Re: Poll about Mockingboard h/w clone

[mjmahon@aol.com]

Rubywand wrote:
> "Michael J. Mahon" writes ...
> >
> > Rubywand wrote:
> >
>  ....
> > >
> > >      Having speech would be kind of nice; but, as far as I know, speech
> > > was not a significant component of any popular game.
> > > It might be of interest to a few users.
> > > Big problem is that Including Speech could nearly double
> > > manufacturing costs; and, selling price is very important.
> >
> > Is there a current source for the SSI-263 speech synthesizer?  I thought
> > it was made of unobtainium.
>
>      Don't know. There's probably something available that would work fine on a
> new Mockingboard.

Actually, I'd be quite surprised.  Speech synthesis has gone off in
a different direction entirely since the 1980's.

>  ....
> >
> > >      Right now, just about every newly developed piece of Apple II hardware
> > > is priced high with correspondingly low sales numbers. That's too bad.
> > > Miniscule volume passes up on cashing in on the positive feedback effects
> > > which come with getting a product to mobs of users.
> >
>  ....
> >
> > Are there even a couple of thousand Apple II enthusiasts on the planet?
> >
> > And if there are, are they "in touch"?  Are they willing to spend $50?
>
>      $50 seems too high to expect much in the way of sales.

It will be hard to get a PC board, chips, assembly, and test under $50.

> >
> > >      What would be kind of cool is for A2Central to have one or two good
> > > Mockingboard games and utilities ready to sell.
> > >
> > >      Something many people overlook is that there
> > > really is money to be made selling to 'vintage' computer
> > > owners. With so many boring products flooding
> > > the PC and game machine markets, that's more true than ever.
> >
> > What example are you thinking of?  There are C=64's in joysticks, but
> > they are for nostalgic gamers--and apparently they aren't as nostalgic
> > as the creators hoped, since they were "bombed" out of toy stores for
> > $10, less than half their intended selling price...
>  ....
>
>     "C=64's in joysticks"? Did you mean someone tried to sell C-64 joysticks?

No, I mean a single-chip version of a C=64 in a joystick case.

They were intended to retail for $30 (huge quantities, Chinese
manufacturer), but were being sold off by KB Toys (and others)
for $10.

Apparently, there wasn't as much mass-market nostalgia as expected.

>      As for examples of making decent money selling a new product to vintage
> computer owners, I do not know of any. So far, it doesn't look like anyone has
> made a serious attempt.

I think the attempts have been about as serious as the potential
market warrants.  I think you underestimate both the heterogeneity
(one product won't have much of a market) and the "niche-ness" of
retrocomputing.

Collectors will pay real money for "originals" but couldn't care
less about new add-ons for retro machines.  And "users" love their
old machines, but are either not in touch, or are not willing to
spend much.

The combination of effects is that "saleable value" is not
concentrated in a few places, easily addressed by limited efforts;
instead, it is spread all over the place in very small pockets,
with very few justifying the effort to design, build, distribute,
and support new products.

There are a few examples of people identifying a "pocket"
opportunity and doing so with some success--the CFFA card,
the RAM4GS, and CiderPress are examples.  But I think their
creators would hardly call them a "business success"--more
like a break-even labor of love.

Hey, if you think that the "breakthrough retrocomputing
product" is right around the corner, more power to you--but
I don't think that the evidence supports that view.

-michael