Pegasos to ship without MorphOS

[Argo]

Yes, I have worked in retail electronics. Markup varies by product an at times maybe be negative. yes, take a loss on a product only to make it up on another.  Look at the printer industry. A $50 printer that comes with two cartridges is cheaper than buying the two cartridges. A $200 cellphone with out service plan maybe sold to you for $50 with a service plan.
I think in the computer industry the average is about 10% for systems and system components.
Oh, for you GameCube, Xbox, Playstation owners, the markup on your games is about %50. It ranges between %40 and 65% on new games depending on title. I'm amazed they don't give those systems away.
I thnk you'll probably see them being sold for about 600 Euros

[bhoggett]

@DaveP

It's most likely that MorphOS isn't shipping with the board because it isn't ready yet.

Either way, there's no reason why a Linux site should bother mentioning MorphOS, AmigaOS etc.

@Ben Hermans

We should point out that everything you say about the legal status of MorphOS is an allegation. If legal action had been taken, then you, as someone in possession of inside knowledge about the case, would not be permitted to comment until that legal action was resolved. That is the law in the UK, and I'm quite sure it is the law in the rest of the EU as well.

Then again, conviction by mob rule/rumour is much cheaper than doing it in a court of law, wouldn't you say?

Don't you think it is high time you minded your own business and let Amiga Inc and bPlan sort out their differences amongst themselves?  :-?

[bhoggett]

Have none of you ever done any retail? The typical mark-up on any product is 100%, the minimum mark-up is ~75%

The markup is usually determined by what the market can bear. Retailers will usually take a lower markup than they are used to if they feel that they need to, or alternatively they will not carry the product. In these days of Intenet marketing and distribution, 100% markups are no longer a necessity to cover the overheads.

I'll hazard a guess that in the Amiga market, with the very low unit numbers traded, markups as high as 75% are probably very rare.

[redrumloa]

@bhoggett

BEWARE! That's a powderkeg!! I'd like to comment but with kid gloves;-)

"legal action had been taken, then you, as someone in possession of inside knowledge about the case, would not be permitted to comment until that legal action was resolved."

That is an IF and a WHEN legal action is taken. Until legal action is taken he should be able to comment I'd think.

"Then again, conviction by mob rule/rumour is much cheaper than doing it in a court of law, wouldn't you say?"

That's a bit sharp don't you think?

"Don't you think it is high time you minded your own business and let Amiga Inc and bPlan sort out their differences amongst themselves?"

Considering Hyperion is contracted to do OS4.0, IMO they have a major interest in this whole issue, don't you think?

[bhoggett]

@red

"BEWARE! That's a powderkeg!! I'd like to comment but with kid gloves"

I can't find mine. Will bare knuckles do?  No, wait... wrong forum!   :-P

"That is an IF and a WHEN legal action is taken. Until legal action is taken he should be able to comment I'd think."

Yes, except that all such comments should be seen as allegations and nothing more. Last time I looked, "innocent until proven guilty" was still a cornerstone of the modern justice system in most civilised countries.

"That's a bit sharp don't you think?"

Not at all. Have you read ANN lately? (yes, I know you have) Can you honestly say that the mob hasn't already tried, convicted and sentenced MorphOS on the basis of no more evidence than a few allegations by significantly placed people?

...and how can you blame them when the likes of Ben Hermans does exactly the same on this very thread?

Just do me a favour: work out the ratio of legal action per public threat made by Amiga Inc and see what you get. In fact, work out the ratio of official statements per unofficial accusations emanating from the same sources. Spot a pattern yet?

"Considering Hyperion is contracted to do OS4.0, IMO they have a major interest in this whole issue, don't you think?"

Why? I haven't read anything about MophOS being AmigaOS4 compatible, have you?

What I see is the head of a company making unsubstantiated legal accusations against a potential competitor in order to sway public opinion towards his own product.

I bet he's far less forthcoming if you were to ask for a rough estimate on when AOS4 will be released (Q3 2002? Q4? Later?)

[Blitter]

Okay, this may be a bit off topic but I find it interesting.

1)  There are more posts for this news peice than the Eyetech update.

2)  I have yet to see the supporters of pegasos/mos post in the eyetech news thread.

I'm not defending either side, but it just seems that ppl on amiga.org would be more interested in posting in 'this(being the Eyetech update news thread)' thread.
---Aw, crap... just did it myself. ARGH!!!  I'm gonna go post in the other as well then.

Okay, I can see how this thread is catching more attention now. :-P

Go about your business! :-x

 :-D

Blitter

[gary_c]

What I see is the head of a company making unsubstantiated legal accusations against a potential competitor in order to sway public opinion towards his own product.

I agree completely. It has always intrigued me that he alleges illegal behavior in public forums rather than simply pursuing the matter through proper legal channels if in fact there are grounds to do so. If he cannot pursue the matter through the courts, either because it would be premature or because he doesn't really have grounds, then this stream of allegations in public is inappropriate and only damages his own reputation and, as a practical matter, perhaps reduces the chances of a ruling in his favor as well. If he can pursue the issue, then he should once and for all, rather than engage in what looks more like the work of a PR hack than a legal counsel.

Of course it's nice to hear directly from the people at these companies and I wouldn't want to discourage that, but it seems to me that one of the principals alleging illegal behavior by another is inappropriate. BTW, it wouldn't make a difference to me if the roles were reversed and other people were doing the accusing and being accused. It's just unseemly and appears to be dubious on legal grounds.

-- gary_c

[HyperionMP]

There is no requirement in continental legal systems to abstain from commenting on a case.

You are approaching this from a common law perspective (=UK, US, Canada, Australia etc.) where this requirement may or may not be present.

Besides, even in common law systems, I highly doubt that there is a requirement to abstain from commenting on your legal views.

You mean to tell me that Microsoft could not send out a press-release saying "this and that company is violating our patents"?

I see this all the time.

Companies usually refrain from doing so because they might tip off the other party about the line of defense/attack they will be using but this should not be confused with a general principle forbidding a party to comment on a case.

There is something as free speech and anybody is free to comment within the limits allowed by the libel laws.

Expressing a legal view (which can be backed up by substantial legal evidence and case-law) can in no way be construed as "libel" which by definition means that the allegation is unfounded.
Having said that, there isn't even a case pending because MorphOS has not entered the market yet.

[redrumloa]

Yes, except that all such comments should be seen as allegations and nothing more. Last time I looked, "innocent until proven guilty" was still a cornerstone of the modern justice system in most civilised countries.

I think most people see it as just allegations, even if in their view the available evidence is pretty convincing.

Not at all. Have you read ANN lately? (yes, I know you have) Can you honestly say that the mob hasn't already tried, convicted and sentenced MorphOS on the basis of no more evidence than a few allegations by significantly placed people?

Mob? Jack Me and Corpse? Two people now make a mob?  :-P The problem is no matter what 'camp' you want to look at there are going to be a few very vocal children. 'Shawn' makes legal threats against Amiga Inc quite often:-D

Why? I haven't read anything about MophOS being AmigaOS4 compatible, have you?

OS4.0? No. OS3.X absolutely, I won't elaborate more on my opinion because it would light the fuse.

What I see is the head of a company making unsubstantiated legal accusations against a potential competitor in order to sway public opinion towards his own product.

Unsubstantantiated? IMHO that's a bit of a stretch. IMO there is a reason MOS is not released yet. RS and company are not fools. The original plan was for MOS1.0 to require a complete OS3.1 install. If that would have happened a law suit would for sure have occured. It seems MOS has been delayed this long, and even longer to remove all AOS reliance. That to me is an admission on their behalf that MOS would not have survived a legal battle. But that's just my opinion.

I bet he's far less forthcoming if you were to ask for a rough estimate on when AOS4 will be released (Q3 2002? Q4? Later?)

Why give a deadline if you cannot garantee it? IIRC MOS was supposed to be released over a year ago? Personally I think if OS4.0 ships by Q3 2002 it will be an amazing feat.

[bhoggett]

@red

"I think most people see it as just allegations, even if in their view the available evidence is pretty convincing."

But the available evidence is not complete. You only have half the evidence: that presented by the "prosecution". They're not going to give you any of the evidence that may damage their case, are they? That doesn't mean such evidence doesn't exist.

"Mob? Jack Me and Corpse? Two people now make a mob?"

OK, I'm going to need my asbestos suit for this one again. JackMe, cOrpse, Samface, Amifan, Alkemyst, numerous others who are less active but just as certain about the verdict.

("Shawn" is irrelevant :-D )

"OS4.0? No. OS3.X absolutely, I won't elaborate more on my opinion because it would light the fuse."

But OS 3.x is none of Hyperion's business. They are producing OS4 under license, and unless someone is producing something compatible with OS4 against their wishes, or that someone is using Hyperion IP, they have no legal say in the matter.

"Unsubstantantiated? IMHO that's a bit of a stretch. "

It's unsubstantiated until the allegations can be proved to be true in a court of law. So far, you are justifying the accusations because of reasons given by the accusers. Who says the accusers are telling the truth? Who says they're not hiding crucial information that would invalidate their case?

"IMO there is a reason MOS is not released yet. "

It's not ready yet?  That sounds like a good reason to me. The speculation that the delay is due to removing OS 3.1 reliance is just that: speculation.

"Why give a deadline if you cannot garantee it?"

Absolutely. Equally, if you know the deadline is still a very long way away, you might not want to discourage prospective customers by telling them the truth.

"IIRC MOS was supposed to be released over a year ago?"

I wouldn't know, as I've not followed MorphOS developments that closely. I do remember AOS4 being due sometime last summer though. :-P

"Personally I think if OS4.0 ships by Q3 2002 it will be an amazing feat."

Me too. From the bits and pieces I've been told - and I stress this is not "inside" knowledge and may thus be inaccurate - I don't expect AOS4 to be released with the advertised features until next year sometime. Whether the frenzy of positive anticipation can be maintained that long is debatable. I guess that's why we keep getting fed the various screenshots, even though they aren't running on OS4 yet.

[DaveP]

Bill

Its clear that you have a bit of an axe to grind here and whether it be over x86, Amithlon, MorphOS or whatever wouldnt it be more constructive to take it up direct?
Your speculation is no better than anyone elses speculation.

Dave

* cut the rest because it would be better in an e-mail

[jtsiren]

>Its clear that you have a bit of an axe to grind here...

But Bill is right, though. All that has been presented against MorphOS are allegations, and no firm proof has been presented. While this does in no way invalidate the possibility of such proof existing, we should assume innocence until proven otherwise.

Many in the "mob" have already made up their mind, though. And, axe to grind or not, I believe Bill is right in pointing this out as well.

The verdict is up to the courts. It should be interesting to see how the EU law of allowing reverse engineering for interoperability purposes works here, if it ever gets that far. So many "truths" have been thrown both ways so it would be quite welcome to finally get to the bottom of this.

I too, personally, would welcome Amiga Inc. taking proper legal action instead of discussing this matter in the public. If they are right, they will get their compensation and I'm all for that. If not, they would've just hurt the competition's business and their own image.

[bhoggett]

@DaveP

Sure, I admit I'm playing devil's advocate, but that's the point I'm trying to make. A large number of people simply accept what people like Mr Hermans tell them without ever stopping to think for themselves.

You need to step back and think "what if...?" a bit more. Who knows, Hermans and Fleecy might be right, but they might not be. They might be telling the truth, and they might not be. There's enough of a motive on all sides for foul play, so why assume Fleecy and Hermans are the angels and bPlan and MorphOS the bad ones? What price an open mind?

I haven't taken it to e-mail because what I said is meant to get everyone to think. It's not aimed at red personally, and I'm sure he knows it.

We've all been around the Amiga for long enough to know that you shouldn't believe anything until you can either touch it, or it has been confirmed by all parties as true. The alternative to the latter is a court decision.

What I don't believe in are virtual lynch mobs doing the dirty work, or people trying to stir up those mobs, and we all know who I'm referring to.

[DaveP]

We do Bill and thanks for clarification on your motives.

Regards

Dave.

[System]

Why? I haven't read anything about MophOS being AmigaOS4 compatible, have you?

Which is why I don't understand what all the fuss is about.  Would so many people be getting upset about an AmigaOS 1.3 clone on PowerPC?

The moment OS4 is released, MorphOS will be no more worth to me than UAE or the A500 buried in my closet, as I'm interested in running new, modern Amiga software.  And when I do want to go emulated for decade-old software, AmigaOS 4 will do that too.

For the first time in a long time, we've got something to get excited about, to unite behind.  Now all we've got to do is get Cinemaware's new Wings ported. :-)

Justin Smith

[Kronos]

The moment OS4 is released, MorphOS will be no more worth to me than UAE or the A500 buried in my closet, as I'm interested in running new, modern Amiga software.

Currently there is more exclusive MorphOS-SW in the making then forOS4,
and no MorphOS is NOT an Amiga-emulator !!

It just includes a PPC-native reimplementation of the AOS-API and a 68k-Emu.
It has it's own kernel and it's own API (Q-BOX limited but exclusive).