hey everybody...im new with a few questions

[TanruNomad]

I've also heard that 98% of the VIC-20's program library consisted of games.

I think that percentage is more like 99.8% and for the c64, 99.9%.

 

[datajerk]

It depends on what you consider "mass market".

In the late '70s it would be mass produced non-hobby computers for consumer use. The Apple II, VIC-20, and TRS-80 all fall into that category.

Apple did advertise and promote the Apple II for home use long before the //c in 1984. And yes, they were more expensive. So expensive that my first Apple II was a clone. Those volumes are impossible to find, but I think worldwide clones would have an measurable impact on Apple II numbers.

 

[a2fan]

It depends on what you consider "mass market". The first Apple computer squarely aimed at home use was the IIc in 1984. The II+ and IIe were school and business machines, and did not sell well to consumers because they were too expensive (more expensive, in fact, than even the IBM PC!).

The first actual "mass market" computer sold at retail stores like K-Mart was the Commodore VIC-20, which was also the home computer to sell a million units. I've also heard that 98% of the VIC-20's program library consisted of games.

So while the Apple II series was highly influential, the real truth is that Apple was never a sales leader, and in fact never has been when it comes to computers. The Apple II is the computer that almost everybody used in school in the 1980s (except in Texas where Radio Shack/Tandy had a strong local influence), but almost nobody used at home.

Apple would sell the Apple II and II+ to anyone who would buy one. At first, it was the hobbyist but soon home computing and business picked up on them (with the introduction of VisiCalc). Getting them into schools was a shrewd marketing decision, because it created a halo effect in that if junior used an Apple II at school, he'd want one at home too.

The IIe was a reduced chip-count and improved model aimed at modernizing the II line, playing a little catch-up with the competition. It was Apple's most successful II series computer, and enjoyed strong sales for most of it's production run. It was the bridge machine that fulfilled the needs of home and education segments AND with programs like AppleWorks, stopgap the failure of the Apple III. The education market was large, but Apple sold more machines to home users than any other market segment. It even outsold the Apple //c. The Apple II also enjoyed a massive third party add-on market because it had slots that other machines from that era lacked.

The Apple II wasn't too expensive. It was just too expensive for some people. It sold well, and was popular enough that Apple didn't have to slash their margins to the bone. They survived the industry shakeout whereas TI, Atari and others had to give up and the other players like Commodore ended up in Toys R' Us.

Consider that there were a tens of thousands of programs written for the Apple II - for years, it had the largest commercial software base of any personal computer (until IBM overtook it, not Commodore). Most of the popular games from the early to mid-80's were released on the Apple II and ported to the other platforms afterwards (titles like Choplifter, Karateka, Wizardry, Ultima).

No, the real truth is that Apple did extremely well in the home/consumer market. Like Commodore, the Apple II was a significant player, right up until cheap IBM compatible PC clones came along and saturated the market.

 

[TanruNomad]

and the other players like Commodore ended up in Toys R' Us.

Did you just relegate the Commodore computers to toys? Little play things and not a real computer? Oh man, good thing I'm an Apple II fan...

 

[vwestlife]

No, the real truth is that Apple did extremely well in the home/consumer market. Like Commodore, the Apple II was a significant player, right up until cheap IBM compatible PC clones came along and saturated the market.

In 1982, Apple sold 300,000 Apple IIs, while Commodore sold 800,000 VIC-20s.

And in the early years, Apple was barely a blip on the radar. It took a long time for them to gather momentum.

 

[TanruNomad]

In 1982, Apple sold 300,000 Apple IIs, while Commodore sold 800,000 VIC-20s.

And in the early years, Apple was barely a blip on the radar. It took a long time for them to gather momentum.

In 1977 Apple sold 7,000 Apple IIs. It wasn't until the release of Visicalc when businesses started buying the Visicalc+Apple II package (around $3,000) in the tens of thousands. Apple's deal with MECC also helped ensure their dominance in the educational market. By the way, where'd you get that graphic. Computer sales numbers are hard to acquire because the companies didn't disclose them. Also, was the Pet a contender?

 

[tezza]

That graph looks like it is from Matthew Reed's article here:
http://www.trs-80.org/was-the-trs-80-once-the-top-selling-computer/

The graph is based on sound research but it's my understanding these are U.S. figures only. Other countries would be different. The PET was never a big seller in the U.S. which probably explains its absence. In Europe it was a different story though.

Tez

 

[tezza]

Here is some collaborating info here.
http://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/3/

This graph does show the PET

I'm not sure if the graph shows U.S. or global figures.

Tez

 

[datajerk]

In 1982, Apple sold 300,000 Apple IIs, while Commodore sold 800,000 VIC-20s.

What is your point? 300,000 is not a failure. Especially at the price they were sold. I'm sure in the same year Ford outsold Mercedes in the US.

What started this thread was my statement that the Apple II was the first mass market consumer color computer--it was made for games. And that is exactly what Woz was thinking. And the context for that statement goes back to the original poster that was looking to add an Apple II system to his gaming museum.

I'm a bit confused as to the relevance of VIC and TRS sales figures. The Apple II was manufactured and sold until 1993. A 16 year period. And if you throw in the 100 or so clones you have without a doubt the most successful 8-bit platform--ever. Just the fact that the Apple II was still in demand in 1993 is a testament to its success. And that wouldn't have been possible if the two Steves were interested in making a cheap, quick-to-market, designed-by-committee device that wasn't designed to be open and expandable.

BTW, I am not suggesting that one computer is better than the other. They are just optimized for different use cases, e.g. some are optimized for price, others for durability, expandability, quality, openness, appearance, software selection, professional use, educational use, and taste.

 

[datajerk]

Here is some collaborating info here.
http://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/3/

I have emailed the author for the source of his data without success (or reply). No data, no foundation to stand on. BTW, I am not disputing his numbers, I just want to see the source. And without a clear understanding of the impact of Apple II clones we will never know market share of the Apple II platform. IIRC, the TRS was also cloned, but AFAIK the Commodores were never cloned. The low price and custom chips didn't invite cloners. The relative high price and openness of the Altair, Apple, and IBM PC invited a lot of competition from clones.

 

[billdeg]

This thread is going to make me barf. I mean ... Made me barf.

 

[vwestlife]

What is your point? 300,000 is not a failure. Especially at the price they were sold. I'm sure in the same year Ford outsold Mercedes in the US.

What started this thread was my statement that the Apple II was the first mass market consumer color computer--it was made for games. And that is exactly what Woz was thinking. And the context for that statement goes back to the original poster that was looking to add an Apple II system to his gaming museum.

Yes, Woz did specifically design the Apple II so that it would be able to play Pong (after all, that was during the height of the Pong fad). You are correct about that. But you are using incorrect terminology. No personal computer was "mass market" in 1977. They were all still hobbyist machines because nobody knew what the real market for them would be. That's why the II included expansion slots -- so hobbyists could design and use their own circuit boards with it.

It is a fact that that first "mass market" computer, sold at mass merchandise retailers, was the VIC-20. Look, I'm not a fan of the machine -- I think it's chunky, ugly, and not really good at anything except reminding you of how the C64 is so much better -- but that is its due place in computing history.

I'm a bit confused as to the relevance of VIC and TRS sales figures. The Apple II was manufactured and sold until 1993. A 16 year period. And if you throw in the 100 or so clones you have without a doubt the most successful 8-bit platform--ever.

Again you are glorifying Apple a little too much. Yes, the Apple II series was long-lived, but the Commodore 64 is the world's best-selling computer of all time, so if you define "success" as sales, your statement is incorrect (even with the clones thrown in).

 

[Chuck(G)]

It is a fact that that first "mass market" computer, sold at mass merchandise retailers, was the VIC-20. Look, I'm not a fan of the machine -- I think it's chunky, ugly, and not really good at anything except reminding you of how the C64 is so much better -- but that is its due place in computing history.

You know, Tandy had Radio Shack stores all over the place at the time the TRS-80 was being sold--you could find one in virtually any mall. My town (not all that big) still has three. My first major purchase at my local RS wasn't a computer--it was an all-band portable radio. I'd call that mass market.

 

[vwestlife]

You know, Tandy had Radio Shack stores all over the place at the time the TRS-80 was being sold--you could find one in virtually any mall. My town (not all that big) still has three. My first major purchase at my local RS wasn't a computer--it was an all-band portable radio. I'd call that mass market.

True to an extent, but back then, Radio Shack served a niche market of mostly hi-fi buffs and ham and CB radio operators. And partly because of that, they opened dedicated Computer Center stores to sell the TRS-80.

 

[retrogametruck]

Uuuuummmmm.

 

[david__schmidt]

Uuuuummmmm.

Look, don't take this the wrong way, but you walked into an antique car show and said, "Hi, no idea what a car is - which one is the best? I want to collect it." Now the other collectors are arguing amongst themselves. This should not surprise you.

 

[Corey986]

I'm with Bill on this, I just tossed my cookies...

This is back to the whole apple-commodore arguments of the early 80's.

Lets put it in perspective. The Apple II was not the first personal computer. The term personal computer was coined by MITS for the Altair. The Scelbi predates them all and could have qualified as the first. The first mass market personal computer was the TRS-80 because of the ability for the mass market to buy one and use it easily. There were other easy to use machines like the Apple II, Sol and Pet each bringing and contributing something unique to world of computers. For example Apple brought color graphics and a machine designed to hook up to the home TV. It was relatively expensive for a consumer product, but when a VCR cost $2000, a color computer at the same price wasn't too bad. Just like the $2000 VCR you needed to go to a specialty store to buy one.

Apple did not reduce their prices as technology became cheaper, but inflation under the later Carter years with residual inflation under the first two years of Regan changed what the cost of a computer was compared to people's salary. That allowed a company like Commodore to release a rather expensive for a mass produced consumer product C64, which initially like the Vic-20 was only available like the Apple in specialty shops. It was only when commodore was able to cut their margins and reduce manufacturing costs that they could bring it to a ToysRus price point. Initially the C64 was not cheap especially with a disk drive. It was just cheaper than an apple or an IBM. I think Tandy had cheaper computers than the initial C64 launch price point, and eventually their PCjr clone took off and leveled the competition including the actual PCjr because it could play games and run the same software that people used at work or in university.

Now I am an apple fan boy, but I understand their place in the early computing universe as do many apple guys. It just seems most of the C64 guys got in with the ToysRus pricing and don't remember when a C64 setup with a disk drive was over $1000 and an apple was only a few hundred more(with clones almost the same price as an early c64), they only remember them at about $250 in a Christmas ad for toys r us.

Enough of my rant.

Long live the Apple Pippin (only kidding)

Cheers,
Corey

 

[billdeg]

Humbly, having taught computer history for four semesters, I have spent a lot of time reading and reseRching this subject and I find a lot of this kind of reasoning wikikpedia factoid stuff. To presume to know what Woz was thinking or to put yesterday's markets into today's perspective distorts the truth about how it really went down then.

What about the IBM mainframe and business markets? They were certainly mass-marketing computers in the 60's; you're focused on a miniscule portion of the overall computing market at the time if you confine yourself to micros only.

But if we're talking micros Tandy had a catalog in 1978, among the hundreds of other items on dozens of pages was the computing section. Is is not mass marketing? Back then MICRO computers were marketed by retailers as part of a portfolio of products. The box store MICRO computers-are-us retailers did not even exist until the business-based IBM PC made it viable. A computers-only company was not able to mass market yet, there were too few buyers.

Commodore was of the first who attempted to mass market a micro computer product along the same lines of the Atari game console/computers. Can't forget Atari.

Take some of your charts and overlay the entire computer market, not just micros. Totally changes your perspective.

 

[Corey986]

Bill,

Good points. I tend to look at new markets compared to other new markets at the time, like what was a CD player in 1982 the year the 64 was released. I think a Sony was a few thousand or more. I agree commodore did try to bring a computer to the masses, but I don't think that was the original plan until they got the price point down. I think they were just trying to keep ahead of the market and leverage their ownership of MOS.

Atari may have been the first targeted by design for mass market or maybe even the timex Sinclair. However atari's first attempt the 400 made too many cost concessions for its price. The Sinclair was cheap and sold a ton. At $100 price point, though it was mostly a toy.

Anyway. See you this weekend and we can talk more

Cheers,
Corey

 

[billdeg]

Here is a good article about the International Consumer Electronics Show that I used in class instructions to make a few points about the changes that were happening in the computer market in the early 80's, before the IBM PC. (I left out some of the pages about non-computer subjects)

No opinion from me, just read and make your own judgement. Note that Apple was not even there.

http://vintagecomputer.net/CISC367/...national Winter Consumer Electronics Show.pdf

If you're a member of my site, I also have a lot of 1981 ads. An interesting year for sure.