Didn't know magnavox was bought out in 1974 , they were making versions of their game system until 1978. interesting.
Didn't know coleco meant the conneticut leather company:) 

Photo information in 1977, magnavox/atari/coleco all USA based companies dominated the gaming market. A telling thing that all three corporations are gone.

in 1982, Atari was the distanced leader, while three other usa based makers , mattel had joined, aside japan's nintendo were all equal as second. Atari is an interesting story.

1985, all the usa makers plans with their systems all were negative,in comparison to nintendo's vision. this is the key year. all four  Atari/Coleco/Magnavox/MAttel needed to come together and make one system or at least rethink their strategy together as they are all based in the usa and are losing significantly to a non statian firm. 

1987, when you look at Sega or NEC they came in as Nintendo had an unrivaled competitor. the usa firms for various reasons were mismanaged in their strategy or finance and wasn't competing and thus it opened the market for more japanese firms to get involved.

1992, this has been very helpful to see the industrial change. in 1992 by console sales, Atari was still the third biggest maker in the gaming industry... A firm based in NYC. Born in the west coast but by now, owned by a firm in nyc. 

1994, when you look at the video gaming industry today and you realize that Magnavox/Coleco/Mattel/Atari ,all are usa based and all are losing to a group of japanese led firms in Nintendo/Sega/NEC and Sony starting that year, it says alot about industrial management. Why couldn't they come together to try something, something. wow! The owners quit on the idea didn't they?

1996, Nintendo/Sega/Sony all japanese dominate the video gaming market. Atari is  still 4th. Hell, Atari join with NEC. I have real problem with the 4th biggest firm in a market , not having any sort of viable plan. 

2002, microsoft came in, but I am looking at Atari/Coleco/Mattel/Magnavox/NEC , I don't recall Microfot involving them at all. 4 usa based firms, with properties, video game properties, Microsoft didn't think they warranted getting their properties or working with them or former engineers developers from their time. I even include NEC, why not. you are the last entry, coming real later. Consider that Microsoft was founded in 1975. So they were founded in an era when usa gaming companies was at the top. It took them a long time to want to join the video gaming industry? odd and explains with their lack of interest in aligning with older competitors the fact that they have not made a dollar on consoles. 

2006 Sony accepted selling playstation three with a lose of 240 dollars per console, that is over half the price of the system. Very bad business model in my view. And I think sony has never stopped trying to make some high priced system be worth so much even the affordable buyer risks getting it

2019, a great lesson in industrial history here, 
thanks to MErgirl Dunne of Black Games ELite