Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Marc N Barre » Tue, 29 Oct 1991 16:26:45



   I got Commodore's 1991 Annual Report last week, and here are a few
items from it:

For FY 199                 | $ in Thousands  | % of Net Sales  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Net Sales                  | $ 1,047,200     | 100 %
Selling and Marketing      | $ 174,300       | 16.6 %
General and Administrative | $ 53,600        | 5.1 %
Research and Development   | $ 31,400        | 3.0 %

   I looked back on Commodore's past R&D investing, and Commodore
investing in R&D under the Gould regime is significantly lower than
during the Tramiel era.  Under Gould, Commodore has invested an
average of 2.5% of net sales in R&D per year, which is significantly
lower than under Tramiel, when Commodore invested an average of 5.2%
of net sales per year in R&D.  Thus, is it any wonder that Commodore
reached its highest peak of net sales under Tramiel in 1984
($1.2 Billion), and hasn't even come close since?  To equal that
in today's dollars, Commodore would have to have about $1.7 Billion
in net sales, which is quite a lot higher than the $1.047 Billion
in net sales that Commodore had this year.  

   The latest issue of Business Week also had quite a lot to say
about Commodore.  This issue was Business Week's annual report of
R&D investing by hundreds of U.S. companies, reported by industry.  
According to the stats reported on the personal computer industry
in this issue, Commodore was *DEAD LAST* in the personal computer
industry in R&D investing per employee.  Yes dead, rock bottom,
absolute last.  By comparison, Atari was ranked 16 and Apple #2.

   One other little piece of information of note, this article in
BW also reported a number of other stats on the companies.  In
these stats, Commodore had more 'NA's than any other company in
the personal computer industry.  This shows that Commodore cares
very, very little about maintaining data not absolutely required
for taxes.  I don't think I have ever seen a more apathetic regime
than the one currently running Commodore.

--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Barrett   -MB- | Netrek Username: Super-User  |  

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

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Neal C. Wickh » Tue, 29 Oct 1991 18:26:37



Quote:>   The latest issue of Business Week also had quite a lot to say
>about Commodore.  This issue was Business Week's annual report of
>R&D investing by hundreds of U.S. companies, reported by industry.  
>According to the stats reported on the personal computer industry
>in this issue, Commodore was *DEAD LAST* in the personal computer
>industry in R&D investing per employee.  Yes dead, rock bottom,
>absolute last.  By comparison, Atari was ranked 16 and Apple #2.

When I was making all those slanderous remarks about what Apple spends
on marketing, someone posted and said that Apple reports many of their
marketing costs as R&D.  I believe he mentioned specifically some of
the give away programs to universities.  

And isn't Commodore one of the largest clone marketers in the EEC?  It is
not really fair to measure R&D on a per employee basis with a company like
Commodore and believe it is some sort lack of interest in Amiga.  I doubt
anyone can afford to dump a lot of R&D into clones since there is so
much competition.  To be fair, you'd have to make some comparison of what
they spend on Amiga R&D as an absolute figure and compare this with a
realistic Apple absolute figure.  Of course, Apple would probably still
win.  

Quote:>   One other little piece of information of note, this article in
>BW also reported a number of other stats on the companies.  In
>these stats, Commodore had more 'NA's than any other company in
>the personal computer industry.  This shows that Commodore cares
>very, very little about maintaining data not absolutely required
>for taxes.  I don't think I have ever seen a more apathetic regime
>than the one currently running Commodore.

Gosh your're funny Marc. ...you just know for damn sure that all those
'NA's are a clear indication that there is something rotten in the state
of West Chester!

Maybe Commodore just dosn't have anything to hide or prove.  Yeah...
Apple has all the bases covered but maybe it's to paint a not so accurate
picture.  How does the old story go... the big eight accounting firm
wanted to hire a new accountant... they ask several applicants what two
plus two equaled and they hired the one who ask:  "how much do you want
it to equal?"   :)

                                     NCW

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Brian Jacks » Wed, 30 Oct 1991 01:29:43



Quote:>   I got Commodore's 1991 Annual Report last week, and here are a few
>items from it:

>For FY 199                 | $ in Thousands  | % of Net Sales  
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Net Sales                  | $ 1,047,200     | 100 %
>Selling and Marketing      | $ 174,300       | 16.6 %
>General and Administrative | $ 53,600        | 5.1 %
>Research and Development   | $ 31,400        | 3.0 %

>   I looked back on Commodore's past R&D investing, and Commodore
>investing in R&D under the Gould regime is significantly lower than
>during the Tramiel era.  Under Gould, Commodore has invested an
>average of 2.5% of net sales in R&D per year, which is significantly
>lower than under Tramiel, when Commodore invested an average of 5.2%
>of net sales per year in R&D.  Thus, is it any wonder that Commodore
>reached its highest peak of net sales under Tramiel in 1984
>($1.2 Billion), and hasn't even come close since?  

The 1984 peak was due to the HUGE sales of the C64. This was an exception
rather than a rule. To use this "aberrant spike" for such an argument
is, at the least, questionable.

Quote:>   The latest issue of Business Week also had quite a lot to say
>about Commodore.  This issue was Business Week's annual report of
>R&D investing by hundreds of U.S. companies, reported by industry.  
>According to the stats reported on the personal computer industry
>in this issue, Commodore was *DEAD LAST* in the personal computer
>industry in R&D investing per employee.  Yes dead, rock bottom,
>absolute last.  By comparison, Atari was ranked 16 and Apple #2.

Per employee?  Not sure just what such a stat is supposed to tell you.

Quote:> ...
>In these stats, Commodore had more 'NA's than any other company in
>the personal computer industry.  This shows that Commodore cares
>very, very little about maintaining data not absolutely required
>for taxes.  I don't think I have ever seen a more apathetic regime
>than the one currently running Commodore.

So, you'd prefer that C= hire even MORE accountants and lawyers to keep
such "unnecessary" records, money that COULD be used in R&D investing?
An amazing leap, Marc.  Just because CBM doesn't work up all the stats
that the magazine chose to print, that makes CBM "apathetic" ?  Sheesh.

It's always been said that you can prove anything with statistics.

>----------------------------------------------------
>Marc Barrett   -MB- | Netrek Username: Super-User  |  

>----------------------------------------------------

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Brian Jackson     Commodore-Amiga Networking Group      GEnie: B.J.  |

 |"Thank you for making my last few moments on Earth socially awkward." |
 |   Uva uvam vivendo varia fit                   Eschew Obfuscation    |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Daryl Biberdo » Wed, 30 Oct 1991 02:39:37



Quote:

>   I looked back on Commodore's past R&D investing, and Commodore
>investing in R&D under the Gould regime is significantly lower than
>during the Tramiel era.  Under Gould, Commodore has invested an
>average of 2.5% of net sales in R&D per year, which is significantly
>lower than under Tramiel, when Commodore invested an average of 5.2%

Uhh...This is a semantic point, I guess, but Commodore International
has been "Under Gould" for a pretty long period of time, since
the late sixties if I remember correctly.  Tramiel was the company's
founder in the fifties but Gould came on as Chairman when Tramiel
needed money in the late sixties.  Tramiel was President/CEO UNDER GOULD.

Quote:>According to the stats reported on the personal computer industry
>in this issue, Commodore was *DEAD LAST* in the personal computer
>industry in R&D investing per employee.  Yes dead, rock bottom,
>absolute last.  By comparison, Atari was ranked 16 and Apple #2.

Who was first?  How many total companies were ranked?

Quote:>for taxes.  I don't think I have ever seen a more apathetic regime
>than the one currently running Commodore.

Most of this is due to Mr. Gould, but I would have to agree.  It's a shame
that all the "underlings" have such a leader.

Daryl
(to make it VERY obvious, the standard disclaimer applies to any criticisms
made above)
--

Compaq Computer Corporation   20555 SH 249  M/S 060106,  Houston, TX 77070-2698
Ahhhh...the fresh smells of an election year.  Tax cuts, pork-barrel projects,
and politicians sucking up to their constituencies.

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by David C. Nav » Wed, 30 Oct 1991 04:41:06



Quote:>I don't think I have ever seen a more apathetic regime
>than the one currently running Commodore.

Trick statement?
Haven't you been watching our wonderful Senate hearings recently?

Still, Cmdre could "afford" to spend a bit more in R&D, I would think.


                                warning, braindead rn -- NO UUCP!!!!!^^^^
   "A 22 year old studying hard to be an old curmudgeon"

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Kevin A. Ro » Wed, 30 Oct 1991 07:51:58



Quote:>   One other little piece of information of note, this article in
>BW also reported a number of other stats on the companies.  In
>these stats, Commodore had more 'NA's than any other company in
>the personal computer industry.  This shows that Commodore cares
>very, very little about maintaining data not absolutely required
>for taxes.  I don't think I have ever seen a more apathetic regime
>than the one currently running Commodore.

*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT* Sorry. It's not that C= doesn't maintain the data,
it's that they're very tight about releasing it to others. I read
a similar comparison article in some other magazine (don't recall
which right now) about company sizes. The article stated that C=
wouldn't even tell how many employees they have! It's a matter of
their traditional policy of secrecy.

--
AMIGA///| IBM=I've Been Mislead    | |\ | | | /| | WRUW 91.1 FM |
    /// | MAC=My Allowance Consumed| | \| | |/ | |  Rat's Nest  | Support Free
\\\///  | ATARI=Are There Any      |  Nine Inch  |  Sat. Night  |   Speech!
 \XX/   |   Remaining Investors?   |    Nails    | 12Mid - 2 AM |

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Ethan Solomi » Wed, 30 Oct 1991 02:09:33



Quote:

>   I looked back on Commodore's past R&D investing, and Commodore
>investing in R&D under the Gould regime is significantly lower than
>during the Tramiel era.  Under Gould, Commodore has invested an
>average of 2.5% of net sales in R&D per year, which is significantly
>lower than under Tramiel, when Commodore invested an average of 5.2%
>of net sales per year in R&D.  Thus, is it any wonder that Commodore
>reached its highest peak of net sales under Tramiel in 1984
>($1.2 Billion), and hasn't even come close since?  To equal that
>in today's dollars, Commodore would have to have about $1.7 Billion
>in net sales, which is quite a lot higher than the $1.047 Billion
>in net sales that Commodore had this year.  

        Marc, we thought you'd gotten better. Time to start
taking those pills again! 8) First off, there has never been a
"Tramiel Regime". Irving Gould has been lord of Commodore since
the company was founded. Tramiel was I believe the equivalent of
Jim Dionne. He was simply the only person who held the job for an
extended period of time.
        And if you want to go back to the good-ole days of
Tramiel, you can go buy an Atari, as that is the company he is
now running. Lot a good he did for them! Glad to be rid of him,
actually.
        I personally can't fathom what they were spending 5% of
1.2 billion dollars on. You can't possibly tell me that, in 1984,
they were coming out with more products than they are now.
Besides, you know as well as I do that all those sales were
C=64s. You know, low-cost item. Marc, this post was just silly.

        As to Commodore not revealing any more information than
necessary for the IRS, well, there is a reason they are
incorporated in the Bahamas. I don't know about you, but that is
something I've come to accept long ago. In fact, I'll bet the
need for them to reveal what they do comes primarily from the
stock market, not the IRS.
        And besides, look, it is rising! It is 3% now on higher
sales than back when it was 2.5%. 8)
        -- Ethan

P.S. Followups to c.s.a.advocacy

"You'll be a dentist...
 you have a talent for causing things pain." -- Little Shop of Horrors

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Dave Howarth 5-90 » Wed, 30 Oct 1991 04:31:10



Quote:

> during the Tramiel era.  Under Gould, Commodore has invested an
> average of 2.5% of net sales in R&D per year, which is significantly
> lower than under Tramiel, when Commodore invested an average of 5.2%
> of net sales per year in R&D.  Thus, is it any wonder that Commodore

Are you trying to say you want Jack back?  Oh good, I want an Amiga64!
Or maybe your point is that todays management is better at buying technology
than developing. Or is it that they are getting bigger bang for the buck?
Either way the Amiga on my desk is a great deal for the money. It may not
be the best ammunition for a "my computer is better than yours" war, but I
appreciate the measures CBM takes to keep the Amiga's cost down.

Of course this is all MHO.
--

  / /   Advanced Technology Laboratory  \  The search for truth in    \
 / / /   1010 Pine, Rm 635               \  advertising.....Hellooo....\
/ / / /\  St. Louis,  MO. 63101           \  is anyone there?           \

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by David Lew » Thu, 31 Oct 1991 01:27:02




>>I don't think I have ever seen a more apathetic regime
>>than the one currently running Commodore.

>Trick statement?
>Haven't you been watching our wonderful Senate hearings recently?

>Still, Cmdre could "afford" to spend a bit more in R&D, I would think.

   I'll say that they could afford to spend a little more on R&D.  All
they would have to do is cut CEO Irving Gould's and President Mehdi Ali's
salary a little bit.  Gould's salary (with bonuses) was $1,750,240 and
Ali's salary (with bonuses) was $2,409,240!!!  If they werent so damn
greedy, maybe commodore might be doing a little better.

--


 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Tom Limoncel » Thu, 31 Oct 1991 15:18:02



Quote:>    I got Commodore's 1991 Annual Report last week, and here are a few
> items from it:

> [ statistics deleted ]

> [ basically the same thing he said last year ]

Little known fact: The Commdore Annual Reports are EXCLUSIVELY
published for the benefit of Marc, to give him more information to use
and misconstrue and post the same message time and time again.

Isn't it amazing how one person can spend so much time to find
information to back him up, yet ignore the evidence to the contrary.

Good ol' Marc.  The words are new but the message is the same.
--

 "The souls of men and women, impassioned all.  Their voices climb and fall;
   battle trumpets call.  I fill the bath and climb inside." -N. Merchant

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Cary Farri » Thu, 31 Oct 1991 07:01:47



>It's always been said that you can prove anything with statistics.

What's the famous quote?  "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" or
something like that.

Quote:> | Brian Jackson     Commodore-Amiga Networking Group      GEnie: B.J.  |

-- Cary

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cary Farrier                           {apple|homecare}!ameoba!farrier
                        -or-    rutgers!banana!homecare!ameoba!farrier
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Rory Tom » Wed, 30 Oct 1991 09:20:39


Quote:

> It's always been said that you can prove anything with statistics.

90% of all statistics have been shown to be wrong, anyway...

rory

_______________________________________________________________________________


Mega-City One! BBS 607-256-3937
Supporting The Commodore Amiga and it's Users

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by (Mark D. Man » Thu, 31 Oct 1991 22:02:29




>> during the Tramiel era.  Under Gould, Commodore has invested an
>> average of 2.5% of net sales in R&D per year, which is significantly
>> lower than under Tramiel, when Commodore invested an average of 5.2%
>> of net sales per year in R&D.  Thus, is it any wonder that Commodore
> Are you trying to say you want Jack back?  Oh good, I want an Amiga64!
> Or maybe your point is that todays management is better at buying technology
> than developing. Or is it that they are getting bigger bang for the buck?
> Either way the Amiga on my desk is a great deal for the money. It may not
> be the best ammunition for a "my computer is better than yours" war, but I
> appreciate the measures CBM takes to keep the Amiga's cost down.

Don't forget that those big R&D bucks produced fine machines like the
Commodore 16 and the Commodore Plus 4.  :-)

Quote:

> Of course this is all MHO.

Of course.

> --

>   / /   Advanced Technology Laboratory  \  The search for truth in    \
>  / / /   1010 Pine, Rm 635               \  advertising.....Hellooo....\
> / / / /\  St. Louis,  MO. 63101           \  is anyone there?      \

-mark=

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Dave Hayn » Sat, 02 Nov 1991 05:58:06




>>Thus, is it any wonder that Commodore reached its highest peak of net sales
>>under Tramiel in 1984 ($1.2 Billion), and hasn't even come close since?  
>    Marc, we thought you'd gotten better. Time to start
>taking those pills again! 8) First off, there has never been a
>"Tramiel Regime". Irving Gould has been lord of Commodore since
>the company was founded.

Note, also, that Jack left Commodore in January of '84.  Commodore did well
because the C64 was selling well.  The only thing they had been working on in
engineering at the time that ever saw the light of day was the ill-fated
PLUS/4.  Regardless of what the numbers say, R&D is better now, at least
we're getting some return on whatever investment is being made.  Still, I
can only imagine what C= would be capable of with a real Apple-level R&D
commitment.

Quote:>Tramiel was I believe the equivalent of Jim Dionne.

More like Mehdi Ali, at least in function with respect to engineering (I have
no idea what the official titles were at the time).

--
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      BIX: hazy
                "I could turn you inside-out" R.E.M.

 
 
 

Commodore's 1991 Annual Report

Post by Marc N Barre » Sat, 02 Nov 1991 20:04:43



>Note, also, that Jack left Commodore in January of '84.  Commodore did well
>because the C64 was selling well.  The only thing they had been working on in
>engineering at the time that ever saw the light of day was the ill-fated
>PLUS/4.  Regardless of what the numbers say, R&D is better now, at least
>we're getting some return on whatever investment is being made.  Still, I
>can only imagine what C= would be capable of with a real Apple-level R&D
>commitment.

   Commodore also had a number of other products in the queue, which
never saw the light of day (as far as I know).  The most interesting
of which was the Z8000-based UNIX PC.  This thing had an 800x600 mono
display at a time when 640x200 was still considered state-of-the-art.
It was quite a machine, but was killed for reasons unknown to me.

Quote:

>>Tramiel was I believe the equivalent of Jim Dionne.

>More like Mehdi Ali, at least in function with respect to engineering (I have
>no idea what the official titles were at the time).

   I've done some research on Jack Tramiel, mostly because I think he has
some interesting qualities despite how much I do not like him.  He was
not really like any of the people at the head of Commodore now, or since
he left for that matter.  He basically ran Commodore with an iron fist,
controlling almost every aspect of the company.  Irving Gould never really
did much with Commodore until he got so sick of JT that he was forced to
push JT out of the company.

Quote:

>--
>Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
>   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      BIX: hazy
>                "I could turn you inside-out" R.E.M.

--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Barrett   -MB- | Netrek Username: Super-User  |  

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

1. Commodore's 1991 Annual Unit Volume - URGENT

In a recent posting of Commodore's 1991 Annual Report, the following
information was presented:

        Computer line           % of revenue
        -------------           ------------
        Amiga                   55%
        PC                      28%
        C64                     16%

Total revenue was $1 billion, and total units sold appears to be 1 050 000.

Anybody have REAL information on the breakdown of # of units sold for each
computer?  I'm mostly interested in C64 and Amiga numbers.

My estimates are as follows (based on price of each 'system'):

        Amiga             650 000  units
        C64               300 000  units
        PC                100 000  units
                        --------
                        1 050 000  units total

I really need this information!  Please help me if you have information that
you can (legally) share! :)  I'm hoping that the total number of units sold
is greater than 1.05 M, which would mean better numbers for both the Amiga
and the C64.

Any solid info will be appreciated!

Marcel A. LeBlanc  --  Electrical Eng. Computer Group, Univ. of Toronto
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Binary Data and BLOB Problem

3. Amiga OS in `Byte' January 1991

4. CA400 Win95/NT and Print Screen to HP 820 CXI

5. 1991 Computer Game Developers' Conference

6. Notebook Buying Guide

7. Murph's VAPORWARE Column for November 1991

8. Application Manager for Intralink

9. Murph's VAPORWARE Column for October 1991

10. Murph's VAPORWARE Column for August 1991

11. Murph's VAPORWARE Column for June 1991

12. 1991 Computer Game Developers' Conference

13. WTB: AC's Tech January, 1991!