering. Degrees like that was not conferred. Also, it was a
different generation culture. Young people are more rebellious and talk
back. They say,"I quit". Also job employers don't talk to the previous
employers to find out what kind of employee you were. Back then, getting
fired can mean that you can never get a job in that field and other closely
related field.
All the CEOs and Presidents and business leaders were more serious and
hard-nose. It is a different generation culture, now. When you talked about
the times, it was hard-nose and aggressive. Competitions were agressive. You
even saw it in the grocery markets and other markets of aggressive
competition and the price wars. It was a cultural price wars. Remember the
Pepsi/Cola wars? That was the standard model of business. We are now in a
more passive period. A larger majority of today's young generation in
America are ball-less and would chicken out under fire THEN it was
generation(s) ago.
This is because people grew up taking the world for granted. They don't take
the crap from people like Jack because they take the vast majority of good
paying jobs for granted. Be happy, you have what you got because that can
change. Jack was the right kind of business leader for the time in that
generation culture and pioneering age of home computers. Today, he might not
be right but we don't have that aggressive price war competition
environment. Now, prices are more expensive. Cloning is the only way to keep
the prices affordable in certain markets. Produce the products in volume and
you got it. The market is more "horizontal business" model.
The market shift was in the late 80s through the early 90s. Settling in by
the mid 90s. This started in the mid-80s. Set in by the mid-90s. Today, Jack
Tramiel would be a dinosaur in this market and business style would be
archaic and even unfitting until an opening breaks in for a market shift.
Jack's business style is to bring companies into new markets. Gain dominance
and then let others go from there. That is the type of business leader he
was. Shake the system to gain dominance over a market or take a move on a
new market. Once you have control, then another business leader of a
different but compatible style will need to be in place. A maintain control
leader.
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13jh2vb...@corp.supernews.com...
Joel Koltner
> Also, it was a different generation culture. Young people are more
> rebellious and talk back. They say,"I quit". Also job employers don't talk
> to the previous employers to find out what kind of employee you were. Back
> then, getting fired can mean that you can never get a job in that field and
> other closely related field.
It seems to me that, back in the '80s, if you were fired you probably might
had a better chance of getting hired at another prestigious company than you
do today: As you mention, BS CS degrees weren't common, so that wasn't a big
deal, but perhaps an even more important reason would be because Google (or
similar) didn't exist and, in general, the world was far less "wired" -- it
was a lot easier to remain anonymous than it is today. Sure, you might have
had to move from Silicon Valley back to the East Coast or somewhere, but at
least your potential new employer wouldn't find all your Usenet postings
where, at the previous job, you were bashing the potential new employer's
products. :-)
> A larger majority of today's young generation in America are ball-less and
> would chicken out under fire THEN it was generation(s) ago.
That may be, although I'd hasten to add that it's probably better for everyone
today. Remember that it was one of those Tramiel-generation presidents who
came up with the "kinder, gentler" nation speech, after all. The guys who
started Google, eBay, Facebook, etc. are probably quite thankful they were
born in an age where it required nothing more than a computer and some
marketing savvy to become multi-millionaires!
> Now, prices are more expensive. Cloning is the only way to keep the prices
> affordable in certain markets.
I still don't see where you get this, "prices are more expensive" thing from.
Inflation adjusted, a C-64 today would be $1275 (and that's just the PC -- no
monitor or floppy drive) You can get a pretty sweet PC or even a decent Mac
for $1275 these days, and it'll be 1000x faster than a C-64 with 10,000,000
times more storage!
---Joel
Golan Klinger
--
Golan Klinger
Dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.
Joel Koltner
> Here is the thing, people make mistakes but it doesn't mean that we must
> demand or continue to demand atonement UNLESS you can get every person who
> ever was, is and ever will come to atone to every mistake they make.
That really doesn't follow... although certainly if you pick the right
religion they'd suggest that everyone regularly needs to atone for their
"sins." :-)
Look, Jack Tramiel, like everyone, was largely a mixed bag -- he certainly did
plenty of good, but unfortunately he seems to have done more than his "fair
share" of bad as well. Hoping that such a person might eventually view their
actions with a little bit of hindsight and, even if they don't believe those
actions could or should have been done different, letting those who suffered
some of the fallout know that you empathize with them does a lot of good.
I live in Oregon, where during World War II women in Japan were employed to do
the sewing and manufacturing of balloon-based incendiary bombs that were to
travel with the Pacific winds and then start forest fires as a means of
helping Japan's war effort. Happily (for the U.S.) they weren't particularly
effective (most never made it across the ocean, and of those that did very few
started fires of any significant size), but many years later there was a
meeting between a group of these women and some in the U.S. where they
discussed the history, how people on all sides had taken regrettable
actions -- even though they were generally justifiable given the context of
the war --, and perhaps how to avoid similar problems in the future.
Jack Tramiel could pretty fairly be accussed of lighting off a few incendiary
bombs in his day, I think. :-)
> Many of us may not remember the Portfolio but I do.
As someone else mentioned, most people remember it from the movie Terminator
II (even if they couldn't name the particular model :-) ). I do think the
Portfolio helped spur HP's LX100 (and later LX200), which were more complete
implementations of roughly the same idea -- they were quite successful.
---Joel
Sam Gillett
"Golan Klinger" wrote ...
> Wildstar: Where did you get your BS degree?
The question is, does he have a BS in BS...
or a Masters in BS? >:-)>
--
Best regards,
Sam Gillett
UFO's are real.
It's the Air Force that doesn't exist!
super_...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> The question is, does he have a BS in BS...
> or a Masters in BS? >:-)>
Whatever university it was, they need to atone for that. :P
jt august
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Atari's brand is still respected and competition. Atari can still at anytime
> return to the forefront.
Check about that. Infrogrames (the French company that bought and
adapted the Atari name) is teetering on bankruptcy. There are rumblings
that they will put the name and holdings up for sale in January if they
don't have a good Christmas.
jt
jt august
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The brand is now "legendary". Don't
> panic, it maybe 5 years or even 20 years down the road or somewhere in
> between, the name sake alone has permanent value. So can a new game console
> be made, absolutely. It can be made anytime, period.
Sure, and I'll fly TWA to the premier party, driving a Plymouth car to
Arthur Treachers to get a snack along the way. Let me use my MCI long
distance to call in my reservations.
jt
Wildstar
> "Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_N1_i.66$_x4...@newsfe06.lga...
>> Here is the thing, people make mistakes but it doesn't mean that we must
>> demand or continue to demand atonement UNLESS you can get every person
>> who ever was, is and ever will come to atone to every mistake they make.
>
> That really doesn't follow... although certainly if you pick the right
> religion they'd suggest that everyone regularly needs to atone for their
> "sins." :-)
>
> Look, Jack Tramiel, like everyone, was largely a mixed bag -- he certainly
> did plenty of good, but unfortunately he seems to have done more than his
> "fair share" of bad as well. Hoping that such a person might eventually
> view their actions with a little bit of hindsight and, even if they don't
> believe those actions could or should have been done different, letting
> those who suffered some of the fallout know that you empathize with them
> does a lot of good.
Lets get straight to my point. Who really cares. We aren't chasing after
Medhi Ali or Irving Gould. We don't want to exhume that. The bottom line is,
we don't worry about the little things. So, Atari failed for a variety of
factors. Since every side of the story isn't analyzed. I ask you, could
Atari engineers have fault in the fall of Atari. Designing a unusable
controller?
> I live in Oregon, where during World War II women in Japan were employed
> to do the sewing and manufacturing of balloon-based incendiary bombs that
> were to travel with the Pacific winds and then start forest fires as a
> means of helping Japan's war effort. Happily (for the U.S.) they weren't
> particularly effective (most never made it across the ocean, and of those
> that did very few started fires of any significant size), but many years
> later there was a meeting between a group of these women and some in the
> U.S. where they discussed the history, how people on all sides had taken
> regrettable actions -- even though they were generally justifiable given
> the context of the war --, and perhaps how to avoid similar problems in
> the future.
Yes Joel, I know about that story. The trees here (5-10 miles west/southwest
of where I live) were just too wet to burn. None of the trees caught on fire
because of the thick bark layer and very wet and saturated wood. Perhaps,
the story above can be similarly done but
> Jack Tramiel could pretty fairly be accussed of lighting off a few
> incendiary bombs in his day, I think. :-)
Sure. However, like most of American don't "demand" atonement from the
Japanese for WWII or any of the soldiers. They did what they were told. When
you look at the whole scenario, it isn't worth it.
There is a saying, "He who is without sin cast the first stone". Therefore,
I'll paraphrase," He who is without sin to be atoned cast the demands for
atonement from those with sin to atone".
Are you truly free of any sin. It doesn't matter who are what it relates to.
>> Many of us may not remember the Portfolio but I do.
>
> As someone else mentioned, most people remember it from the movie
> Terminator II (even if they couldn't name the particular model :-) ). I
> do think the Portfolio helped spur HP's LX100 (and later LX200), which
> were more complete implementations of roughly the same idea -- they were
> quite successful.
Sure. Spur ideas. Look at Amiga and it spurred Microsoft and others to
better improve their OS. All spurred from Xerox.
jt august
"Sam Gillett" <sgillet...@diespammergte.net> wrote:
> The question is, does he have a BS in BS...
> or a Masters in BS? >:-)>
I thought his Masters had to do with Baiting.
jt
jt august
"Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you all can't come to a
> unanymous decision of what the accepted atonement measure that is fair in
> consideration of ALL factors, and histories (Atari and world as whole) ,
> then we can't demand atonement from Jack Tramiel.
Who said anything about atonement? We want revenge, and the missing
Swordquest treasures.
jt
Alan Jones
<wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Lets remember, the computer industry of today has grown and matured.
>Remember, it was a pioneering time.
>
>Lets remember that people didn't go to college to enter those positions.
>They didn't get BS degrees in Software Engineering or BS degrees in Computer
>Hardware Engineering. Degrees like that was not conferred.
Ya know, the computer was invented in the '40s and the industry was
certainly well developed in the '60s. I'm not sure when the first BS
degrees in computer science were conferred from an accredited program,
but they were certainly well established before the PC (eg. before the
CBM PET). Not that it matters, but the first computers that I
programmed were the DEC PDP-8 and PDP-11, as a self taught programmer,
with a little help from friends.
College degrees may be over rated. The airplane was invented by a
couple bicycle mechanics, not degreed engineers. The PC was largely
invented and developed by hobbyists and college drop outs. It helped
that the PC "pioneers" were talented and enthusiastic. Waiting for a
degree would only have diverted them. My older sister has only a two
year degree from a community college (1974), and she as been
continuously employed as a professional programmer. I have a Masters
degree, and I'm under employed. If you are going to be self employed,
you don't need no stinking badges. If you want to work for some
furniture company to try and make a quick buck with this new PC craze,
you better have a degree or an outstanding track record.
Alan
Wildstar
"jt august" <star...@net.att> wrote in message
news:starsabre-796C1...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
Wildstar
will buy the brand.
"jt august" <star...@net.att> wrote in message
news:starsabre-358EB...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
Wildstar
Ok, You or Joel.
As for revenge, come on. How about you guys pool together and buy Atari. If
they go bankrupt, it might be had for $25 million if all you want is the IP
rights of all Atari hw products, Atari name and buy the Atari software
copyrights for all of the "Atari" software. Except some of the new titles
that Infogrames folks can keep. The classic Atari titles and the titles
throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s from the Bushnell & Tramiel era and their
related trademarks.
If Bushnell came back into the fray to assist financially then great. We
don't know but maybe even Bill Gates can possibly put some financial
interest but the ideal to keep Atari seperate. However, this can be a tricky
deal. There are others with money that can pool together to make such things
happen. Keep in mind that the brand has value immortalized through legendary
status and history. Atari has an infinite lives cheat code - (it's critical
part in the history of the video game history).
"jt august" <star...@net.att> wrote in message
news:starsabre-51038...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
Joel Koltner
> Lets get straight to my point. Who really cares. We aren't chasing after
> Medhi Ali or Irving Gould.
If they were about to give a public presentation on their involvement in the
history of the companies they led, we probably would be.
> I ask you, could Atari engineers have fault in the fall of Atari. Designing
> a unusable controller?
Yes -- engineers do get to share some of the blame for crappy products that
technically "met the spec" but were still just poor. (Which happens plenty
often these days...)
> Sure. However, like most of American don't "demand" atonement from the
> Japanese for WWII or any of the soldiers.
Sure they did. People are always demanding atonement from their own and other
governments. Heck, there are still some African Americans today who'd like
reparations for slavery!
---Joel
Wildstar
> "Wildstar" <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4Q5_i.101$_x4...@newsfe06.lga...
>> Lets get straight to my point. Who really cares. We aren't chasing after
>> Medhi Ali or Irving Gould.
>
> If they were about to give a public presentation on their involvement in
> the history of the companies they led, we probably would be.
Probably not. I don't care. They are irrelevent now and it is just the past.
Lets remember, the past is already done. We can't do anything about it.
There is a point to stop worrying about getting atonement from these past
guys. It is over. Medhi Ali isn't going to make Commodore come back and be a
world leading computer company. So, saying, "Sorry" isn't going to please
everyone as an "atonement". Who cares about the few loons who demand
atonements. The ones talking demanding atonement are the few people who
can't get over it and move on. They are loons. They have no sense of stop
worrying about the past. Who cares. They don't contribute.
>> I ask you, could Atari engineers have fault in the fall of Atari.
>> Designing a unusable controller?
>
> Yes -- engineers do get to share some of the blame for crappy products
> that technically "met the spec" but were still just poor. (Which happens
> plenty often these days...)
That happens.
>> Sure. However, like most of American don't "demand" atonement from the
>> Japanese for WWII or any of the soldiers.
>
> Sure they did. People are always demanding atonement from their own and
> other governments. Heck, there are still some African Americans today
> who'd like reparations for slavery!
There is always a few dipshits demanding reparations for slavery when none
of them were even slaves. There isn't a person alive during the slavery in
the African American community. So, demanding atonement is b.s. For the
Japanese of WWII, there is no need or call for atonement. If it got down to
it, we done worse to them then they done to us. We have something left there
that is still causing illnesses and death in Japan to this very day. It is
called radioactive fallout and debris from the Atomic bombs. It will still
be impacting that area for 1000s of years.
Dragos
attacking Pearl Harbor.....
and let all the trashcanistans of the world remember that.....
dukie
Wildstar, you are really going over the top.
If you have ever been a manager in your life, you would understand
that the "man on top" is ultimately responsible. "The buck stops here"
is the cliche. You don't seem to understand that concept.
Letting Jack off the hook because he let his kids run the company
(something you have suggested) is no excuse. Was he sitting in his
office, Swordquest items in his hand, feet up on the desk? He had the
power to stop the infinite monkies looking for infinite time to come
up with a profitable company (on paper at least).
Like any other head of a company, he has to answer for his decisions
from those invested in the company. His loyal customers deserve to
know why Jack's sired monkies were let loose.
Please don't reply with an emotional plea, as your whole argument
since the WWII stuff has hinged on how he was an astute and ruthless
businessman. Responsible men back then took responsibility for their
company's performance too. US Presidents even resigned.
Are you one of Jack's sires (monkies) looking to please daddy?
Joel Koltner
> So, saying, "Sorry" isn't going to please everyone as an "atonement".
I think you're wrong there. Even if you, personally, have never wanted anyone
to apologize for screwing you over, there are plenty of people who aren't
"loons" who get something from it.
> For the Japanese of WWII, there is no need or call for atonement.
There was plenty of call: In 1992 the U.S. government signed over $20,000
checks to every internee who was still alive, aren't you? Bush (senior)
accompanied the payments with a formal apology. (See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment) So apparently Bush
didn't think all those folks asking for atonement were looney, eh?
---Joel
super_...@yahoo.com
> For the
> Japanese of WWII, there is no need or call for atonement.
It's official. You're nuts.
Wildstar
<super_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1195015207.5...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
We nuked them, not once but twice. What's the point when over the next 1000
years, more Japanese will die after WWII due to the A-bombs then during
WWII.
Wildstar
were inflicted to you.
Jack didn't inflict anything to anyone. It wasn't your money. If Jack has
anyone to atone to, then it be the employees and most importantly, the
shareholders. Guess who held the biggest financial interest and was impacted
the most by Atari's collapse, Jack Tramiel himself. It was his money. You
only bought an Atari product and can use it until you're death. Acting like
we have any right over the company or brand. We don't. None of us at
Commodore, and none of us at Atari camp.
It isn't like Jack Tramiel stole your money or done something to *YOU*. Did
he?
If not, lets get over it. Sure people were upset and angry at the time but
people don't dwell on demanding atonement for this kind of crap EXCEPT
loons. If Medhi Ali showed himself, I wouldn't give a damn about him making
atonement for the mistakes he made at Commodore. Guess what, I was using
Commodore 64/128 back then. These kinds of things happens. How many people
are asking for atonement from Coleco and those guys who fell out of the
computer industry. Commodore and Atari fell out due to mistakes in decisions
and fell out because of competition and lack of sales. Did you have ANY
stake at Atari OR Commodore. Does any of those "complainers" / loons
demanding atonement have any stakehold at Atari or Commodore or both? How
were they effected?
So, lets get off these guys asses and move on. In other words, get a life
and move on.
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13jkn8n...@corp.supernews.com...
You see, you are comparing attack on people's lives to mere bad business
decisions. Sure, there maybe some matters of atonement for actual physical
harm. There are different severity.
super_...@yahoo.com
> <super_sto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You're so far off the path of logic, even Indiana Jones can't find
you....
Only a complete moron would make a statement like that, and right
after Veteran's Day no less. I suppose you would have rather seen 50
or 100 thousand solders die over several more years. The fact that it
took TWO atomic bombings for Japan to surrender proves the U.S. made
the right decision - both then and now.
As for Jack Tramiel, what difference does it make whether or not I
personally know him, or ever worked for him? It doesn't change the
fact that it's common knowledge that he treated a LOT of people like
shit during his reign at Atari. History has spoken. Deal with it.
Wildstar
<super_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1195053912.6...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> You're so far off the path of logic, even Indiana Jones can't find
> you....
>
> Only a complete moron would make a statement like that, and right
> after Veteran's Day no less. I suppose you would have rather seen 50
> or 100 thousand solders die over several more years. The fact that it
> took TWO atomic bombings for Japan to surrender proves the U.S. made
> the right decision - both then and now.
I wasn't arguing whether or not the decision was right or wrong. The point
was, if you want to take ethics to the most literal sense. Then we all must
atone. War is war. Inflictions are made to both sides. Sure, we did what we
had to do. Although, the radiation will continue on long after the war. Of
course, I wasn't serious about us having to atone for the A-bomb. Nor shall
the Japanese should have to atone for war. Especially the young Japanese of
today. The older ones who were part of the war, they were soldiers like
ours. Following orders. The Japanese are aggressors in the war in making the
first attack. Then we have to remember the matters that lead up to it.
Even if atonement for certain things in the war shall be demanded, those
were of issues of highly unethical attacks that harmed alot of innocent
lives.
There was issues of people dieing or getting wounded. Does this previous
statement a condition that Jack Tramiel put his employees? Did he put his
employees in sweat shops? Did he kill or injured any of his employees? Did
he tell them that they can't go home? So what if people under crunch puts
extra hours in. They got a bigger paycheck in the end. There is no law that
says an employee can't work over 12 hours except in very specific jobs.
> As for Jack Tramiel, what difference does it make whether or not I
> personally know him, or ever worked for him? It doesn't change the
> fact that it's common knowledge that he treated a LOT of people like
> shit during his reign at Atari. History has spoken. Deal with it.
Are you a vulcan? :)
Common knowledge or common interpretation. History is only the
interpretation of the past. Not necassarily the past. In what regard did
Jack Tramiel do to his employees. Be very specific. How did he treat them
like shit? Be specific. Bottom line: Alot of jobs to this day, (In the US)
has tough bosses that is a hard driver. They want employees to work hard. If
those that quit thought it was too hard then tough shit. Lets not forget
that before Jack Tramiel, Atari's work environment was very very layed back.
Sure for some, use to a very easy, layed back work environment shift to a
hard driving work environment would have thought Jack was an asshole but
when they find out later in their lives that things are not so easy layed
back, they learn that Jack wasn't any different then many other bosses.
Atari had a work environment that was almost not even a work environment.
Work Culture shock. Come on.
Jack was somewhat of a hard-driver for his day in the computer industry. It
would be nothing like some of the other industries where you make even the
slightest error, you're fired. Of course, there are also incredibly good
reasons to not make ANY errors, there.
Joel Koltner
> You see, you are comparing attack on people's lives to mere bad business
> decisions. Sure, there maybe some matters of atonement for actual physical
> harm. There are different severity.
Yep, agreed -- hence a simple verbal apology on Tramiel's part would probably
be sufficient atonement for most people. I don't expect him to cut $20,000
checks to all Commodore users. :-)
Although apparently some people would really like to see him produce that
Swordquest sword...
Wildstar
> Yep, agreed -- hence a simple verbal apology on Tramiel's part would
> probably be sufficient atonement for most people. I don't expect him to
> cut $20,000 checks to all Commodore users. :-)
True. I wouldn't mind a $20,000 check but hey. How would he apologize. How
do people expect him to apologize and apologize for what part. It would be
difficult to go into detail about every element. He may even know all the
things that he would have to apologize for.
It may even be difficult to determine whether or not that he needs to
apologize on certain matters. Being a hard-driver isn't wronging employees.
It is wrong to be a hard-driver and expect high output of your employees. It
is still common and expected of business leaders to "run a tight ship". If
you can't cut it, there is always someone else who can take your spot.
Employees have to keep that in mind. That was Jack. As for shitty
conditions. I don't know of what kind of conditions that you or super_stonic
was mentioning. Even the conditions at Commodore while Jack Tramiel wasn't
particularly bad. Rough not bad. It wasn't abusive. If you tried to go
around telling the owners of construction contractors and fish processing
canneries in Astoria, to atone for treating their employees like shit by
your definition of shitty environment or even the environment that any
employee of Commodore or Atari was under, they tell you to get fucked.
Look at coaches and military. They make it tough for their (athletes/troops)
under their command so they are fit and ready. Just because it isn't a
luxury spa environment.
Example:
http://www.digitpress.com/library/interviews/interview_bob_polaro.html
It was pretty laid back. Then Jack Tramiel came to Atari and it stop being
as laid-back like a party but like a work environment. Sure the young kids
(ok mid to late 20s kids) who got use to the fun party and play atmosphere
got upset when the environment was turned to a more serious, business like
atmosphere. Then remember Jack Tramiel was in the business machines,
calculators market in the 50s and 60s from a more serious atmosphere. Games
to him were kiddie stuff. Adults are expected to be serious and work in a
serious atmosphere. Away with the pool table and in with the cubicles. Ok,
you think that was TOO harsh?
Atari stopped being as "luxurious" and became more conservative and serious.
The issue is atmosphere changed. Of course, the atmosphere wasn't too bad.
Just the frat club atmosphere was eliminated. Things became more like IBM,
Commodore and other companies. The change is the atmosphere. Some got upset.
I don't think that really calls for atonement. I don't call that abuse or
shitty. I would call it shitty if they had to work outside in the rain or
snow. Keep that in mind.
> Although apparently some people would really like to see him produce that
> Swordquest sword...
Hehehe... for some, so very true.
Klompmeester
<super_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1195053912.6...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 12:53 am, "Wildstar" <wildstar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <super_sto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1195015207.5...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Nov 13, 6:57 pm, "Wildstar" <wildstar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> For the
>> >> Japanese of WWII, there is no need or call for atonement.
>>
>> > It's official. You're nuts.
>>
>> We nuked them, not once but twice. What's the point when over the next
>> 1000
>> years, more Japanese will die after WWII due to the A-bombs then during
>> WWII.
>
>
> You're so far off the path of logic, even Indiana Jones can't find
> you....
>
> Only a complete moron would make a statement like that, and right
> after Veteran's Day no less. I suppose you would have rather seen 50
> or 100 thousand solders die over several more years. The fact that it
> took TWO atomic bombings for Japan to surrender proves the U.S. made
> the right decision - both then and now.
Two atomic attacks on civillian targets...
The Japanese were (and possibly still are judging by the way they kill
dolphins and whales and enjoy torture TV shows) particularly malicious in
the way they fought the war and wouldn't think twice about deliberately
torturing POW's, women and civillians either so perhaps it's justified.
Either way, what is done is done.