Why was ZX 48K so cheap ? And was it really cheap ?

[catmeows]

I still wonder about price of lowend computers.

ZX Spectrum 48: £129 - it has Z80, ULA in 40 pin package, 16K ROM and two sets of RAM. It is very simple computer, though second set of memory chips complicates design a little bit.

Oric 48K: £139 - it has 6502,ULA in 40 pin package, 16K ROM, 6522, AY3912 and single set of 64K RAM chips. Again, it is very simple computer, and very cheap considering how much silicon you got in package.

Acorn Electron: £199 - it has 6502, ULA in more expensive 68 pin package, 2x16K ROM and half (!) of 64K RAM set. Design is also very simple but complex ULA was probably quite expensive.

What I don't understand how ORIC could sell its micro at price comparable to Spectrum while ACORN set price to level comparable to ATARI.
And similar question is if Sinclair could sell Spectrum at lower price ?

[PeterJ]

Hi @catmeows,

The Oric 48K was £169.95 at launch, and the Spectrum 48K was £175 at launch.

There was a price war in the early 80s and many computers were available for under £100! We should have all purchased them, stored them, sold them on eBay and retired!

[dfzx]

The others came after the Spectrum.

Life in early home computers was lot easier once someone else had taken all the risks, proved there's a market, shown the value of the ULA approach. Sir Clive showed them how to do it.

[1024MAK]

You also have to look at the whole package, not just the chips on the PCB.

The Electron was more expensive in part due to the better quality keyboard and it having a ‘proper’ switch mode power supply board inside the main case. Due to issues with getting the very complex ULA to work properly (the test chips were fine, but the first production batch were not), it was very late, and mostly missed the important Christmas market (some were available, but a lot of shops could not get anywhere near enough stock to sell).

The type of connectors also makes a difference.

Sinclair did well, primarily because the ZX Spectrum followed on from the ZX80 and the successful ZX81. It was available (although also only in limited numbers) earlier than most of what later on where it’s main competition.

In manufacturing, bulk pricing (of parts required) and mass production can significantly affect the price of the item in the shops. Sinclair very likely made good use of this. The Z80 was sourced from multiple different sources. As were many of the other “standard” parts.

The design of both the PCB and the ULA was also done very quickly for the Spectrum. Unfortunately I don’t know the details for the other machines you mentioned.

One correction. Only the first Electrons had two physical ROM chips. Production machines combined the OS and BASIC in a single chip.

Mark

[TMD2003]

The Oric 48K was £169.95 at launch, and the Spectrum 48K was £175 at launch.

Have a look at the 30 April 1982 issue of Popular Computing Weekly, a week after the Spectrum's launch.
Within the first four pages there's adverts for a VIC-20 - all 3.5K and 22 columns of it - for £185.95, which is more than a 48K Spectrum (and with the Datasette a further £42.95 - you couldn't just use a regular cassette recorder on Commodore computers...) and the four-year-old Atari 400 with its ZX81-esque membrane keyboard for £299.95 plus VAT.

Reliability gremlins and delivery issues aside, is there any wonder the Spectrum was popular?

There was a price war in the early 80s and many computers were available for under £100! We should have all purchased them, stored them, sold them on eBay and retired!

Presumably Chris Curry didn't have the same foresight with that warehouse full of Electrons...

[PeterJ]

Browsing through the December 1983 issue of Your Computer (my magazine of choice at the time), Silica Shop had dropped the Atari 400 down to £99, and Spectrum Computing (No relation!) had dropped the TI-99/4A down to.£99 too. It was a very competitive market, and nobody (at least in the UK), could beat the software library of the Spectrum. The TI-99 was being sold at a loss as part of a price war with Commodore.







Edited by PJ to correct my date error!

[catmeows]

Hi @catmeows,

The Oric 48K was £169.95 at launch, and the Spectrum 48K was £175 at launch.

There was a price war in the early 80s and many computers were available for under £100! We should have all purchased them, stored them, sold them on eBay and retired!

I was looking on prices in Popular Computing Weekly issue from 1984, as I wanted to have comparison with Electron.

[cj7hawk]

It wasn't just the software. The Hardware was cheap too.

Printers were VERY expensive, and difficult to afford. A ZX printer did the job that was needed at a fraction of the cost.

Microdrives were actually about as fast as floppy drives for most common operations, and were also cheap.

Joysticks existed and were well supported.

AND it had a full expansion port that allows just about anything to be connected, a VERY powerful BASIC supporting graphics and a massive user base.

If you wrote software for it, no matter how obscure or bad, there was a market for it also.

It was, simply put, the dominant player, because it got there first and at a better price, and other computers COULD NOT run the software.

Not like with CP/M machines, where a newer cheaper one did everything the older one and more - Hardware was not compatible in most home generation micros.

I remember solving quadratic equations on my Spectrum while at High School. I didn't even write software to do it - I just wrote a program from basic each time, because it was so easy to do on the Spectrum.

I think this sums it up well.

[1024MAK]

Yeah, the version of BASIC (an existing Microsoft product) supplied with both the VIC-20 and the 64 lacked any graphics or sound commands and functions.

In comparison, the ZX Spectrum BASIC featured various graphics and sound commands and functions. The syntax checking on line entry was also a good feature.

Mark

[PeterJ]

Yes, @1024MAK. Commodore didn't want to pay a license fee per machine sold to Microsoft so opted for the simpler version at a fixed fee. When I look at those badly printed computer listings full of control codes I wonder how anyone managed to type in any magazine listings!

The core is based on 6502 Microsoft BASIC, and as such it shares many characteristics with other 6502 BASICs of the time, such as Applesoft BASIC. Commodore licensed BASIC from Microsoft in 1977 on a "pay once, no royalties" basis after Jack Tramiel turned down Bill Gates' offer of a $3 per unit fee, stating, "I'm already married," and would pay no more than $25,000 for a perpetual license

.

[Chris23235]

Browsing through the December 1993 issue of Your Computer (my magazine of choice at the time), Silica Shop had dropped the Atari 400 down to £99, and Spectrum Computing (No relation!) had dropped the TI-99/4A down to.£99 too. It was a very competitive market, and nobody (at least in the UK), could beat the software library of the Spectrum. The TI-99 was being sold at a loss as part of a price war with Commodore.

Additionally it was a constant coming and going of systems and revisions too. In December 1983 (I guess it is 1983 and not 1993 ), the Atari 400/800 machines were already replaced by the XL series and dealers had to find a way to get rid of the old stock. The TI-99/4A was heavily discounted by TI because they probably knew already that they would discontinue the computer 3 months later, the machines were most probably from the final production batch.
The market back then was in constant change, price cuts as welcome as they were often indicated the users that the machine will become obsolete in the near future or even if not wasn't the latest model any more.

Edited by PJ to remove quoted images

[spider]

When I look at those badly printed computer listings full of control codes I wonder how anyone managed to type in any magazine listings!

I recall that too, although my memory of them is different to reality. I recalled seeing endless curious control characters mainly.

To be fair some other machines of the era did need a bit of "work" to draw a circle too. I think the Acorn ones might of needed a couple of (relatively simple though) lines for this.

I did like the TI-99/4A a bit and it had a reasonable game selection too.

I've kept away from the C16 and Vic-20's although I did have a C64 (Free) at one time, I passed it on. I did like the look of the +4 however, it seemed sane in black, but so did the TI-99/4A I suppose. A bit like I'm still on the eventual acquisition (not now maybe at Christmas) a Timex 2068, despite not being black cased.

[Kweepa]

To be fair some other machines of the era did need a bit of "work" to draw a circle too. I think the Acorn ones might of needed a couple of (relatively simple though) lines for this.

Code: Select all

DEF PROCCIRCLE(X,Y,R) MOVE X+R,Y:FOR A=0 TO 2*PI+0.1 STEP PI/20:DRAW X+R*COSA, Y+R*SINA:NEXT:ENDPROC
MODE 4
PROCCIRCLE(640,512,400)

[spider]

Code: Select all

DEF PROCCIRCLE(X,Y,R) MOVE X+R,Y:FOR A=0 TO 2*PI+0.1 STEP PI/20:DRAW X+R*COSA, Y+R*SINA:NEXT:ENDPROC
MODE 4
PROCCIRCLE(640,512,400)

Oh I know its not too difficult, I just meant its not a built in command and you've done it with a procedure which is good for recycling later in the program rather than a one off time.

I do remember the first time I tried BBC Basic and was confused it did not understand CIRCLE nor the differences between DRAW/PLOT vs the Speccy.

To be honest I'd much rather have the proper definable procedures and lose the circle command.

[Matt_B]

BBC BASIC has a few oddities but it's fairly obviously the best you're going to get on a home computer by 1982 standards, in that you've got support for both the hardware and sound capabilities of the computer, as well as some nods toward structure programming. Its very best feature is the built in assembler though; if only the Spectrum had had something similar.

Commodore, for their part, put a much better version of BASIC into the C16, and there was also the Simons' BASIC cartridge that extended the C64's capabilities to a similar degree.

[Jbizzel]

BBC BASIC has a few oddities but it's fairly obviously the best you're going to get on a home computer by 1982 standards, in that you've got support for both the hardware and sound capabilities of the computer, as well as some nods toward structure programming. Its very best feature is the built in assembler though; if only the Spectrum had had something similar

DEF PROC etc is a really nice feature of BBC basic.

Is there a good book on BBC basic that covers the use of the inline assembler? The BBC basic on the Z88 has this feature, but the docs are limited.

[Kweepa]

Is there a good book on BBC basic that covers the use of the inline assembler? The BBC basic on the Z88 has this feature, but the docs are limited.

It's a little terse but the Advanced User Guide has some good coverage of the inline assembler.
https://stardot.org.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17242
(pdf linked in here)

[Jbizzel]

@Kweepa Wow, this book looks great! Just what I was after. Thanks!

[PeterJ]

and there was also the Simons' BASIC cartridge that extended the C64's capabilities to a similar degree.

Especially impressive considering the programmer was only 16 at the time. If we are including extensions to the built-in BASIC then the Spectrum had many such toolkits. Arguably the best being Beta BASIC, which became the basis of Sam Coupé BASIC.

I agree BBC BASIC was the best version of BASIC. It's off topic, but my only issue is to get any more than a small number of colours on screen at once from BASIC you get chunky characters (which I can't cope with!). This issue wasn't exclusive to the BBC of course. This gives BBC games a very specific look. There are some modern hardware developments to get around this restriction though.

BBC BASIC has been ported to many platforms.

https://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcbasic.html

[SNG]

Sinclair paid Timex £34 for each complete boxed 48K Spectrum system according to Tony Tebby who wrote the QL OS there in 1983.

The QL was sufficiently profitable at £199 retail for Amstrad to restart QL production after their takeover, to satisfy demand from Dixons who I understand expected at least 100% markup on computers they sold. So after allowing for VAT the QL with 128K, two ULAs, two microdrives, network and Intel and Motorola CPUs must have come out of Thorn EMI boxed for less than £80.

Both Commodore and Sinclair grew up during the 1970s calculator wars, learning that a 3:1 margin was barely enough to support distribution and retail markups, cost of returns and VAT. Acorn, Oric, Dragon etc floundered till their cash ran out because they never came close to this margin and were not able to cut prices preemptively as Clive and Jack knew they had to to survive. Early micros like Nascom (and some US models) were always sold below cost, so as soon as orders next month were lower than sales last month the company folded.

Sinclair still went bust because when their main distributor Prism folded the receivers released hundreds of thousands of micros that had not been paid for into retail at bargain basement prices, cutting off Sinclair’s ZX cashflow for months.