Kinda sad. Our current x86 hardware is filled with closed binaries and firmware that can't be easily replaced. That seems to be why so many _open_ laptops are using ARM.
It, like the C64 (and the rest of the 8-bit gen) that preceded it, had know, fixed, hardware.
The PC, and to some degree the ARM SoCs, have a layer of software abstraction sitting on top of mutable hardware.
The fixed nature of the hardware allowed people to poke, prod, and time actions down to the clock cycle.
But all this also meant that even the smallest hardware change would break existing software.
There was nothing like that in the PC world for the first few years of the Amiga's life cycle, and for games there continued to be nothing like that until years after Commodore went bankrupt.
While most Amiga games certainly did hammer the hardware, unlike on the PC where games of the era also hammered the hardware, the small portion Amiga games that were in fact system friendly from the start was far greater on the Amiga in the early years than on the PC (e.g. some notable titles included Cinemaware's King of Chicago, as well as Ports of Call, and a number of Sierra On-Line games).
The bigger problem apart from the ludicrous mismanagement at Commodore was that Commodore was too successful at marketing the low end Amiga's. The A500/500+ and then the A600/A1200 were the big sellers, not the higher end machines. These were price-sensitive buyers unwilling to spend money on graphics cards, because until first person shooters hit they had largely very little reason to.
This made graphics card a far more niche expansion on the Amiga, where they were a luxury, than on the PC where you increasingly had to buy one to run what you wanted.
It was first when first-person shooters hit that the planar graphics that had been a tremendous advantage with 2D games became a limitation overnight, that the Amiga suddenly was playing catch-up.
The problem wasn't inability to update the platform, but it was exacerbated strongly by a chronic culture of underivestment in R&D which had been a hallmark for Commodore all the way back to their calculator days that certainly made the updates happen far slower than engineering wanted. Commodore survived as long as it did because their engineers, and those of the companies they bought along the road, pulled off crazy feats when their back was to the wall, but they were frequently unable to get even minor funding to complete projects even during the periods were the company was pretty much printing money - Commodore went on death-marches when they were facing existential threats and were cash-strapped instead, and eventually it caught up with them.
It's a really smart design. Combines a forward-looking architecture with a realistic implementation for the time. It's a shame it died out while x86 survived.
It's sad overall really. The Amiga was a great machine with a fun and easy-to-use/manipulate operating system. Memory protection (beyond weirdnesses like Mungwall etc.) would have been nice.
For such a small team though they did very well. Commodore were desperate for a slice of that DOS/Windows PC pie though and that further drained the coffers :(
If they'd done what Intel did and continued to develop on the same platform, maybe they'd still exist and we've have more diversity in platforms today. The 68000 was so much nicer to develop for than x86.
It wouldn't be a problem today as designers have transistors to spare, but it was in the early '90s, when the high performance market was taken over by the simpler OoO RISCs and x86 [1] of which, against expectations, Intel managed to build a competitive OoO implementation in the form of the PentiumPro.
[1] which compared to other CISCs is much simpler.
And now that's dead too. And yeah I think the engineers at Motorola in the 90s basically just saw the RISC writing on the wall and threw up their hands and said that was the way to go, customers be damned, meanwhile Intel just had too much invested in x86 CISC and couldn't do that and so was forced to make it work.