Maybe it doesn't really look like it in pictures, but its quite more usable as a keyboard than most other bits of gear. Much, much better than the ZX Spectrum, anyway .. but I learned to touch type on my Oric, so maybe I'm biased. Also, it can be argued that the Oric was a better machine than the Spectrum - although the Spectrum had far better market traction.
This was a lesson I learned during that era but applied every decade since: its not about the power, its about the users. It doesn't matter if the machine is 'better' on spec; if the market allows for lesser technology, so be it for us developers to follow along.
But .. what is it about the 6502 that made it 'worse' than the Z80? A lot of the other machines in your list used similar CPU's .. even the C64 had a 6502-derived processor (6510) ..
Don't confuse the machine with the CPU.
Being late to the party and not offering anything that made it stand out at a similar price point was enough to make it a non-starter. I don't fault them for trying though, the '8 bit home computer' was an area that everybody was trying to get into back then.
The failure rate of Commodores was incredible. I got pretty good at the strip down, test, combine 6 bad machines to make 5 working ones routine, it wasn't rare to sell 50 machines on a Saturday and to get back a few of those by the time the week was out.
At the same time Oric came out with the Atmos there was competition from Tandy/Radio shack (with the 6809 based Color Computer), the BBC Micro, the earlier Acorn Atom (you can see where the Atmos got its name), the Dragon 32 (a color computer knock-off from the UK) and a whole bunch of low end machines much like the Oric Atmos and of course the wildly popular Commodore 64 and ZX Spectrum.
It's no wonder they didn't make it, as a Spectrum-clone but 6502 based and only a little bit cheaper than the Spectrum it was clearly a 'me-too' product, and with the build quality of the '1' I think they damaged their brand.