7800 Atari Corp. Revival

[Atarifever]

Hell yes it was, it took atari out of debt they had in '93 and put them in the profitable position they were in to liquidate the company in '96. Otherwise they'd quite possibly have not been able to win the pending lawsuits at the time, and quite possibly have gone bankrupt. (something that didn't ever happen to any of the Ataris)

 

Not really following how the Jaguar had anything to do with the lawsuits? Atari reached back into the legacy patents and sued Sega (for a lot) and got paid a small settlement by Nintendo. T

 

SETTLEMENTS OF PATENT LITIGATION

 

During the first quarter of 1994, the Company received $2.2 million with

respect to the settlement of litigation between the Company, Atari Games

Corporation and Nintendo. Although not part of the litigation, the Company

sold 1,500,000 shares of its common stock to Time Warner (parent company of

Atari Games Corporation), Inc. for $12.8 million.

 

During the fourth quarter of 1994, the Company completed a comprehensive

agreement ("Agreement") with Sega Enterprises, Ltd. ("Sega") concerning

resolution of disputes, equity investment and patent and product licensing

agreements. The results of the Agreement were as follows: (i) Sega

acquired 4,705,883 shares of the Company's common stock for $40.0 million;

(ii) the Company received payment of $29.8 million ($50.0 million from

Sega, net of $20.2 million of legal fees and associated costs) in exchange

for a license from Atari covering the use of a library of Atari patents

issued between 1977 through 1984 (excluding patents which exclusively claim

elements of the Company's JAGUAR and LYNX products) through the year 2001;

and (iii) the Company and Sega agreed to cross-license up to five software

game titles each year through the year 2001.

 

 

The Jaguar itself was a huge money loser. In 1993, they lost almost $49 million dollars for that fiscal year. In 1994, they eaked out a 9.4 million profit for the year, but also settled the above lawsuits to bolster. They had an operating loss of $24 million for 1994. By 1995 fiscal year, the net loss was back up to almost $50 million and sales had collapsed from $38.7 million to $14.6 million as a result of competition.

 

Check out the 1995 annual report

http://www.secinfo.com/dr6nd.96q.htm

 

 

Well, maybe profit isn't really the right word, but I see the point Kool Kitty was going for. The Jaguar helped their stock price and perceived value. Companies that lose money can do all kinds of things if they can be seen as somehow valuable (most automakers spend much of their time in this position). I guess the point is that without something "big" like the Jaguar to talk up and then sell for those years, Atari would not have been seen as fit to buy by the time the Tramiels sold it. I doubt it made the company or investors money, but I guess it did a lot more for them than dying quietly with the 8 bit computers would have.

 

As for the lawsuit, I guess it helps to win a lawsuit if your company is seen as a major player suing another major player in the industry you are both in, than for a defunct company, with no market at all, to do the same. Patent trolls demonstrate that you can win if you have nothing more than some silly patent violation, but as Edge games has recently shown, not having a real market yourself can lead the judge to rule differently too. The part about cross licencing games certainly wouldn't make sense if Atari didn't have a platform in the market on the level of the Saturn.

[kool kitty89]

Hell yes it was, it took atari out of debt they had in '93 and put them in the profitable position they were in to liquidate the company in '96. Otherwise they'd quite possibly have not been able to win the pending lawsuits at the time, and quite possibly have gone bankrupt. (something that didn't ever happen to any of the Ataris)

 

Not really following how the Jaguar had anything to do with the lawsuits? Atari reached back into the legacy patents and sued Sega (for a lot) and got paid a small settlement by Nintendo.

The 2 are interconnected as I brought up with kskunk's post:

If you want to be a little more cynical about it, you could say that the Jaguar did exactly what it was intended to.

 

Before the Jaguar announcement, Atari was on its last legs, in debt, and the stock price was in the dumps. Then the Jaguar hype began. The stock price shot up (for a while), they were able to partner up with businesses that normally wouldn't have worked with a failing company (IBM, TWI), and they survived long enough to beat Sega in court and collect $90M in cash.

 

So if you believe Atari was already doomed by 1991 (I do), then the Jaguar was a great example of taking lemons and making lemonade.

 

By the time the Tramiels shut down Atari in 1996, the financial position of the company was healthy enough to allow them to completely liquidate their holdings and walk away with millions of dollars. Without the Jaguar, they would have been bankrupt.

 

It's easy to armchair quarterback, but I think it's remarkable Atari shipped hundreds of thousands of Jaguars and millions of game cartridges, considering their business reputation and financial situation. They were a skeleton of a company with under 100 people for most of the Jaguar's life. Comparing them to Sony or Sega is comparing David to Goliath.

 

From that perspective, I don't think the Panther could have worked. Its specs were inferior in almost every way to its 16-bit competitors. The Jaguar on the other hand, had amazing specs for its day. Those specs helped prop up Atari stock long enough to engineer a somewhat happier ending for Atari.

 

- KS

 

 

 

 

The Jaguar itself was a huge money loser. In 1993, they lost almost $49 million dollars for that fiscal year. In 1994, they eaked out a 9.4 million profit for the year, but also settled the above lawsuits to bolster. They had an operating loss of $24 million for 1994. By 1995 fiscal year, the net loss was back up to almost $50 million and sales had collapsed from $38.7 million to $14.6 million as a result of competition.

Where are those figures from? (and I highly doubt the lawsuit winnings would be included in the profits...)

And those 1993 losses related to the Jaguar how? (I'm sure there were R&D costs and such, and costs for the initial small production run, but consider all the other reasons for such losses that put Atari in debt at the time -like losing the computer market)

I'd think there was FAR more to it than the Jag and the losses likely could have been higher without the Jag (depending on if they could have pushed the Lynx more). The Lynx would have been their sole product on the market... (unless you think they could have worked the Jaguar's TOM into a PC graphics card or such and sold it successfully -but with the competition in that market it wouldn't be much better than with video games save for having a consumer oriented 2D/3D accelerator 1-2 years before anyone else -and given the bug issues, getting it to work reliably with a high-level API could have been problematic)

 

The Jaguar wasn't even launched in 1993, it only had the limited NY and SF test markets (had they had the funding, they very well may have delayed until Spring 1994 when they had a decent number of games for launch and maybe tweaking the hardware a bit), too bad they ended up leaving Europe out of the test market though (London and Paris were originally planned) and that seems to be something that followed with the actual launch in 1994. (or at least I've heard several anecdotes about shortages of the Jaguar in UK/Europe)

Hell, if what you say is true, that says that Atari would have been better off holding back the release of the Jaguar for sure (ie that they would have enough funding in the interim without digging into private funds), but that's against the lengthy discussions that have addressed the topic before.

 

 

Well, maybe profit isn't really the right word, but I see the point Kool Kitty was going for. The Jaguar helped their stock price and perceived value. Companies that lose money can do all kinds of things if they can be seen as somehow valuable (most automakers spend much of their time in this position). I guess the point is that without something "big" like the Jaguar to talk up and then sell for those years, Atari would not have been seen as fit to buy by the time the Tramiels sold it. I doubt it made the company or investors money, but I guess it did a lot more for them than dying quietly with the 8 bit computers would have.

I think it did make a profit early on, but that may have shifted after they started re-investing the Sega money and dropping prices significantly. (of course there's also the liquidated stock dumped in 1996, but that's a totally different context tied to leaving the market -some 100-115k units stockpiled in early 1996 to the 135k units sold up to that point) The Lyx didn't bring in the kind of revenue the Jag did and I believe it declined rather sharply in 1993 as well. (revenue isn't profits, of course, but both are important)

Not sure on the accuracy, but some interesting figures on that here:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/docs/11Videogames.pdf (see pg 16)

Listing only 7 million in sales for '93 (fall test market), but jumping to 64 million in 1994, and 52 million in '95 and the Lynx 32M in '90, 40 in '91, 32 in '92, 12 in '93, and 3 in '94. (again revenue, not profits)

 

As for the lawsuit, I guess it helps to win a lawsuit if your company is seen as a major player suing another major player in the industry you are both in, than for a defunct company, with no market at all, to do the same. Patent trolls demonstrate that you can win if you have nothing more than some silly patent violation, but as Edge games has recently shown, not having a real market yourself can lead the judge to rule differently too. The part about cross licencing games certainly wouldn't make sense if Atari didn't have a platform in the market on the level of the Saturn.

Not just that, but the financial improvements brought on by the Jaguar leading up to that win. (without the Tramiels digging into private savings)

 

But the licensing thing is moot since they never took advantage of it anyway. (but it WOULD still have made sense if they'd delayed the Jag vs dropping it entirely ot releasing it early)

Edited October 29, 2010 by kool kitty89

[Retro Rogue]

The Jaguar itself was a huge money loser. In 1993, they lost almost $49 million dollars for that fiscal year.

 

The Jaguar was only test marketed at the end of '93.

 

In 1994, they eaked out a 9.4 million profit for the year, but also settled the above lawsuits to bolster. They had an operating loss of $24 million for 1994. By 1995 fiscal year, the net loss was back up to almost $50 million and sales had collapsed from $38.7 million to $14.6 million as a result of competition.

 

Check out the 1995 annual report

http://www.secinfo.com/dr6nd.96q.htm

 

 

 

 

I'm looking at that document and I clearly see stated "Total revenues for 1994 were $38.7 million compared to $29.1 million for

1993. The increased revenues were primarily a result of Atari's national rollout of the Jaguar and related products."

 

Likewise, in this document I clearly see stated:

 

"RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1993

 

Net sales in 1993 were $28.8 million as compared to $127.3 million in 1992,

a decline of 77%. Sales declined significantly as the Company downsized, closed

operations and changed its product focus."

 

Additionally:

 

"For the reasons discussed under "General" above, there was a steady decline

from 1992 to 1993 in unit sales and in sales prices of older technology video

games and computer products. The sales mix in 1993 was 13% Jaguar sales, 20%

other video game sales and 67% computer product sales."

Edited October 29, 2010 by wgungfu

[DracIsBack]

Before the Jaguar announcement, Atari was on its last legs, in debt, and the stock price was in the dumps. Then the Jaguar hype began. The stock price shot up (for a while), they were able to partner up with businesses that normally wouldn't have worked with a failing company (IBM, TWI), and they survived long enough to beat Sega in court and collect $90M in cash.

 

In that respect, I agree. I just didn't agree with the 'it was profitable'. It wasn't as a business line.

 

They were a skeleton of a company with under 100 people for most of the Jaguar's life.

 

That I did find astounding. True.

Edited October 29, 2010 by DracIsBack

[DracIsBack]

The Jaguar was only test marketed at the end of '93.

 

That is true.

 

The assertion was made earlier that the Jaguar is profitable for Atari. it wasn't as a business line. Test market or not, it was sold in 1993 in small quantities and Atari lost money.

 

 

 

I'm looking at that document and I clearly see stated "Total revenues for 1994 were $38.7 million compared to $29.1 million for

1993.

 

Yes, but let's add some additional lines:

YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995

----------------------------------

1995 1994 1993

REVENUES................................................... $14,626 $ 38,748 $ 29,108

OPERATING LOSS............................................. (53,665) (24,047) (47,499)

Settlements of patent litigation........................... -- 32,062 --

NET INCOME (LOSS).......................................... $(49,576) $ 9,394 $(48,866)

 

 

- Losses in 1993 during Jaguar's test market

- Operating losses in 1994, but patent litigation bolstered numbers

- Bigger losses in 1995 with losses more than tripling revenue.

 

 

I can buy into the tie of the Jaguar into other company initiatives. I just don't buy into it being 'profitable'. It wasn't.

 

 

I'm perhaps being anal because of all the funky Jaguar numbers out there (ie. Atari sold 2 million Jaguars!) but I do see the point of Jaguar's role in 'keeping Atari alive' and agree. I too remember when the stock shot up a lot. I was heading to University the summer after it announced and briefly considered buying Atari stock at 1.50/share and regretting it later. :-)

Edited October 29, 2010 by DracIsBack

[kool kitty89]

The assertion was made earlier that the Jaguar is profitable for Atari. it wasn't as a business line. Test market or not, it was sold in 1993 in small quantities and Atari lost money.

Who says any of those losses were at all related to the Jaguar? The Jaguar very likely REDUCED losses and was definitely being sold for a profit. (the Lynx was probably more significant that year on the whole, but it seems that it was fading fast)

 

Any losses wouldn't have happened until they started trying to compete with Sony/Sega in 1995 with significantly dropped prices, investing millions into the Jag CD license, etc. (more R&D costs for the Jag 2 and Duo which never came to be, etc)

Their best chance was probably establishing a strong niche in Europe, but they missed that chance...

 

It was profitable in the shirt term and got investment support and good PR, but it didn't last. (for a number of reasons including funding still being too limited, the whole market being in a slump from 1993-1996, and competition increasing dramatically with Sony's entrance -and unlike Europe, Atari's brand name was much weaker)

 

I'm perhaps being anal because of all the funky Jaguar numbers out there (ie. Atari sold 2 million Jaguars!) but I do see the point of Jaguar's role in 'keeping Atari alive' and agree.

Yeah, 135,000 and 2M are a big difference , or 235-250k for total production (including liquidated stock). (so less than the 32x by a good margin) The rarity/prices for the system today reflect that. (highly demand sensitive)

[DracIsBack]

Who says any of those losses were at all related to the Jaguar? The Jaguar very likely REDUCED losses and was definitely being sold for a profit. (the Lynx was probably more significant that year on the whole, but it seems that it was fading fast)

 

I think you need to read the 1993, 1994 and 1995 annual reports first, then you'll see where I'm coming from. There's lots of data on:

 

- Atari's R&D costs

- Atari's game development costs

- Atari's licensing costs

- Atari's marketing and distribution costs

- Atari's manufacturing costs

 

There's also data on sales figures (17,000 in 1993, 100,000 by 1994 and 135,000 by 1995 end), price reductions etc.

 

There's also data on when the other businesses were 'phased out' and data on Atari's operating losses throughout 1993-6.

 

 

 

 

[kool kitty89]

One main point was that I never said it was profitable specifically in the long run, but a critical business success in the short term.

 

That and that they didn't even come close to betting the "farm" on the jaguar at all.

 

I think you need to read the 1993, 1994 and 1995 annual reports first, then you'll see where I'm coming from. There's lots of data on:

 

- Atari's R&D costs

- Atari's game development costs

- Atari's licensing costs

- Atari's marketing and distribution costs

- Atari's manufacturing costs

OK, and those are all investments for a longer-run product... but in the case of R&D you've got that going from 1990 to early 1993, so it's a cumulative thing, but you could get down on them even more for wasting money on the Panther in the first place, or the Falcon (for how few actually sold), let alone stuff like the Transputer workstation.

The main problem wasn't the Jaguar at all, it was just their general lack of products with the ST line dead, no new console in 89/90, and the Lynx not being enough.

 

That and coming at the wrong time with the market in decline, not pushing for Europe more, and then getting flattened by Sony's hype in '95.

[Retro Rogue]

I'm looking at that document and I clearly see stated "Total revenues for 1994 were $38.7 million compared to $29.1 million for

1993.

 

Yes, but let's add some additional lines:

- Losses in 1993 during Jaguar's test market

 

That in no way states the losses were due to the Jaguar's test market. They clearly states what 1993 losses were from, and in fact clearly state in the document the Jaguar accounted for 17% of all Atari Corp. sales that year. 17% from a product introduced for two months in a test marketing is a growth from said product, not a loss due to said product.

 

 

- Operating losses in 1994, but patent litigation bolstered numbers

 

Actually no, Jaguar was the main product by that time and accounting for the complete replacement in earnings sources in those figures. As clearly stated, their product line for the majority of '93 (save for the last two months) were computers and other consoles - which were also fazed out that year. In 1994, all those sources of income were *completely replaced* by the Jaguar. That means that the Jaguar accounted for not only matching the $29.1 million in sales from the previous year, but also the additional sales growth to $38.7 million. You're confusing the companies losses (which have to do with operations as a whole) with sales losses, and trying to attribute things that just aren't stated anywhere as I've already shown. The Jaguar didn't start impacting things negatively in sales until '95, when sales significantly dropped and Atari Corp. was left in the wind because of downsizing to that being their only product. Which is why they began initiatives to go back in to computing, cost reduce the Jag/CD, and expand in to other areas (such as PC software).

 

I can buy into the tie of the Jaguar into other company initiatives. I just don't buy into it being 'profitable'. It wasn't.

 

And yet the sales income figures show that it was in '93-'94 as stated.

 

I'm perhaps being anal because of all the funky Jaguar numbers out there (ie. Atari sold 2 million Jaguars!) but I do see the point of Jaguar's role in 'keeping Atari alive' and agree. I too remember when the stock shot up a lot. I was heading to University the summer after it announced and briefly considered buying Atari stock at 1.50/share and regretting it later. :-)

 

You have a right to be anal about those numbers, but don't let that cloud judgement on the other things. The SEC reports clearly state how many Jaguars were manufactured and how many they had to liquidate, which absolutely disproves those ridiculous 2 million sold claims.

[DracIsBack]

So, let's look at this and think with our business hats, using some additional data provided.

 

Let's start with Atari's 1993 annual report. Specifically, page 14.

 

- In 1993, Atari shipped 17,000 Atari Jaguar units and software,

- resulting in $3.8 million in sales for the Jaguar product line.

- Atari spent $0.8 million on Jaguar software development costs

- Atari spent $3.0 million on marketing and distribution for Jaguar promotion

- In R&D, Atari spent $4.9 million and the bulk was logically on the Jaguar.

 

This number doesn't include manufacturing costs or licensing and royalties spent on the Jaguar units.

 

 

Then lets look at Atari's 1994 annual report. In particular, pp 11-14

 

- Atari has revenue of $38.4 million. Jaguar was 77% of that, so about $29.3 million worth of Jaguar product revenue.

- Atari spent $5.8 million on R&D

- Atari spent $5.1 million on game development costs

- Atari spent $14.5 million on marketing and distribution

- Atari has sold 100,000 units by the end of the year

 

 

 

Atari spends $25.4 million on R&D, marketing and game development. It looks like they made a profit doesn't it? Unfortunately, we haven't factored in their cost of goods sold to build all those Jaguars, Jaguar accessories and cartridges. Ditto for per unit royalties on things like game licenses and contracted development

 

So chances are extremely likely they didn't make a profit on it here either. In fact, they also reported an operating LOSS of $24 million, offset by gains of patent litigation settlements of $32 million.

 

Then lets look at Atari's 1995 annual report. http://www.sec.gov/A...8-96-000213.txt

 

By this point, Atari's sales have collapsed to $14.6 million total.

Of that, $9.9 million is on Jaguar product.

 

- Atari spends $5.4 million on R&D

- Atari spends $12.7 million on marketing and distribution

-Atari had contracted $16.6 million in external Jaguar development and internal development of about $760,000.

 

Again: we haven't factored in their cost of goods sold to build all those Jaguars, Jaguar accessories and cartridges. Ditto for per unit royalties on things like game licenses and contracted development While manufacturing did cease halfway through 1995, the reality was that Atari lost a bunch of money on Jaguar here too.

So looking at this quickly:

- They made $43 million in Jaguar sales between 1993's introduction and the end of 1995

- They spent approximately $69.6 million in sales, R&D, marketing, distribution and software development

- Then assume they also spent a bunch of money on manufacturing and royalty obligations.

 

 

I agree that the Jaguar caused other good things to happen, but profitability is not one.

Edited October 29, 2010 by DracIsBack

[DracIsBack]

but don't let that cloud judgement on the other things.

 

If you'd like, I can scan you copies of these two reports so you have them for your info on this and also general archives.

Edited October 29, 2010 by DracIsBack

[Retro Rogue]

but don't let that cloud judgement on the other things.

 

If you'd like, I can scan you copies of these two reports so you have them for your info on this and also general archives.

 

I'm always looking for items and scans to archive. Feel free to PM me for my email address to send the scans to.

[kool kitty89]

Actually no, Jaguar was the main product by that time and accounting for the complete replacement in earnings sources in those figures. As clearly stated, their product line for the majority of '93 (save for the last two months) were computers and other consoles - which were also fazed out that year. In 1994, all those sources of income were *completely replaced* by the Jaguar.

So they dropped the lynx too? That's rather odd given it was their only other active product and did tie into the video game business. (I'd thought there were even plans for linking the lynx to the jaguar for specific purposes)

 

If that was the case, they may not have bet the farm, but they did put all their eggs in one basket and that would explain why the Lynx seemed to drop so abruptly after fairly even 1990-1992 sales. (the ST line may have been dead, but the Lynx seems like it had a lot more life in it -granted, like the Game Gear, the battery life was a major issue -bulky form factor secondary, something that could have changed dramatically once reflective color LCD screens with acceptable contrast ratios became available in the mid 90s... unless there was still some life in the computers to the extent of releasing the microbox Falcon being a good idea)

 

That and I though the 2600 and 7800 had already been discontinued in early 1992.

 

Edit: Hmm, it seems you already went over some of this... in fact I think this is the very post I was thinking of for summarizing Sam's weaknesses as head of Atari:

And then Sam Tramiel had a heart attack - Jack stepped back in and wound down operations. I truly think is Sam didnt have his heart attack that Atari would've continued to fight to the last $$$ - but Jack and Leonard were not interested anymore.

 

Truthfully, Leonard didn't have much to do with the daily operations, he was more involved with the products themselves. And I'm not sure that Sam would have been able to change things if he didn't have the heart attack. Every since he had taken over, the company itself was on a downward spiral. When Jack turned the company over to him, he had mananged to bring the company out of the red and in to the black - shedding all the debt they took on from Warner in the purchase. That was his dream after all, to be able to hand something solid over to his sons and retire. Sam managed to take it from a multi-division multi-product company to a single product company by the time Jack came back in. If they would have fought to the last $$$, there would have been nothing left of a legacy for his kids, hence the reverse merger to get out while they still could. Truthfully, I would rather have had Jack not retire back in the late 80's and have him stick around for the oncoming Wintel onslaught to see how he would have dealt with that. I can't picture just turning tail and closing down the computer division like that.

 

And at about the same time jack retired, Katz also left Atari, right? (so they lost 2 important forces in Atari Corp management)

 

 

 

 

So, let's look at this and think with our business hats, using some additional data provided.

 

Let's start with Atari's 1993 annual report. Specifically, page 14.

Isn't some of that spending from direct use of 3rd party investment capital? (ie the main thing the 1993 test market was itended to generate -that and favorable manufacturing contracts)

Edited October 30, 2010 by kool kitty89

[CRV]

Now the Tramiel haters really have little left to bash them with.

 

Now they'll just write off what Marty and others have been saying as "revisionist history."

Edited October 30, 2010 by CRV

[CRV]

Now they'll just write off what Marty and others have been saying as "revisionist history."

 

In fact, it's already happening.

[Atarifever]

Now the Tramiel haters really have little left to bash them with.

 

Now they'll just write off what Marty and others have been saying as "revisionist history."

This is why the internet is actually a step backwards in human evolution. The original view of the Tramiels (that they wanted to focus on computers only, that they released the 7800 too late because they didn't like consoles, etc) was based on nothing at all. No fact checking, no documentation, etc. In fact, it wasn't even based on logic (why would a businessman buy a company known for videogame consoles, with three consoles ready to be sold, with games ready to be produced, and with stock of some of it sitting in warehouses) and then plan to not sell consoles for no reason? It defies logic that the idea has persisted so long when you think about it.

 

The new view that Marty and Curt have demonstrated is based on hours of interviews, checking company business and sales reports, and internal communications within Atari. Because the internet breeds stupidity, this new view is called "revisionist," while the illogical one based on nothing at all is believed to be the truth. I think our species is about two decades away from climbing back into the trees.

[Retro Rogue]

In fact, it's already happening.

 

According to this page that's Jess Ragan here at the AA forums. (Notice the snarky status update saying the same thing). You can read some of our previous interactions starting here. Just go through the rest of the pages of that thread, he's the one that was also accusing AA'ers of having a grudge against Nintendo. And nobody here was saying Tramiel didn't have his personal issues and didn't treat some people poorly or screw people over in business, like Jess is claiming we are with "Evidently now Tramiel's farts smell like roses." And his statement "Oh, you poor deluded Atari fans. Former employees acknowledged Tramiel was a game-hating jerk. You can't put that genie back in the bottle!" was already discredited both in that previous thread and in this one. The "Former employees" is the Brad Saville commment once again, whose source was already revealed as Curt via an interview he did with Brad and who already explained why a)It's taken with a grain of salt. b) It doesn't hold up to the actual internal emails, project notes and logs, and other direct interviews regarding that time period. Personally I'm surprised he's posting those now, after he was already shown incorrect in that thread an several others that popped in. But then anyone can rant on twitter pages, that's what they're for half the time. As Atarifever stated, and as Curt and I have stated over and over again, our material is based solely on "hours of interviews, checking company business and sales reports, and internal communications within Atari", internal engineering logs, and more. Calling it "revisionist" and saying those things just sounds silly and childish. Especially when it was the people who publicised the "older" material and viewpoint in books and on websites in the first place who turned out to be the revisionists - and Curt was one of them at the time as he has readily admitted, going by what was the available info back then. I just love though how people can put in days, months, and years of serious research and vetting efforts, representing an extreme amount of time, effort, and money, and someone can simply try and discredit it with a brush off as "revisionism". But then, that's typical of the current socio-political climate as well.

Edited October 30, 2010 by wgungfu

[kool kitty89]

Now the Tramiel haters really have little left to bash them with.

 

Now they'll just write off what Marty and others have been saying as "revisionist history."

Because it IS revisionist history... but the good kind where the revisions correct myths/inaccuracies/lies/scapegoats/cover-ups, not the other kind. (ie the kind Nolan's PR machine worked hard to build in the first place)

ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_%28negationism%29

 

Hell, the commonly accepted "history" of Atari in the early 80s was already chock full of revisionist history. (much a la Bushnell including downplaying or completely omitting Dabney's involvement)

 

Which is why Atarifever's satire of it all is so appropriate:

"Once Nolan Bushnell sold Atari for $100 billion to Warner, Warner released E.T., which single handedly destroyed the videogame market until the NES came out. When Tramiel was offered the rights to the NES, Sega Genesis, and iPhone, he threw them all in the floor and screamed 'we make computers and these things will all fail because they suck.' Then he released the Lynx to sell batteries, and then he released the Jaguar, which lost $100 billion and was a joke from day one, and everyone knew it sucked forever and had no games."

Edited October 30, 2010 by kool kitty89

[DracIsBack]

Isn't some of that spending from direct use of 3rd party investment capital? (ie the main thing the 1993 test market was itended to generate -that and favorable manufacturing contracts)

 

On page 34, they reference selling 1.5 million shares to Time-Warner @ $8.50/share to raise $12.8 million and giving them the rights to buy more.

- THey reference settling litigation with Nintendo where Nintendo, Atari Games and Time Warner all received money, though they don't specify here how much.

- They also reference giving Atari Games 70,000 shares to cover royalty payments that Atari Corp owed but was past due on.

[Atarifever]

My job right now is basically marketing, and we have had to change how we do a lot of things so we can make use of the internet and social media. Here are three big secrets of the internet as it currently exists that I think demonstrate how this can be corrected:

 

1) The internet makes you dumber. We are, even here, all less intelligent the more we use the internet. Thus, if you are online it can be safely assumed you are at least a little less intelligent than if you were not.

 

2) Nobody reads your Twitters and few people read your Facebook stuff. YOU read your Twitter and Facebook. Your closest friends read your Twitter sometimes and your Facebook more often, but those people already know all of that. Studies have demonstrated that even well "followed" Twitter feeds do not have many people actually READING most anything there, and almost no one RETAINS what they read there.

 

3) Online there is one very important rule: Wikipedia = The Truth. People say they take it with a grain of salt sometimes, but basically they are in a minority, and even they actually don't. 99% of people online believe what they read on Wikipedia, or due to the sleeper effect (look it up) they read something there, forget it came from there, and then believe what they read.

 

 

So here is the plan of attack to change how everyone sees Atari so the real picture gets through:

 

Source the stuff from Curt and Marty on Wikipedia. Ignore people like Jess, as they are posting Twiiter feeds that only they temselves will ever read. Understand that people are too dumb to distinguish truth from a lie, but can be led to the honest truth, just so long as it is on Wikipedia.

 

That's it. All the misinformation and all Nolan's lies for decades can be undone by updating just one site out of all the sites on the internet. Wikipedia = The Truth. Change that page, with proper sourcing so the changes stick, and future generations will think Nolan's lies, and the unfair image of the Tramiels, are as laughable as people currently think the truth is.

[8th lutz]

Wikipedia can be a great tool depending on the motive of the person editing the page.

 

Wikipedia can be used for correcting false information that was discovered. I have no problem with people correcting false information if that person has found documents that no one had access to before. I have no problem with Curt and Mary correcting false information as a result.

Edited October 30, 2010 by 8th lutz

[carmel_andrews]

The whole tramiel 'we are a computer company' thing at Atari rings very hollow

 

As I recall it, and it is stated in the famous commodore history book 'home computer wars' tramiel basically wanted to 'segment' the whole gaming and computing market, his analogy was General Motors (Vauxhall/Opel in UK/europe) segmenting the car/auto market by coming out with different types/models of cars to fit different consumer price points

 

Tramiels attempt at segmenting the gaming and computing market initially started with the commodore vic 20, commodore's marketing was a computer that can play videogames for less then 300 dollars (essentially you can by a computer that plays all the classic videogames without buying a dedicated games player for more money), then commodore tried upping the ante on the games market initially with the c64 and then with the max/ultimax (which was basically a stripped down c64 with a crappy keyboard), according to the same commodore book, tramiel basically rubber stamped the whole max/ultimax thing as he saw it as driving a wedge between commodore and atari and getting commodore some leverage in the gaming market (not that the vic 20 and c64 got commodore that leverage) and the c64 was basically commodore's attempt at giving TI a bloody nose in the computer market, again commodores marketing for the c64 was just an updated version of the vic 20 campaigns

 

Also the reason why i don't quite by into the whole 'we are a computer company' business, is because tramiel knew that in order for the ST to succeed tramiel needed money and lots of it, warners weren't going to give him any, the only way that tramiel was going to get money for the ST to succeed and also to invest in the ST's future was by Atari selling gaming hardware again, I have seen quote apon quote both in magazines and on the internet that Atari sold something like 1 million gaming systems (2600/vcs's) during 1985 (what's more they did this with very little if any advertising push), strange for a company that saw itself as a 'computer company' only...Also, if the whole 'get this pollution out of here' thing was true....then how would have the ST succeeded if Atari weren't selling gaming systems in 1985 (as well as getting shot of the bloated gaming hardware inventories accumulated under the warner's period)

 

And if Atari were this computer company they saw themselves as being then what was the point of putting gaming systems alongside the computer products at the first CES show of 1986 (which is well documented), could it be that tramiel still needed money to get the ST going places, I am sure that for someone that classed himself (tramiel) as the computer industries most 'experienced' general manager, he wouldn't go cutting off his nose (i.e ditching atari's gaming product) to spite his face (since he knew that atari's gaming product would give him not just the money but also the distribution reach to get the ST of the ground and selling in numbers)

[Retro Rogue]

Even beside all the direct interviews and internal sources we mentioned (including sales reports), here's a few external ones as well:

 

"Both the home-computer and video-game marketplaces continue, in my view, to offer great opportunities." - Tramiel's public statement after the Atari purchase, that appeared in circulating AP News accounts.

 

With Atari 'we will be in the whole spectrum of the market,' from video games to home computers, says Tramiel. - Tramiel quoted in BusinessWeek, July '84.

 

"Tramiel told the money men Atari will still make videogames" - Forbes article on the takeover.

 

But rather than retreat from the video-game market, as some analysts had suggested, Copland said Atari will "very aggressively go after a larger share of the market". - Interview with James Copland, then Vice President of Marketing, published on Aug. 28th 1984. It also goes on to state their plans on broadening the home computer line to compliment, all on it's strategy to expand it's shrunken base and return to profitability by the end of the year.

 

There's also the 2600 and 5200's on display at the Winter CES (Jan. '85), and even when they severely downgraded the size of their CES booth for the Summer '85 CES they still included both consoles.

Edited October 30, 2010 by wgungfu

[carmel_andrews]

Even beside all the direct interviews and internal sources we mentioned (including sales reports), here's a few external ones as well:

 

"Both the home-computer and video-game marketplaces continue, in my view, to offer great opportunities." - Tramiel's public statement after the Atari purchase, that appeared in circulating AP News accounts.

 

With Atari 'we will be in the whole spectrum of the market,' from video games to home computers, says Tramiel. - Tramiel quoted in BusinessWeek, July '84.

 

"Tramiel told the money men Atari will still make videogames" - Forbes article on the takeover.

 

But rather than retreat from the video-game market, as some analysts had suggested, Copland said Atari will "very aggressively go after a larger share of the market". - Interview with James Copland, then Vice President of Marketing, published on Aug. 28th 1984. It also goes on to state their plans on broadening the home computer line to compliment, all on it's strategy to expand it's shrunken base and return to profitability by the end of the year.

 

There's also the 2600 and 5200's on display at the Winter CES (Jan. '85), and even when they severely downgraded the size of their CES booth for the Summer '85 CES they still included both consoles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps tramiel was trying the commodore plan after all....i.e using atari's computer product lines (outside the actual gaming systems) to segment the videogaming market (since the big A was obviously losing mktshare in that area and needed to counter whatever nintendo and sega threw at atari) and using a computer product (like the ST or XE) to leverage Atari some share of the VG market would have kept atari going for a little while (even if that strategy would hurt the ST particularly in other areas of it's market)

 

And i came up with a theory behind the 'get this pollution out of here' thing.... Trameil was obviously looking for the Atari rep who presented the idea to tramiel to actually pitch tramiel on the idea of using something like the 7800 to spearhead Atari's renewed approach the VG market, and clearly the rep concerned missed that trick by a country mile (and they say that America is full of salespeople)

[CRV]

According to this page that's Jess Ragan here at the AA forums.

 

I know who it is.

 

Ignore people like Jess, as they are posting Twiiter feeds that only they temselves will ever read.

 

Not to keep picking on him, but he does occasionally write for 1UP, so he's not just some random poster here.

 

Source the stuff from Curt and Marty on Wikipedia.

 

You can't cite forum posts.