Slashdot Mirror


Hope Fading at Atari

hisham writes "On the heels of the bad news on SGI's financial health, another former giant of the tech world announces concerns of bankruptcy: 'Bad times got worse at Atari as the company posted a loss and a 35% decline in sales in the important holiday quarter.' The CFO has resigned, and the company released a statement saying 'the uncertainties caused by these conditions raise substantial doubt about [Atari's] ability to continue as a going concern.' An icon of videogame history; if things turn sour, it will be sad to see Atari go (again)."

5 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. A rebought Atari... by mac.convert · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is a rebought Atari. The orginial Atari already had gone under and been rebought by Infogrames. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATARI)

    --
    "Every time a bell rings, a Dell laptop bursts into flame."
  2. Re:UT2007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    UT2007 is being published by Midway, not Atari.

  3. Re:Explain please by Perseid · · Score: 2, Informative

    Infogrames officially changed their name to Atari a while back, so, by saying Atari is in trouble, they mean the whole company.

  4. my thoughts from what I posted on Digg by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 5, Informative

    Atari is like the Doctor (Doctor Who), this incarnation might die but it will be back after it regenerates. And thanks to all the confusion and due to my namesake and former shareholder in the older Atari, I will clear up the misconceptions.

    The original Atari was founded in 1972 by Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney. After the lack of success with Bushnell's adaptation of the MIT "Spacewar" game as an arcade title called "Computer Space" manufactured by Nutting Associates, Bushnell wanted to make an easier electronic arcade game. Atari's "Pong" came next, programmed by the great Al Alcorn. True, it was an updated version of a game that Ralph Baer created (but his version sucked) and it became an overnight sensation.

    Prior to 1976, Steve Jobs worked for Atari and Jobs would sneak in Steve Wozniak to help him do designs in return for Wozniak getting to play as much "Night Driver" as possible. Depending upon the account told, Wozniak was or was not an actual employee of Atari. The pair took parts from Atari and used it to work on what later became the Apple I.

    By 1976, Atari was an established arcade player but it needed funding to finish designing what became the Atari 2600 VCS, the world's most successful home videogame system. Bushnell sold the company to Warner Communications, thanks to its charismatic chairman, Steve Ross. Money had been so tight that Bushnell had to pass on Steve Jobs' offer to fund and own what became Apple Computer, Inc., but Bushnell hooked Jobs up with the venture capitalist that had helped him, and the rest is Apple history. Bushnell stayed on with Atari until 1979 when he left because he did not see eye-to-eye with the Warner brass. Both were equally at fault in the equation; Bushnell for insisting that the 2600 VCS didn't have a much longer shelf life, and Warners for not backing Bushnell's suggestion to quickly fund the development of its replacement. Add to the fact that Bushnell had never backed the creation of the Atari Pinball division which Warner wanted, which later closed, and you have more of the picture of what happened. When Bushnell left, he bought back a new Atari division that he personally created, known as (Chuck E. Cheese's) Pizza Time Theatre.

    In 1980, Atari's brass wanted to consolidate all their U.S. operations into a single Silicon Valley campus...which would have cost $500 million. Warner buckled. So instead, Atari went on to sprawl throughout the Valley into 72 different buildings, which was a cost waste. 1979/1980 also saw Atari's debut with the Jay Miner engineered Atari 8-bit computer line, the 400 and 800 computers which ran rings around the Apples, the Commodores, and all other home computers of that time in the graphics and sound departments. Miner later left when the Atari brass refused to fund the project he was pushing for which was creating a home computer based up Motorola's new microprocessor, the Motorola 68000. Miner went on to create what became the Amiga, which like the Apple Macintosh and the later Atari ST, was powered by that very same Motorola 68000.

    79/80 also saw Atari programmers split over a disagreement with Atari boss Ray Kasser. They went on to found Activision, the world's first third party videogame developer. However, since most of their first games were coded during their time when they were paid Atari employees, Atari sued and the settlement dictated that Atari got a portion of the profits off each of their games sold. There was no model for third party licensing/restrictions at this time - with the exception of VHS and Beta in the home video industry - and Atari had between 80% and 90% of the home video game market AND the arcade (AND a sizeable portion of the home computer market) and thus had Atari attempted anything as such the government would have stepped in and broken up the company just as they were about to do to AT&T. Now compare the Atari monopoly to the later Nintendo monopoly. Atari's monopoly was a "natural monopoly". Atari had no control on any third party manufacturers. The only claim that

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    1. Re:my thoughts from what I posted on Digg by JTL21 · · Score: 2, Informative

      One minor comment. I think you misuse the phrase "natural monopoly." I understand it to mean companies/industries where competition doesn't make sense such as in the providing of electricity, water, etc. where the capital investment of providing an addition distribution infrastruture makes it a non starter. These are sometimes overcome by regulating the incumbent to offer access to competitors or splitting the provider of the pipes from the supplier of electricity/water.

      I think you mean that Atari won in fair competition a large proportion of the market without resorting to exclusionary tactics (or misusing its near monopoly). I wouldn't have mentioned it except for the suggestion that your comment be used on Wikipedia thereby rendering it semi-permanent.