I remember reading about it in magazines when it launched but at ~$1500 for the base model at launch (without monitor) and still ~$1000 18 months later, for consumers it just couldn't compete with the $600-$800 Commodore 64 and Atari 800. In 1983 >$1,000 was a non-starter for amatuer hobby users, plus there weren't many game titles for it.

While CP/M was popular with the early IMSAI / SOL / S-100 homebrew hackers, it was never very relevant for most mass consumer hobbyists. CP/M was really disk-centric and in the early 80s floppy drives weren't within reach for the '2nd Wave' broader consumer hobby market. We got our first computers (C64, Atari 800, TI 99/4a, Radio Shack Coco) envisioning cartridge & cassette usage plugged into a TV we already had through an RF modulator. If you could afford it, the component RGB output of the Sony would certainly have looked incredible but in the early 80s most consumers were still a few years away from even seeing their first RGB monitor in person. No local store had ever even had one on display, so we didn't really know what to make of it. To us, Composite Video was the esoteric "better looking" output vs RF to your old TV. :-)

The SMC-70's price and capabilities were a better fit for business users but by '83, MS-DOS and "PC-Compatible" were clearly 'the future' for business users and CP/M was on the way out.

Consider that the C64 was also launched in 1982 for a much cheaper price and was available in non-NTSC regions too, so would have had a bigger software library available to it.

Many people can put up with less convenience with peripherals if you're paying an order of magnitude less up front.

Even the software on cassette and 5.25" disk would have been so much cheaper to distribute than the newly launched 3.5" disks (which were much better).

I think it talked more about MSX. By the time it came to the states it was already competing with other better established things like Commodore. And then once the IBM PC became the big thing they really didn’t have anything special to offer. It was just another set of machines that, well built well, weren’t really any different.

Racism and protectionism probably played into it some, given the time period. But mostly their offerings weren’t as unique here. So many computers weren’t practical in Asia since they didn’t support any of the local character sets so at home they weren’t competing that much with those.

So in the end none of the brands really succeeded. They became a huge place to manufacture PCs for a long time, but it was almost always under someone else’s name.

There was an HN post recently about the USA and Microsoft intervening to prevent Japan from getting too far ahead in PCs, combined with some of Japan's own mistakes.