In article <1193236449.369846.14180@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Rich Hutnik <getrich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Can we say the right thing about Jack? Atari was on its way out when
> Jack bought the company. What you can say is he failed to say Atari,
> but as for killing it? Well, that is another story. People don't
> remember the problems Atari had when Jack got ahold of it.
It is the general consensus of classic video game collectors over the
last 10-12 years (particularly in r.g.v.classic, r.g.v.atari and their
alt.* cousins) that a properly motivated investor could have saved Atari
and put it in a more powerful position in the 16-bit and beyond eras.
Jack, however, only wanted a recognizable name, and what he did from day
one doomed Atari to what it became. For the simple fact that he cut a
machine as powerful as the 7800 as fast as he did, and moved to shut
down the Atari 8-bit family at the time when it was in a position to
compete favourably against the C=64, and with its R&D so much further
along than C='s, Jack put Atari dead centre down a short dead end street.
No, we cannot say just that Jack failed to save Atari. He moved to kill
Atari, although he did not WANT to kill it, he just didn't have any
intentions to retain Atari's prior loyalties.
Anyone who takes over a company and eliminates its entire customer base
so harshly and quickly is not recognizing a company strength that must
be preserved.
And FWIW, a lot of companies in the 80's did similar, and suffered
similar fates.
jt
|
