CompuServe Messages

Not the issue. If CBM wants to charge $400 for an A500, when it costs them $300 to make, okay. If they want to charge $1500 for an A2000 when it cost them $400 to make it, okay. But if CBM wants to keep current users happy, and get new Amiga owners to boot, then why not charge $600 for an A2000. You said it yourself, you would not trade your A2500 for a stack of A500s. But the average buyer these days can get a 1 MB 386 SX (read that as SuX) with SVGA and a hard drive for less than the STREET PRICE (Street price is around $999, and list around $1,400, last I checked) of an A2000. Now where is the perceived value ? To someone intimately familiar with the Amiga still might go with the A2000. What about all the Amiga owners looking to trade up, and all they see is the same machine ? True, a new OS, but for the average user, what has really improved ? A college student who might like to do video, should (s)he spend $1,000 on a full system, which (s)he can expand at a later date, or spend $1000 on a cpu and keyboard ? The issue might be value if CBM would spend more on advertising than Irv Irv Gould's salary. But they aren't. It could be an issue about how wonderful a machine the Amiga is, if more people new (again) what a value it is. It might be an issue about wonderful Amiga technology, if this were 1986, and CBM advertised. But this is 1992. PC's are cheap the Amiga isn't. The technology is 6 years old and the prices haven't changed that much. I agree the Amiga is a wonderful machine. But it is too pricey when you examine the poor R&D efforts, poor marketing and low cost competition.