> My point was that the people who go on about Linux steam boxes don't have brand
> loyalty to a market leader. Not that previous results impact future events. However
> if you can learn from other peoples past mistakes then that does increase your
> chances of success.
And my point is that the Steam box market is dead because there's ostensibly zero demand for such a thing. To date, Steam boxes have amounted to little other than micro-PCs running a branded version of Linux and a shiny controller. This includes all of the negative points of running Steam on Linux - like virtually nonexistent support for same-day Linux releases of the sort of AAA games that drive support for a platform - while having none of the advantages of either a gaming PC running Windows, a dedicated gaming console backed by a major publisher, or even - god forbid - the ecosystem provided by Google Play via Android.
Generally, the overlap between hardcore PC gamers and people who buy pre-made PCs is minimal. Someone with the active interest in the Steam library - abbreviated though it is on Linux - is going to have the wherewithal and skill to build his or her own HTPC setup for cheaper, and wind up with a more capable system.
Outside of that market, you're looking at trying to capture the interest of some segment of the console gaming market, and honestly, how are you going to pull that one off? Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all have brands that they've spent - at a minimum - the past 15 years cultivating, with countless platform-exclusive titles made by second-party developers.
You've referred to some as-yet unknown ace in the hole that Atari might have to take on these publishers, but really, what could it possibly be? I don't think it's at all unfair to expect them to provide some kind of idea as to what exactly they plan to do to differentiate themselves, other than the brand, which is worth very little in mindshare today.
"Atari" is a brand associated in peoples' minds with the past, and for a very good reason: They were the leaders in console gaming when console gaming was little more than a nascent offshoot of arcade games. The game industry as a whole has matured and moved on since then, and given the decade-long game of hot potato that has been the Atari brand lately, I have very little faith that this latest attempt at reviving it will amount to much.
> Your examples sounds like there is an arsonist, if you can find out why he objected
> to the first five buildings and burnt them down then you can build the sixth
You might think that, but on the other hand, maybe people keep rebuilding the building in the path of an active volcano.
> If people had looked at the newton and decided that PDA's would never be successful
> then the mobile phone market would be very different.
This is a phenomenal point for the exact opposite reason you think it is. PDA's weren't successful. It required the eventual widespread adoption of cell phone technology before PDA-like functionality was integrated, into phones. The only real function that PDAs served in the grand story of computing was as a cautionary tale of what not to do.
> Atari would be best off targeting Apple TV.
Atari, the brand, would be best off being allowed to die a peaceful death, being fondly remembered by people my age and older. It would be best off going out on a high note, being respected for the groundbreaking work done by engineers employed by various Atari offices, when it was an actual thing that existed.
What is being peddled via this and other miscarried crowd-funding campaigns is not the real Atari. It's nothing more than a piece of paper conferring the legal rights to the name. The people who made Atari what it was have nothing to do with it anymore. At this point, what you call Atari is nothing more than the thrashing, convulsing corpse hooked up to a car battery called "crowdfunding". For fuck's sake, let it die with some dignity.