Licensing vs certification (part deux)

[bhoggett]

This is in response to Swoop's points in the locked thread.

(Please folks, let's not turn this into a "comments on Fleecy's statement" thread. Read them, nod sagely or laugh your head off depending on how seriously you take him, and let it go.)

If you re-read Rogues reply, he is agreeing with you.
The hardware vendor is the first line (of hardware) support, and if the problem is not hardware, then Hyperion are responsible for the software support.

The point is that you must contact the hardware manufacturer or the system vendor first, and they have to evaluate the problem and manage the issue, even if you know beyond a shadow of doubt that it is a software problem related to the OS and has nothing to do with the hardware. This is normally a task for either the developers (Hyperion) or the publishers (Amiga Inc).

BTW you may not own a MAC machine or run MAC osX, but if you own a Wintel PC, you will find a proportion of the price you paid is for an OS License.

I don't own a "Wintel" machine. I own an x86 on which I choose which OS to install. No, I am not paying a license to Microsoft when I buy my motherboard. I pay a license to Microsoft when I buy Windows.

Why should you treat Hyperion any different to bill gates. As a company, if it is not potentially profitable for Hyperion to port the OS why should they bother.

There is a precedent against Microsoft bundled software already. If you buy a system which includes bundled Windows in the price, but you do not want Windows, you are entitled to a refund for the price of the software. Why should Hyperion/Amiga Inc be treated any differently?

[bloodline]

let it go.

let it go?!?! You got to catch it first!

I will wager you won't catch the CTO of Amiga Inc. who ever that maybe this week.

[Kronos]

bhoggett wrote:
 Why should Hyperion/Amiga Inc be treated any differently?

Cos they are Hyperion/Ainc ....why else

The basic question is  not about licence/certificate, but about inflated/hurt egos
and some odd views on reality.

Sticking to the promise "available for all suitable HW" (like it was before 4/02) would
have damaged their chance in the market when they realized that OS4 won't be
the sunday-afternoon-stroll they thougt it was.

The current licence-scheme does help:
Eyetech, cos they are the only ones selling HW "ready for OS4".
Hyperion, cos people couldn't go buy-Peg-now-and(-maybe)-OS4-later.
AInc cos the A1-name licence is by far the biggest share they will get from OS4/A1.
(according to Ben, they won't get much for every copy of OS4, and the OS4-licence
is even supposed to be free).

Also note that they changed tone when I did look likely that some dealer might sign
that licence for OS4. Now they are babbling about "only 600 boards sold",
but when was the last time that any Amiga-related product sold lets say over
1000 copies ? Well Amithlon comes to mind, but those are even more lost for Hyperion  ;-)
There is also a damn good reason why only 600 were sold (and yes some canceled/
delayed their orders when Genesi (prematurly) annonces that they would make the Peg2),
and lot of these boards aren't in the hands of "joe-6packs",but in those of the
fabeled "bed-room-coders", the real back-bone of this community for the last 10 years
(if not longer).How many of those will spend another 1000Euro (full system),just to
use/support an OS similar to the one the allready run ?

Which brings us back to:

The basic question is  not about licence/certificate, but about inflated/hurt egos and some odd views on reality.

The only ways to see OS4 on the Peg (officially):

a)Hyperion realizing that they can't sell >10000 units while being bundled to
HW at the band/bug-rate of the A1s (don't expect an ArticiaP-based mobo
anytime soon,they have just moved "engeneering samples" form Q3/03 to Q4 (was
even Q3/02 at a time), and it is a long way from that to an end-user-ready board.

b) Genesi realizing that they are "nothing" with out the name.

If none of the 2 happens : NO OS4 on Peg.
If 1 happens : Eyetech and AInc would probraly still be standing in the way.
If both happens, and AInc returns to the "real world"(*), whooooo ......
seems I would have to go AROS-x86 in that case  :-P


Sorry,for bringing this so far OT,but I'm just sick of people discussing the
emperor's new cloth,when they should be discussing his odd ..... well use
your imagination :-D

(*) There is only one thing they could do in the real world......

[bhoggett]

@bloodline

Matt, you're a very naughty boy. Consider yourself chastised.  ;-)

[lempkee]

There is a precedent against Microsoft bundled software already. If you buy a system which includes bundled Windows in the price, but you do not want Windows, you are entitled to a refund for the price of the software. Why should Hyperion/Amiga Inc be treated any differently?

ermm ok , did you happen to know that almost every product here in norway (anyway) is infact "OEM" products , ie you can't go to the shop and say...HEY i want my money back because i use Linux and not windows on this machine.

the shop people would just laugh at you if they are sane...or?

anyway when u liscense out an oem then its for several reasons one of em is "PRICE" , ie by forcing a market , lets say you do a new program and wants to promote it...you then normally? (atm anyway) do an OEM of it.

so i dont see what on earth you meant by this single item.

---

to put it way out on a limb here , you could go like..

1. you bought PC WORLD issue X , in the issue you got a freebie, a full program.. the program doesnt interest you at all, so you go back to your news agent and tells them to give you money back because of the "LISCENSED" product put on the cd as a freebie , so what happens according to you here would be...

buy 1 magazine for 10 usd , get 400USD refund because the software aint of your interest and you will never use it.


, oh yeah and there is more to it...we have consoles atm who have OEM liscensed software with em , 1 console and 3 OEM games.

infact if you could have gone to the shop and said "HEY I WILL NEVER use theese games, i want a refund" then you would infact get 2 of theese consoles ..

got my point now? , there is a reason why its OEM! and its not to be sold OUTSIDE of the liscense and its not beeing altered in anyway at most cases (only a few productshave a special "this is an OEM product" inside the actual program/game.

--i may add that i havent read the old thread and i wont either because talking about it more "like this" would do any good or any bad, it just seems that someone just wants to put someone in bad light.

[bhoggett]

@lempkee

The point I was making is that there is a legal precedent reegarding bundled software. Yes, you can refuse any bundled OEM software and get a refund if a license fee for including it in the package is involved. Obviously "FREE" copies don't count.

Yes, the vendors may well laugh at you, but if you want a product and tell them what purpose you want it for, they cannot force you to pay for bundled software you don't have any use for. The vendors laugh because not enough people realise this.

Even regardless of that, tell me since when do customers who have a problem with Microsoft Office have to contact A-bit to report it? Or the shop they bought it from? Or the distributor?

Software support, from first-line onwards, is the responsibility of the publisher, and if the publisher can't handle it then it falls to the developer. NOT the hardware manufacturers or the system vendors.  There is an exception to this in the corporate sector, but this is the consumer sector we're talking about here.

[Wilse]

So.................has anyone actually applied to Amiga Inc. for a license?

If so, what was the outcome?

Because, until someone does and then publicly explains what stopped them from getting it, the whole argument is moot.

I bought a Pegasos and an AmigaOne. I'd like to see OS4 on the pegasos *and* MOS on the AmigaOne.

Now why is noone bleeting about MOS not having been ported to the A1 yet?
Personally, I'd love that - then I'd be able to use the thing at least.  :-P

These arguments are amusing but futile methinks...

[lempkee]

@lempkee

The point I was making is that there is a legal precedent reegarding bundled software. Yes, you can refuse any bundled OEM software and get a refund if a license fee for including it in the package is involved. Obviously "FREE" copies don't count.

Yes, the vendors may well laugh at you, but if you want a product and tell them what purpose you want it for, they cannot force you to pay for bundled software you don't have any use for. The vendors laugh because not enough people realise this.

Even regardless of that, tell me since when do customers who have a problem with Microsoft Office have to contact A-bit to report it? Or the shop they bought it from? Or the distributor?

Software support, from first-line onwards, is the responsibility of the publisher, and if the publisher can't handle it then it falls to the developer. NOT the hardware manufacturers or the system vendors. There is an exception to this in the corporate sector, but this is the consumer sector we're talking about here.

so we have to be lawyers to be customers of OEM products now ?

also if you remove the bundled software then the console or computer you buy would normally be alot higher than if you bought the actaul OEM liscensed one.

so please SPARE me from this.

a last note , is it up to the customers worldwide now to determine if its a liscensed oem product or if its tossed in as a freebie ? , all cover mounted stuff HAS to be liscensed (as in, contacted the company who made it or whats left of it etc) , anything else than that is PIRACY!


about this:

Even regardless of that, tell me since when do customers who have a problem with Microsoft Office have to contact A-bit to report it? Or the shop they bought it from? Or the distributor?

 

thats a very good point! , and as the actual state of the pc industry this is upto the shop that sold you the stuff and down to the end user,
its pissing alot of people off , like big companies who make oem deals with a shop and delivers machines out to the workers (private) and then the actual workplace gets herrased by people needing help etc, all in all i think the shop should have full responsibility for what they sell , if they did then they also would loose customers and have no one to blame , the most common thing you hear is "its not our fault, its m$" but they still keep selling the #### and in the long run the users just accepts it or forgets it.

its like , if you go and rent a DVD and its not working , then the shop wont say , ERM ITS NOT MY FAULT ,its the chain we work for , contact NEWLINE ...or whatever .

simply they do this , ask you to pick another one (some shops/blockbuster rent etc actually tests the medium if its working and no matter the results they give u a free rent movie)

this disucussion is pretty dull, we all know how it is in the real world , if you buy nything then you go to the shop and you dont start messing around unless its a last resort.
 
and beyond that you don't buy macosx to run on a pc with windows and expect it to work straight out of the box do u? (mol is an option but that requires linux)

so if you want amigaos , buy an amiga.. easy as that.

(or an amigaos liscensed machine, you buy a branded os for an branded machine)

anyone here bought windowsXP for their pegasos yet? ..

[lempkee]

one last thing , does this mean i can tell genesi i dont want "superbundle" and want an discount?
and that the discount should be as high as its worth buying from retail ? (individual software)

cheers

pps:if not, then it seems i must be an lawyer to understand this..

[Rassilon]

@Bill

As I understand it anyone can contact Amiga Inc for a license/Certification. By that I mean - If I decided to buy 5000 of mobo X and I met all of Amiga Inc requirements (technical docs/sales forcasts etc etc) then OS4 would be ported, and I could sell mobo X with OS4.

Now the deal is that I would provide the first line support, not the manufacturers of mobo X.

[EDIT]
Therefore those  people that want mobo X with OS4 buy it from me, and those that don't buy their mobo X from someone else.

That way you don't pay for OS4 if you don't want it.
[/EDIT]

Rassilon

[Seehund]

Rassilon wrote:
@Bill

As I understand it anyone can contact Amiga Inc for a license/Certification.

Hey, T_Bone, wanna do the honours? OK, I'll do it then.

Lookee here.

Every last detail of this goddamn mess is just sick.


- Edit:


Since olegil forgot to include the link himself in his reply, here is the direct link to ANN.
I apologise to the pay-per-minute modem users who I made waste precious seconds on Moobunny. By linking to the Moobunny thread on this topic I figured I wouldn't need to cut'n'paste my comment from there to here. In retrospect, a cut'n'paste would've been more efficient than this harangue... Oh well.

[bhoggett]

@lempkee

one last thing , does this mean i can tell genesi i dont want "superbundle" and want an discount? and that the discount should be as high as its worth buying from retail ? (individual software)

Nope. Apple and Genesi can get away with it because they supply both the hardware and the software, so there is no way you can prove that the software involves a license fee. (Genesi may pay a license fee to the developers, but make it available to the customers for free as part of the bundle)

With OEMs, that is not the case. Their audits will show that they are paying a license fee for the bundled software, and passing part of that on to the customers.
 

[Seehund]

Wilse wrote:
So.................has anyone actually applied to Amiga Inc. for a license?

If so, what was the outcome?

See above.

Because, until someone does and then publicly explains what stopped them from getting it, the whole argument is moot.

Nope. Even if someone other than Eyetech actually would be granted a license, it still would mean that AmigaOS users would not be allowed to buy their Pegasos, or whatever hardware we'd be talking about, from whomever they like. They would not be able to buy a 2nd hand Pegasos, unless the previous owner had bought a licensed bundle. Pegasos users who bought their hardware without AmigaOS would not be allowed to buy AmigaOS at a later date (like, when it's hypothetically ported to the Peg). People who would have bought licensed hardware could not uninstall and keep their current AmigaOS, sell their old hardware normally, and use their already payed for AmigaOS with newly available and AmigaOS compatible hardware... And so on.

I bought a Pegasos and an AmigaOne. I'd like to see OS4 on the pegasos *and* MOS on the AmigaOne.

Even if someone got a license to sell Pegasos+AmigaOS bundles, you wouldn't be allowed to buy AmigaOS for your Pegasos. It's not AmigaOS licensed/bundled/dongled, and it's not bought from an artificially created "Amiga" market.

Don't you understand that you need to be protected, Wilse? It's for your own good. You have bought potentially sub-standard hardware from a rogue and price-gouging dealer. Get thee to the licensed dealer and buy a new Pegasos. The licensed Pegasos has passed AInc's thorough testing and certification, so obviously it's much better than any normally sold exactly identical Pegasos. It's max a couple of hundred dollars more expensive than a normal Pegasos, so you'd be protected from price-gouging as well.

Is my point clear yet?

[Wilse]

So the guy never heard from them again - proves nothing.

[bhoggett]

@Rassilon

Yes, you are right in theory. However, look at it more closely:

As a vendor, would you have access to all the technical documentation of the hardware, including all the low level stuff?

Can you provide sales forecasts for the entire platform, or must you restrict yourself to your own sales only? The latter I suspect, and if so how likely is it those won't be hight enough to justify the port alone. Note also that no figures or levels are announced as to what would and what would not be acceptable. This means any vendor or proposal could be turned down even if it matches the criteria of one that has been accepted. Who's to know, since these proposals are usually under NDA?

What I'm saying is that the licensing scheme currently in effect is designed for political control, and not for technical or commercial reasons alone.

At the very least the licensing conditions that need to be met should be fully publicised in detail, and Amiga Inc should commit to accepting any proposal which satisfies them, irrespective of who it comes from.