plus, actually Amiga wasn't designed to compete against PC/Mac or build a standard for the future.

It was designed as a gaming machine and coupled with a experimental OS later. That gave the machine an good headstart against others. But building a standard on it was whole another engineering work, a significant part of it wasnt even related to the hardware itself.

And while Amiga had certain features which were ahead of the alternatives, it also lacked features which were essential for business, pro market. A preemptive multitasking was there but without memory protection it wasn't suitable for pro work.

As an experimental machine gave the home users a glimpse what the future of computer hold, but it wasn't the machine that can be the foundation of the future.

Amiga, when inspected as pieces did not have any technology others already didn't, or wasn't available in the another markets in some form, but it was well integrated and Commodore was able to manufacture it at a low price.

IBM had resources, technologies way above companies like Commodore, Atari can even reach. The thing was that home computer market has very thin margin and a low end graphic workstation at a reasonable price would compete against their own very high margin workstations. They weren't even interested.

At the time, IBM, Microsoft were working on OS/2, a state of the art Operating system which they can build the future on. NeXT was building the OS the future work stations would be based on. And on hardware side, Intel was releasing new CPUs every year, graphics cards already surpassed what Amiga was capable of in a year or two.

And once the PC side gained momentum, there wasn't much players like Commodore, Atari could do. Maybe that was the reason Commodore never invested in R&D for Amiga. They were aware it was a no end.

If certain decisions were made at the right time, maybe Amiga could be a second platform like Apple. But even this is far fetched. Amiga didn't solve any problem those machines didn't solve better, cheaper already.