Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: Hondo on October 12, 2003, 09:43:54 AM
-
Dear Genesi/Pegasos folks
What happens when OS4 and AmigaOne is released bigtime....and Pegasos find themselves unable to run native amiga software???
I see a split in the Amiga community coming!!!
Sad but true!
- subject line edited by mikeymike to reflect the nature of the post -
-
Hi Hondo,
You can also turn that question around ;-)
Cheers,
Ron
-
@Palpatine
I sure could....but that's just so far away from my thoughts at the moment.
Right now I want the original AmigaOS to come back.....more than anything.
And if the road splits before me.......I'll go where the Amiga name is still worth something!
Even if its' the hard road!!
That's the true spirit of the legendary Amiga!
It's not just a name....
-
@Hondo:
You might even meet a crossroad where AmigaOS4 leads both ways! ;-)
Cheers,
Ron
-
Here's the way I see it:
ATM AOS and MOS are largely compatible. Providing that you stick to something like the OpenAmiga (http://www.openamiga.org) specs, porting between them should be easy.
But eventually the two systems will diverge - for instance, the DE and the QBox are very different things. By that point, they'll need enough users and developers to survive on their own.
-
I really would like to see Amiga Inc. and Genesi shaking hands and hearts........and bring OS4 to the Pegasos platform.........we need the momentum!
Could this be done?????
The last thing this community needs is two separate fractions fighting each other. Why become enemies?
An alliance would make us all soooooooo much stronger!!
who'll be the first to forget the proudness, dissapointments, etc........and make that call..........that's the one who truely cares for the Amiga platform!!
-
@Hondo:
Sure, it can be done and probably will be done.
Regarding the fighting, a lot (most?) of that is done by fanatic users of either 'side' or 'camp'. Recent shows have shown that the companies involved are on a much more friendly level with eachother.
Cheers,
Ron
-
Being Pegasos owner can't see problem there...
-
@Hondo_DK:
> An alliance would make us all soooooooo much stronger!
That's true but for that Genesi would have to give up MorphOS and pay the licence to AmigaInc.
I guess they will never do one of those things.
If AmigaOS 4.0 runs on a pegasos that is available without paying the licence fee to AmigaInc. then the people copying and cracking will destroy the market *again*.
-
Well Genesi employees always hint at the possibility that you could run OS4 on the Peg2 (just like they did to boost sales of the Peg1).
Truth is that there has been done nothing to accomplish that this will be possible in a legal way.
What we will eventually see is either Hyperion and Genesi agreeing on a port (that demands a little more than 600 sold pegs..) or some group of Pegasos owners hacking OS4 to work on the Peg(2).
I can allready see where the last option would eventually leave Hyperion, when OS4 would be spread for download all over the net.
So for Genesi I can only say put up or shut up... Sign the deal (same deal as Eyetech) or forget about AmigaOS4.x
Same goes for users that wants OS4. If you want the original you buy an AmigaOne and if you want an Amiga clone you buy a Pegasos2. Just don't expect OS4 to show up on that platform in a legal way.
-
@Troels:
Truth is that there has been done nothing to accomplish that this will be possible in a legal way.
How do you know that?
Just don't expect OS4 to show up on that platform in a legal way.
Again, how do you know that? You might be surprised in some time... :-)
Cheers,
Ron
-
Of course, there will necessarily be a split, but developers can still adapt MOS program to OS4 and OS4 programs to MOS easily. That'll change progressively, but this is the case ATM.
Personnally, I don't care if MorphOS is not the official AmigaOS ; if it's better, I'll stick with it :-) Anyway, AmigaOS4 does not share much more with the origial AmigaOS (as most had to be rewritten, as in MorphOS, and as it runs on completely different H/W, like MOS).
So for the moment, I prefer MOS because it's available for a long time, works well, if thought for the future with the boxes system, and because Genesi is much stronger than Hyperion/amigaInc, and make their own hardware. But if AmigaOS 4 turns out to be better and available soon, everything will get more complicated :)
I just fear people choose OS4 over MOS just because of the name. Anyway, OS4 should be available soon and we'll be up to compare the two systems objectively.
-
I have to agree with Ron here. You have no clue what is being done behind closed door with these guys. They could have made a deal now and will let it out when the time is right, or they may do it at a later date. We just need to wait and see how it all ends up when OS4 is out.
-
Troels_E wrote:
I can allready see where the last option would eventually leave Hyperion, when OS4 would be spread for download all over the net.
I don't see how distributing a crack for OS4 would automatically mean it got pirated into the ground...?
-
Ok, I may have expressed that in a wrong way...
There was a lot of talks that OS4 would appear on the Peg1 still Genesi never signed the needed contracts, it was just talks to get people that wanted OS4 to buy a Pegasos.
Now there's talks about OS4 coming to the Peg2 but still no papers signed.
I am certain that Genesi and Hyperion would do a pressrelease the moment such a contract existed, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist.
We have also seen comments from Ben Hermans that says it won't happen unless the Peg2 sells more than the initial 600(IIRC) there's produced, and then there's still the contracts that neds to be signed.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see OS4 on a Peg2, 3, 4 and whatever they are called :)
-
Troels_E wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see OS4 on a Peg2, 3, 4 and whatever they are called :)
Me too. No way I can afford an A1 :-(
-
>There was a lot of talks that OS4 would appear on
>the Peg1 still Genesi never signed the needed
>contracts,
Genesi doesn't have to sign anything. Every 3rd party
company can do the required certifications.
-
@ that_punk_guy
""I don't see how distributing a crack for OS4 would automatically mean it got pirated into the ground...?""
It wouldn't, but in combination with a full distribution of OS4 it would.
Remember how sales of 3.5 & 3.9 was hurt by pirates, if that happens again it will effectively kill the Amiga.
A crack in itself is not "that" harmfull but it wouldnt take very long before it was modified to work on both pegasos1/2 and A1 and I must admit that I don't believe in peoples honesty.
When people can get somthing for free (even by stealing) without getting caught they usually go for it.
BTW: Hi Hondo, remember we met in Værløse :)
-
Is it theoretically possible for a system like Wine for Linux (which emulates/remaps the Win32 APIs and subsystems to Linux -correct me if I'm wrong) to be written for OS4 or MOS to run native applications from the each other's side?
If Amiga and Genesi are not willing to provide methods of running each other's native applications, then maybe a 3rd party Wine-like application could be the key to bridging the divided community.
It's a thought :)
-
Hono_DK in case ya havent been paying attention Amiga.inc has 'about a hundred dollars' in the bank and Genesi just announced Peg2 specs on IBM.com.
Amiga.inc has been playing games here, I think Genesi wouldnt mind OS4 on Pegasos! (anyone recall the public offers bbrv has made to send a Peg to Hyperion?) but Amiga.inc et al dont want to see that, their having to much fun with MS style roms and whatnot over on the A1.
(the above is strictly my opinon of course, and isnt meant to be litteral, just OPINON :)
-
I just fear people choose OS4 over MOS just because of the name
Im so tired of hearing that when many ppl have just as many reasons for choosing Aos4 as ppl have reasons for choosing MOS.
Just because ppl have different reasons to you that does not make then auto name followers no matter what reasons they give because you dont find then acceptable.
-
@Alkemyst
Though it may be true people do have some legitimate non-zealot reason for chosing OS4, when those same people
praise Amiga.inc
make excuses for Amiga.inc
claim OS4 is more 'offical'
ignore the truth (typically while blaming RWoods for the whole mess)
and sit and claim 'morphos is bad because blah blah blah "
Then you have people who slam MOS just because its not *Amiga*, had Amiga.inc created it MOS and Pegasos, those same people would be buying it most likely.
If you have a legitimate 'technical' qualm with MOS, then by all means...say it... but claiming 'it hurts Amiga.inc' or 'genesi are baddies' or whatever rhetoric you chose dosent cut it, and when ya do it? your showing yourself to be a name follower.
(not YOU litterly Alkemyst, you as in any given person)
-
What happens when OS4 and AmigaOne is released bigtime....and Pegasos find themselves unable to run native amiga software???
What native OS4 apps? Hopefully all important programs will have AOS/MOS/OS4 versions.
Anyone is free to produce OS4 only programs, but they will have to face a limited userbase then.
I see a split in the Amiga community coming!!!
Yes, OS4 will split the community. Emphasizing it so, that the solution which started when OS4 was not even an idea, and is available for a pretty long time (first public betas appeared long-long ago) "splits" the community, rather than the almost exact copy of it - is pretty hilarious.
MorphOS indeed splitted the community - but that split was between a solution which had nothing to do with the original AmigaOS [namely AmigaDE] and MorphOS.
-
@meerschaum
No one has to justify thier reason for choosing Aos4 or MOS to you or me or anyone else, all you can do is ask and if they choose not to tell you then that is that it does not give you the right to choose thier reason for them because they did not give you one.
Thinking the reason and telling someone thier reasons are different matters.
-
Amiga.inc has been playing games here, I think Genesi wouldnt mind OS4 on Pegasos! (anyone recall the public offers bbrv has made to send a Peg to Hyperion?) but Amiga.inc et al dont want to see that, their having to much fun with MS style roms and whatnot over on the A1.
Common business practice is that deals and licences are not handled over public forums but via official business channels, and a MorphOS mailing list or forum isn't considered an official channel. This has nothing to do with "MS style ROM's" or any such nonsense as you like to quote.
Just "offereing a Pegasos for free" is no licence application, and apart from that and the usual "we'll make it happen" nothing has happened to make AmigaOS 4 on the Pegasos (regardless of number) any more likely than it was at the very beginning.
Unless Genesi or someone else aquires a licence for OS 4, it will not automatically appear on any Pegasos hardware. And yes, I know it won't be long before I can read a "don't worry we'll make it happen" posting again, but unless you can show me a bit more substance than that, I'd be cautious before I stick my head out too far.
-
> I'd be cautious before I stick my head out too far.
I thought that all wasn't your business?
-
Unless Genesi or someone else aquires a licence for OS 4, it will not automatically appear on any Pegasos hardware
Just courious as to the point of the "licence", other than to make money for Hyperion.
MAybe I've missed something, but why should Genesi have to buy a licence from you, in order for you to be able to sell software for their product...
Shouldn't Hyperion be buying a licence from Genesi, to allow Hyperion to sell software for the Pegasos?
I seriously doubt Sony have to buy a licence from EA, to allow EA games to run on the playstation... In fact, I know it's the other way around.
Lets face facts, AOS4 on the Peg would benefit everyone, except the AROS team... hmmm, maybe it's good hyperion are not into cooperation :-)
-
@Rogue
I agree with bloodline, why is it that they need to a license to allow your OS to run on their hardware???, does Microsoft have to grant Asus a license? I mean come on, there are realistically two board for AOS4 right now, the Pegasos and the A1 both are pretty similer wouldnt you (Hyperion) make MORE money off of having your OS on more then one system?. I view you guys as victims here too, because you wont be selling AOS4 to people like me who have chosen the Pegasos route.
I mean you Rogue (I think your one of the Fridens? or am I wrong) worked very hard on a product, you dont want it pirated (I can understand this) but why not want it sold to as many people as possible??, now the Peg2 is coming along I hope it stirs you guys up into getting OS4 onto pegasos! :)
-
bloodline wrote:
Lets face facts, AOS4 on the Peg would benefit everyone, except the AROS team... hmmm, maybe it's good hyperion are not into cooperation :-)
The future for amiga software, develop for AROS and port to MOS and AOS :-)
-
Dan wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Lets face facts, AOS4 on the Peg would benefit everyone, except the AROS team... hmmm, maybe it's good hyperion are not into cooperation :-)
The future for amiga software, develop for AROS and port to MOS and AOS :-)
I couldn't agree more :-D that's actaully the easiest way to support all tree systems (and even the 68k ones if they have the CPU power).
-
and bring OS4 to the Pegasos platform.........we need the momentum!
I didnt think that many pegasos users would want that to happen? Since most pegasos people say MorphOS is superior to os4...
Though i dont know how they can know that, since os4 is not finished yet..
-
I didnt think that many pegasos users would want that to happen? Since most pegasos people say MorphOS is superior to os4...
But right now even CP/M users can say that what they use is superior to OS4... since they can't use OS4. :-)
I doubt any Pegasos user would be upset by being allowed to use OS4 on thier machine, however they think about it
-
Let people have the choice on Pegasos and end the squabbling from people who who haven't tried one OS or either.
The OS which is best, and with the most development and most software will be used by most people. Simple. The end.
-
I'm very glad that this discussion is going on in a calm and adult manner. All I really want is to see the different parts speaking to each other, instead of fighting.......way to go!!
Hope this thread will make everybody important from
Amiga Inc. - Eyetech - Hyperion - Genesi - Aros
speak here without being attacked, or laughed at.
Let everybody have the right to their oppinion, and let's speak like adults to each other.......all of us!!
Then maybe we'll get together someday ;-) - and if not.......at least we'll still be friends :-D
-
The OS which is best
This is clearly not the case when talking about the average person, just look at windows ;-) But hopefully the amiga people is different than the average pc user :-)
and with the most development and most software will be used by most people. Simple. The end.
agree on that
-
There's only sold around 600 pegasos computers, thats probably not enough to make an OS4 port viable, especially as maybe only 1/4 of the pegasos owners would buy it.
As for the Pegasos2, who knows, maybe someday if Genesi wants it...
-
Since most pegasos people say MorphOS is superior to os4... Though i dont know how they can know that, since os4 is not finished yet..
neither is Morphos.
-
@Bloodline
Any news on the Aros port for Pegasos?
Coder
-
Tomas wrote:
The OS which is best
This is clearly not the case when talking about the average person, just look at windows ;-) But hopefully the amiga people is different than the average pc user :-)
and with the most development and most software will be used by most people. Simple. The end.
agree on that
It will be software development that will decide which OS is the most popular (assuming each one is available for the Users choice of system).
I mostly use Windows, not because it is better, not because I prefer it, not because it's really secure, not because, it's really stable, not because of my love of free software ( ;-) think about it), but for one simple reason; It runs the software I need to do my work, and it has the drivers available to allow me to use the latest and best hardware for the job I want to do.
Sad but true.
-
Coder wrote:
@Bloodline
Any news on the Aros port for Pegasos?
Coder
On Schedule and rockin'... ;-)
-
@Bloodline
I did hear that before somewhere. :-P
Coder
-
Coder wrote:
@Bloodline
I did hear that before somewhere. :-P
Coder
And I mean it in the original context, i.e. I have no idea, but the guy doing the work has been reporting what he has been up to, so I'm sure every thing is fine :-D
-
The Pegasos users are in a quite different position.
There is already a well supported alternative in MorphOS.
The Pegasos has been specifically attracting talented
software developers in this community for quite some time
and application/game support will be strong for MorphOS.
If you look at good points like the SuperBundle or the
quality and consistency of Pegasos support websites or
even the quick turn-around on getting a new machine built
and released "nearly on schedule" and at a reasonable
price point, you can begin to see something positive
is happening here.
I see the Pegasos as a well supported solution and expect
to see a large amount of core software development happening
there with many items also supporting similar "Amiga style"
operating systems if it is convienent and there is demand
to do so. Same can be said for other systems to some
degree, there will be a fair amount of software "sharing".
But trying to convince people one way or the
other based on assumptions or guesses isn't helping things
much in any case. More people need to try MorphOS and
experience the system "first hand" to develop an opinion
based on something real rather than an imagined perception
of what it might represent. Give it a try, it's worthwhile.
-
I´m buying the hardware because I want to run the software, not the other way around. ¨
Why shouldn´t Genesi have to pay a licence to sell hardware for Hyperion´s software?
-
neither is Morphos.
Huh? Are you replying to someone or just mumbling to yourself?
-
@bloodline & meerschaum:
(Yes, I am one of the Frieden brothers).
About the licence:
Please understand what this licence is about. The facts about it have been twisted over and over, but if you look at the essence, it serves its purpose. The main point is that OS 4 will not be available boxed (except for CSPPC and BlizzardPPC). It will only be sold with a board. Secondly, the hardware vendor should, through the licence, be bound to some degree of customer support.
I don't think that the conditions are unreasonable.
To the best of my knowledge, Hyperion does not earn any money from the licence other than the sales of OS 4, but I don't know that for sure.
Microsoft and Asus have more money in their pencil budget than Hyperion earns in ten years, so I don't think that their rules are applicable. Same with Sony and EA.
Yes, OS 4 would benefit from Pegasos support. It would benefit from any additional hardware it supports. However, there is some work involved in porting, maintaining and supporting any new port, and the licence ensures that part of that will be handled by the hardware seller, who also benefits from OS 4 running on his hardware.
I don't understand the argument that Hyperion should be buying a licence from Genesi - you try to argue me out of it by arguing the other way around?
In spite of the ":-)" I find it a bit offensive to say that "hyperion are not into cooperation". In fact we are, since we are cooperating with quite a number of companies. However, as I said before, Cooperation is a two way road, and business is not conducted via mailing lists and bulletin boards.
-
Rogue basically what your saying is that I'm right to think that Hyperion isnt the barrier between AOS4 on Pegasos or not?, do you think if Amiga.inc went under AOS4 would find its way onto Pegasos?...
-
@Meerschaum
Why should it change anything if Amiga Inc went under?
He didn't say Amiga Inc was the reason OS4 isn't targeted at Pegasos(2) atm.
-
Rogue basically what your saying is that I'm right to think that Hyperion isnt the barrier between AOS4 on Pegasos or not?, do you think if Amiga.inc went under AOS4 would find its way onto Pegasos?...
No, I didn't say that. Like I said, the licence is in everyone's interest really since it takes away part of the burden of support from us, and it ensures a bit of safety against piracy, which, as you will agree, still poses a rather big thread.
As to what would happen if Amiga Inc goes under, I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that the AmigaOS licence is safe from any sort of demise. What that means for a Pegasos version is highly speculative; I wouldn't think that the outlook would be any different than it is now: The only thing that stands between AmigaOS 4 and the Pegasos is that there is no one holding a licence for OS 4 on the Pegasos hardware.
-
Well, Morphos would have to have the Amiga OS4 APIs added to their Abox. As for the other way around, it basically the same thing, have to add the native Mophos APIs to AmigaOS. I assume there may be more to it than that, it seems essencially what would need to be done. Unless you get into emulation or porting OSs. We'll just have to wait and see.
I see both going their own separate ways after a time. Like after both have established commercially released consumer products.
-
Moderated : Off-Topic Rant.
-
I see both going their own separate ways after a time. Like after both have established commercially released consumer products.
I used to think that way too, but I see it now more like two roads running parallel. It looks like they're heading to the same place, but there's no map so no one knows for sure.
If the paths do head off in different directions, I don't think it'll be any time soon. (Years instead of months.) Of course, I think another thing is that much of the in-fighting that was happening earlier is dying down which helps out in the short term.
-
Please understand what this licence is about. The facts about it have been twisted over and over, but if you look at the essence, it serves its purpose. The main point is that OS 4 will not be available boxed (except for CSPPC and BlizzardPPC). It will only be sold with a board. Secondly, the hardware vendor should, through the licence, be bound to some degree of customer support.
I don't think that the conditions are unreasonable.
That depends on the conditions, which are not available to us, and you claim that you don't know them either. Or am I mistaken?
-
@Rouge
I do see what you are saying, but as the software developer it is your responsibility to support your software. By asking For a licence for the OS you are saying that you don't want to be troubled with support (I know that is a simplified view).
I'm also not sure about the "selling it with the board" sales model that hyperion want to use with their OS. Since that makes sense for the "AmigaONE", does it really make sense for that system?
What if I were to make a PPC board and sell it for 150 Euro, but one of the ways I keep it at such a low price is that it come with no OS.
Would I then have to buy a licence from Hyperion in order to allow OS4 to run on it?
-
That depends on the conditions, which are not available to us, and you claim that you don't know them either. Or am I mistaken?
There was a thread, I think it was either here or on AW.net, where Ben Hermans outlined the conditions. What I know is the following:
- There must be something on the board (or a USB dongle) that allows to distinguish between licenced and non-licenced boards ("the dongle"). What that is is completely up to discussion. Might even be a special firmware version.
- OS 4 must not be sold separately (unless otherwise stated in the licence agreement). Units of OS 4 sold must be included with the board, but it doesn't mean that anyone wanting the board has to buy OS 4.
- Part of the customer support for the licenced board must be taken care of by the manufacturer/licence holder. That is, a customer will contact Eyetech first, and if they can't sort it out, they will contact Hyperion and/or Amiga.
That's about it. I don't know if there is a licence fee at all (other than the costs of a copy of OS 4).
That is what I meant when I said I don't think these conditions are unreasonable. What I mean when I said I don't know the details is that I don't know any details (like fees etc).
Like I said before, the two primary reasons for the licencing are offloading parts of the support burden to the licensee, and prevention of piracy - because if you already have OS 4 with the board, you're not going to copy it. I'm afraid that we cannot take another wave of piracy - too much work, time and money has passed into this.
I'm sure you will understand that.
-
Will a special dongle be required for each future Hyperion games then? :-)
- OS 4 must not be sold separately (unless otherwise stated in the licence agreement). Units of OS 4 sold must be included with the board, but it doesn't mean that anyone wanting the board has to buy OS 4.
If there was not the few words in the brackets, it'd be utter nonsense. Someone purchases a Pegasos 2 board, and when later decides so that he wants OS4 he has to purchase a new board...
I'm sure you will understand that.
As to the conditions - I think the most important conditions are those which you have omitted. Namely the hard cash part into which the manufacturer/dealer is forced into, and of what we know nothing.
I don't know if there is a licence fee at all (other than the costs of a copy of OS 4).
That's what I've mentioned. I suppose there is.
-
I do see what you are saying, but as the software developer it is your responsibility to support your software. By asking For a licence for the OS you are saying that you don't want to be troubled with support (I know that is a simplified view).
And a wrong one, too :-) No honestly, when you look at it most support queries will be the same. Assume (I'm not saying it is the case) that for a certain hardware you have to have your CD-ROM connected as secondary slave because it doen't work otherwise (yeah, I know, it sounds awfully constructed, but it should serve an an example). Instead of having 100 people enquire at Hyperion about that, these 100 people could be on the licencees support mailing list and get that question answered there, because that question is typical for their hardware. The licencee will forward anything that they can't help out to us.
What if I were to make a PPC board and sell it for 150 Euro, but one of the ways I keep it at such a low price is that it come with no OS.
Would I then have to buy a licence from Hyperion in order to allow OS4 to run on it?
I don't understand the question to be honest. If you have a board that costs 150 euros because there is no OS included, then there is no OS included. Period. If you could buy a copy of OS 4 for that board, this would raise the price again, and you wouldn't get away with 150 euro anymore.
The licence wouldn't disallow selling the board with no OS.
I also don't understand the last part of the question - if there is an OS 4 version for the board, it would be available as a bundle with the board (that could mean that a dealer or private individual has bought a licence).
A dealer might want to sell boards with OS 4 as a bundle and make a licence deal with Amiga (not with Hyperion).
-
If there was not the few words in the brackets, it'd be utter nonsense. Someone purchases a Pegasos 2 board, and when later decides so that he wants OS4 he has to purchase a new board...
As I said before, you might have a USB dongle, or might have an exchange program where the missing part is fitted to your board.
As to the conditions - I think the most important conditions are those which you have omitted. Namely the hard cash part into which the manufacturer/dealer is forced into, and of what we know nothing.
You are contradicting yourself. You say that a dealer/licencee is forced into a "hard cash part" (note the word "forced"), and in the same sentence admit that you know nothing. Can you elaborate?
That's what I've mentioned. I suppose there is.
You suppose there is? That means you are condemming the whole concept because you assume?
-
I see you (Hyperion) have set yourself up in a sticky situation.
If the OS is to come with the board, that really is the best antipiracy option you can have, the dongle is not going to stop piracy.
Obviously, we differ slightly in our view of a business model when it comes to OSes (software and drivers should be commercial but the OS should be free IMHO). But would you not agree that if one OS is better (Better harware and software support) then people will favour it over another. It seems to my cynical eye that Hyperion are atempting to circumvent people freedom to choose the OS that suits them best.
I really must apologise if seems liek an attack, it is not, I am interested in how people view this.
-
You suppose there is? That means you are condemming the whole concept because you assume?
I assume that if there were no money involved, and obtaining the licence were so easy as you depict it, we'd have Amiga/Pegasos dealers in a long line offering Pegasos with OS4 "when released".
We have none. Care to explain the phaenomenon?
-
A dealer might want to sell boards with OS 4 as a bundle and make a licence deal with Amiga (not with Hyperion).
Ok, this makes more sense to me now. So I could buy a licence for OS4 (for free? ;-) ) and then run it on the Pegasos boards that I sell?
What I'm buying, with the licence, is the responsibility to support my customers, right?
-
Obviously, we differ slightly in our view of a business model when it comes to OSes (software and drivers should be commercial but the OS should be free IMHO).
You tell that to Microsoft. I had to pay € 70 for a System Builder Version of XP. I'd rather pay for the OS and get the drivers for free when I buy the hardware, because I am bound to need more drivers than OSes.
It seems to my cynical eye that Hyperion are atempting to circumvent people freedom to choose the OS that suits them best.
This would be the case if the donglization would prevent any other OS from running. It doesn't. You *can* run Linux on the AmigaOne, you *can* run MacOS X via MOL, and if Genesi would do it, you *could* run MorphOS. If you would port AROS, that would run, too. There is plenty of options to choose from, and to put it plainly, we're not afraid of competition (I think that a bit of competition is healthy for all involved, most notably the user).
I would really like to hear an explanation how we are circumventing people the freedom of choice for their OS. We aren't. You don't have to buy a board with an AmigaOS 4 licence. And if you did, there is nothing preventing you from running any other OS.
However, if you want it, we want our share for it. I have virtually given two years of my life to it, and I think I deserve some compensation for that.
-
I assume that if there were no money involved, and obtaining the licence were so easy as you depict it, we'd have Amiga/Pegasos dealers in a long line offering Pegasos with OS4 "when released".
We have none. Care to explain the phaenomenon?
"We have none"? How do you know?
The phaenomenon is easily explained: Rumours are flying. Just look at yourself. *Everbody* is assuming that it has got so many strings attached that it isn't worth asking.
It has already been said before that the Pegasos I, due to its limited numbers and trade-in offer, is a rather small market. The Pegasos II is different, but not on sale yet. And most of all there is no OS 4 yet, so there isn't really reason to hurry.
-
The phaenomenon is easily explained: Rumours are flying. Just look at yourself. *Everbody* is assuming that it has got so many strings attached that it isn't worth asking.
When someone deeply involved in OS4 development and being one of the core members of Hyperion admits 'he doesn't know' then don't be surprised of assumptions.
-
So I could buy a licence for OS4 (for free? ) and then run it on the Pegasos boards that I sell?
Not knowing about "for free", as I said, but yes, if you are a pegasos dealer you can acquire a licence and sell your boards with OS 4.
What I'm buying, with the licence, is the responsibility to support my customers, right?
What you are buying is a licence for OS 4 and the right to distribute it with the boards you sell. What you are buying is our work to port it to your platform, and our support of your platform and those customers that you cannot handle yourself. WIth it also comes the responsibility to support your customers as far as you can. If it turns out to be a hardware issue (CD-Rom example), you're probably going to know more about the problem than I do, anyway. Otherwise you will redirect your customer to Amiga/Hyperion, and we need to care about the problem.
It's not that much different with e.g. Dell selliing you a Wintel PC, you will probably also inqure at Dell when you need support, and they may or may not redirect you to Microsoft.
-
I think this thread demonstrates quite clearly why I won't be touching AOS4 with a bargepole.
Forcing people to buy specific hardware just so they can run their chosen software is stupid.
Forcing people to pay a license premium for the priviledge of getting their software support from the hardware manufacturer is stupid.
The whole marketing and licensing policy for AmigaOS4 is a complete disincentive to even consider it. The only real motivation I see is the massaging of the inflated egos of those in charge and the squeezing of every last penny from those gullible enough to buy in.
Sorry if that offends anyone. I just find the attempts to justify the licensing policy to be utterly lame.
:-(
-
When someone deeply involved in OS4 development and being one of the core members of Hyperion admist 'he doesn't know' then don't be surprised of assumptions.
What do you expect? I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer (no wait, that was someone else...) I'm a developer, not a salesman. I don't need to know anything about licencing and sales. I couldn't even quote you what Eyetech are asking for, say, an A1 with a 750FX@800, because I simply do not need to know these issues. All that I care of is to get this thing finished, and to make it as good as possible. (and I start to notice that I am spending too much time on forums again :-) )
I personally find it quite natural that things like license fees are not discussed openly on Forums. I was utterly p*ssed when someone published the fee we where asking for Warp3D adaption. That is internal dealings and doesn't belong into the public. Interested parties should inquire with Amiga or Hyperion, but certainly not on a public forum, and certainly not with a developer. I am sure that the same applies to quite a lot of companies.
-
Forcing people to buy specific hardware just so they can run their chosen software is stupid.
That must be the reason why I can buy MacOS X for Intel boxes and Windows for Mac hardware.
Sorry if that offends anyone. I just find the attempts to justify the licensing policy to be utterly lame.
How could someone be offended because you called him stupid, or granting the people involved an inflated ego ;-)
Luckily for you, no one is "forcing" anyone. You demonstrate quite clearly that you have the freedom of choice. The rest of your ranting is highly offensive and clearly demonstrates your disability for a mature discussion.
-
But unless that information is available, we won't know who to blame :-) I think my position is understandable as well right? (To whom should I write a letter problem, you know) :-)
I'd like to know if it's Genesi's/Hyperion's/AmigaInc's/Dealers' fault that there is no OS4 on Pegasos. Even if it's not a simple issue.
-
But unless that information is available, we won't know who to blame I think my position is understandable as well right? (To whom should I write a letter problem, you know)
I do understand you. If in doubt, try to bring it up on AW.net's "Ask Fleecy" session :-)
I'd like to know if it's Genesi's/Hyperion's/AmigaInc's/Dealers' fault that there is no OS4 on Pegasos.
Why? Would it change the result? I don't think so. The truth will probably be someone in the middle anyway.
And now I think I am going back to work. The tone in this discussion was quite fine, which was a pleasant surprise until, well...
-
Why? Would it change the result? I don't think so. The truth will probably be someone in the middle anyway.
The pressure of the public is a power not to be underestimated. :-) It's one of the reasons why OS4 exists.
-
@Rogue
Forcing people to buy specific hardware just so they can run their chosen software is stupid.
That must be the reason why I can buy MacOS X for Intel boxes and Windows for Mac hardware.
No. It's the reason why I don't own a Mac or run MacOS X, however much I might be interested in doing so.
Sorry if that offends anyone. I just find the attempts to justify the licensing policy to be utterly lame.
How could someone be offended because you called him stupid,
No. I called the policy stupid, not the people. I know English is not your native language, but you should really make the effort.
or granting the people involved an inflated ego ;-)
That's a personal opinion, I admit, but yes, I do think most of the personalities involved have inflated egos.
Luckily for you, no one is "forcing" anyone. You demonstrate quite clearly that you have the freedom of choice. The rest of your ranting is highly offensive and clearly demonstrates your disability for a mature discussion.
Yes, I'm sure you're right. After all, you're not known for accusing anyone who questions you of being a troll, are you?
Why don't you address the issues instead of snipping them out? Why should customers pay a licensing premium so that the hardware manufacturer or the system vendor becomes their first line of software support?
I would uderstand it if the hardware manufacturer paid the licence fee so that YOU, the software developer takes on the software support responsibilities of supporting their hardware, but not just for the priviledge of increasing your sales while relieving you of the burden of support as well. It's not like AmigaOS4 is a world famous killer application anyone would die for, is it?
-
@Bill
Forcing people to buy specific hardware just so they can run their chosen software is stupid.
I think you may have misunderstood. Its not specifically about restricting the hardware to run the software. Its about restricting the hardware to a SUPPORTED subset.
The original arguement for not producing OS4 on x86 was due to the myriad of PC hardware that would not be able to be supported.
If you bring that arguement back to Amiga now, where the market is much smaller - it costs time and money (which is not exactly abundent in the ,market) to adapt an OS for specific hardware (Pegasos etc).
So its not about forcing the user to use specific hardware, its about supporting a small subset of mobo's well, rather than loads of mobo's shoddily.
Rassilon
-
No. I called the policy stupid, not the people. I know English is not your native language, but you should really make the effort.
Ok, so that makes us people with only an inflated ego with stupid ideas, right? Sounds a bit like splitting hairs.
That's a personal opinion, I admit, but yes, I do think most of the personalities involved have inflated egos.
Personal or not, it doesn't mean it is any less offensive. My personal opinion may be that person X is a blatant idiot (note: MAY BE. I didn't call anyone anything), but uttering it would make it offensive nontheless. So stating that you don't want to offend someone and calling him stupid (ok, stating that he makes something stupid, which is good enough) or inflated ego is distrubing to say the least.
Why don't you address the issues instead of snipping them out?
What issues? All I saw from you was a hypocritical post stating you don't want to offend someone and do it anyway?
Why should customers pay a licensing premium so that the hardware manufacturer or the system vendor becomes their first line of software support?
I don't understand where you get the idea that a customer needs to pay a licence fee. The board manufacturer does, and yes, it makes the board more expensive by a few euros, but you are getting something back for it. If it where sold by us directly, it would probably be more expensive.
I would uderstand it if the hardware manufacturer paid the licence fee so that YOU, the software developer takes on the software support responsibilities of supporting their hardware, but not just for the priviledge of increasing your sales while relieving you of the burden of support as well.
I know English is not my native language (as you correctly pointed out yourself), but where did I say that it frees us from the burden of support? It just distributes the support issues. If someone has a problem with Eyetech hardware, he contacts Eyetech first, which I think is quite natural. If things turn out not to be an Eyetech issue, the AmigaOS 4 team takes over. Where does that free us from any support issue? In the end, if it isn't a hardware issue, it *will* end up on my plate. Where is the problem?
It's not like AmigaOS4 is a world famous killer application anyone would die for, is it?
That remark is completely uncalled for. The reasoning for this thread *was* that someone specifically *wanted* to run OS 4 on the Pegasos. I wasn't suggesting anywhere that everyone must have OS 4. As you said yourself, if you don't want it, you don't need to buy it, no one is forcing you.
However, the whole point is that *IF* you want it to run on your hardware, you *must* get a licence for it. The same applies to every software product that you buy - even GPL'ed programs come with a licence that you need to comply with. If you don't like the license, you are entitled to reject it and not use the program in question. Where is the difference? Are you complaining that the GPL forces you to open-source all modifications and derivative work? I don't think so.
In essense, all I saw from you was an offensive post that got a hypocritical twist by stating that you didn't want to offend someone. It's like saying "You are an idiot, but I mean that in a friendly way".
-
@Rogue
Well, that's fair enough, I hope that Mr Hermans has thought over all the issues. I personally don't want to see "Two Years" of your work go down the drain.
do understand you. If in doubt, try to bring it up on AW.net's "Ask Fleecy" session
Do you honestly think I would get an answer? On that note, do you honestly believe anything that Fleecy says? Are you allowed to disscuss this issue?
(or did the smily face say it all? :-D )
-
@Rassilon
I think you may have misunderstood. Its not specifically about restricting the hardware to run the software. Its about restricting the hardware to a SUPPORTED subset.
Is it really? Once you've settled on PPC only, how big is the range anyway?
The original arguement for not producing OS4 on x86 was due to the myriad of PC hardware that would not be able to be supported.
Yeah, I remember. I don't remember why it was not possible to specify a subset of that which would be certified (which is what Zico was meant to do in the first place) and supported. It would then have been down to system vendors and users to ensure they had supported hardware. Of course, there wouldn't have been an opportunity to artificially inflate prices and maximise margins that way.
If you bring that arguement back to Amiga now, where the market is much smaller - it costs time and money (which is not exactly abundent in the ,market) to adapt an OS for specific hardware (Pegasos etc).
Why? Why should Hyperion have to "adapt" the OS? If it's properly designed, it should just be a matter of using the right drivers, and the responsibility for writing the drivers can be passed back to the hardware manufacturer.
So its not about forcing the user to use specific hardware, its about supporting a small subset of mobo's well, rather than loads of mobo's shoddily.
Loads?!?
Look, let's say I did accept the subset argument. Why do it via this licensing model? Surely it makes far more sense to do it via a certification scheme? The hardware manufacturer supplies all the drivers, Hyperion test and certify them, and the manufacturer pays a certification fee. Then Hyperion have the responsibility for first line software support. The licensing scheme requires the manufacturer to pay a fee, disclose their hardware design specifications so that Hyperion write the drivers, AND be the first line of support for Hyperion's software running on their system. That doesn't sound like a very balanced deal to me.
But it's moot anyway, because people are being forced to tow the line. Any system that is licensed to ever run AmigaOS4 must be bought with AmigaOS4, irrespective of what the user may want to run on it. Apparently the manufacturer can supply non-licensed versions of the same hardware, but it will be impossible for buyers of those systems to ever buy AmigaOS4 without buying a separate complete hardware system, even if the only physical difference is the dongle.
I seem to remember a precedent where people were entitled to get their money back on Windows if they bought it with a system where it was bundled but they didn't want to use it. Will Hyperion or their vendors offer refunds on AmigaOS4 licensed systems if the users don't want to run AmigaOS4 on them?
(Note: that's users who want to buy a licensed system for possible future AmigaOS4 use, but don't want to buy AmigaOS4 now as they plan to use Linux for instance)
Rassilon[/quote]
-
@Rogue
In essense, all I saw from you was an offensive post that got a hypocritical twist by stating that you didn't want to offend someone. It's like saying "You are an idiot, but I mean that in a friendly way"
No. Once again you misquote me.
I did not say I didn't want to offend anyone. I said I am sorry if anyone feels offended, because that is not my intent. However, it is also not my intent to consider people's sensibilities when voicing an honest opinion, and I don't see why that opinion should be supressed because certain people feel offended whenever their assertions are challenged.
You keep saying I never raised any issues despite me spelling it out twice already. Here it is a third time: why should the hardware manufacturer or the vendor bear any burden of responsibility for software issues when it is Hyperion who write the OS and the drivers, get paid for that, AND get paid a licensing fee as well? Shouldn't the hardware manufacturer have to deal with hardware faults only, without having the extra burden of managing first line response regardless of the type of fault it is? After all, if I have a problem with Internet Explorer I don't ring nVidia to get it fixed do I?
-
Rogue wrote:
That is what I meant when I said I don't think these conditions are unreasonable. What I mean when I said I don't know the details is that I don't know any details (like fees etc).
A software company (AInc) cannot try to impose conditions on an entirely different and independent market (hardware). Simple as that.
AInc and "their" product AmigaOS is dependent on the hardware market. Pretending otherwise, or wishing really really really hard, will not change this.
I'm not aiming at this at you, the Hyperion developers, I just cannot fathom how AInc in their wildest hallucinations could ever believe that AmigaOS would sell better if it's not allowed to be sold.
Does anyone but Shawn-the-bus-arch-troll still believe that there's "Amiga hardware" or even any need or reason for such - or that it'd be a good idea to pretend that it exists by creating artificial barriers for AmigaOS users on the normal hardware market?
Like I said before, the two primary reasons for the licencing are offloading parts of the support burden to the licensee,
Tough ####. It won't happen. AInc might be totally disconnected from the real world and honestly expect hardware vendors/dealers/OEMs to appear and want to sell and support AInc's software product for AInc. If someone voluntarily would like to pay for the privilege of doing that and get a license, then that's just great (witness Eyetech). But it's fatally idiotic to not offer boxed sales of AmigaOS at all; to not only expect but make yourselves (AInc) and AmigaOS SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY dependent on the improbable to happen - new hardware trademark licensees and thus sales of your product and making necessary ports to more hardware at all possible.
and prevention of piracy - because if you already have OS 4 with the board, you're not going to copy it.
The anti-piracy excuse is so transparent and irrelevant it's not even funny any longer, not even in the old tragicomic way.
Making hardware vendors supply the anti-piracy mechanism (firmware dongle, USB dongle, whatever) is of course no more (or less) secure than having the software vendor supply it, as is normal.
Not allowing sales of boxed software copies is NOT a smart way to "stop" piracy (increasing ratio of payed for copies). I can't stop being stunned that this still apparently needs to be pointed out. Stop it, AInc, you forgot to take the baby out of the filthy bathwater!
The hare-brained scheme that's been annouced will only guarantee that the only people having options (i.e. getting a better product) when it comes to hardware vendors will be pirates, those who will download the cracked OS that no longer checks for something as utterly meaningless as that the user bought his hardware at a certain vendor. Honest, paying people will have to participate in the sad "Amiga hardware market" charade.
Less sales, a less attractive product, fewer options, higher prices, unaffected pirates. Yay. :P
Can't we just drop the "anti-piracy" card? It's just tedious to see it still being played.
-
@Seehund
Can't we just drop the "anti-piracy" card? It's just tedious to see it still being played.
It won't be dropped because it scores emotional points. How can anyone criticise anything designed to combat piracy?
It comes down to siege mentality:
it is better to have 2000 genuine sales and 0 pirated copies than 5000 genuine sales and 50000 pirated copies.
That's what I call "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
-
@Bill
If you ever read any of my posts on A.org or AW.net you'll see I always have trouble trying to say what I mean :o/ So I'll have another crack at it....
The licensing scheme is put there by Amiga Inc (Not Hyperion) to guaruntee that OS4 will work on certified hardware. So far only Eyetech with their AmigaOne have applied for this certification.
With that sorted Hyperion can write the mobo specific parts of the OS4 distribution. As you say with a PPC based mobo, its mainly the drivers that have to be re-written.
So by certifying each hardware solution for OS4 Amiga Inc probably gets a royalty, and the consumer gets a hardware/software combo that they know will work.
If you think about it, its not the certification that limits the number of different mobo's for which OS4 is available, its the number of mobo's whose manufacturers wish to have OS4 run on them.
If the manufacturers of the Barbie PPC mobo wanted OS4 to run on it they would contact Amiga Inc.
If a user wanted a mobo to run OS4 on, they would buy a mobo capable of running OS4?!?! At the moment this is only Eyetech.
And as Rogue said, if a user wanted to upgrade his mobo, that originally came without OS4 but is now capable of running it, they may be able to purchase an upgrade pack, much like the Blizzard and Cyberstorm ones.
You can't really specify any restrictions when we are talking about a hypothetical situation, which is what we are doing :o/
Rassilon
-
Rogue wrote:
Forcing people to buy specific hardware just so they can run their chosen software is stupid.
That must be the reason why I can buy MacOS X for Intel boxes and Windows for Mac hardware.
That's an inane and unapplicable comparison, and you should know it.
Apple have their own hardware to sell. So, they won't make their OS for other hardware. (Although there's OpenDarwin...)
Microsoft don't make motherboards/computers, and they don't give a crap from whom you buy your friggin motherboard. They want to sell their software. I think AInc should look into that business idea as well. Selling their products, that is.
It should be obvious to anyone by now, if not from the first day AInc announced that they had a wonderful new implementation of Stupidity, that the compulsory hardware licensing scheme's only real purpose is to create a restricted hardware market, based on nothing but an irrelevant good-old-boys-club and a trademark.
Quick and short-term licensing income to AInc ( $20(?) x 1000(?) Terons = rent money), plus a gesture towards an old and irrelevant "hardware partner" to do whatever the hell they want like, playing "Amiga market" again. It will only strike against AmigaOS and AmigaOS users anyway so who cares, "Amiga" is nowadays supposed to mean trademark licensing income from other people's Tetris clones on WindowsCE...
The "better support" excuse is nonsense. The "protect against shady hardware dealers" excuse is nonsense. The "protect against price gouging" excuse is nonsense. The "anti-piracy" excuse is nonsense. The "better QA" excuse is nonsense. I seem to remember that both me and others have explained why before... The proof has kindly been provided over and over again, quite convincingly, both by AInc/Eyetech themselves, their actions and the hardware that's been licensed, as well as by the basics of how economy works.
The stupidities must stop.
-
@Seehund
The majority of people wanting to buy OS4 will be in three camps:
1) Blizzard users - they will buy the appropriate upgrade pack.
2) Cyberstorm users - they will buy the appropriate upgrade pack.
3)People wanting to buy newer/faster Amiga's - Currently their only option is an Eyetech AmigaOne.
As software developers in a small market its not profitable for Hyperion to write OS4 so that it runs on every PPC mobo out there. So what did they do? They decided to target OS4 for specific mobo's. But how do you decide which ones?
..... by running a certification process. If a manufacturers wants OS4 to run on their board they approach Amiga Inc for certification. - There is no point in spending time and money getting OS4 to run a mobo X if the manufacturer isn't bothered about it and provides no help. Thats where the 'better support' arguement comes in. Why bother trying to support a particular mobo if the manufacturer is being unelpful.
Its encomies of scale really, get it to run on a small selection of baords first, and then when it has proven (hopefully) a success other manufacturers may want it to run on their mobo's.
Rassilon
-
@Rassilon
this business model has been tried before, and failed every time. Why do you assume that it can work this time around?
-
@downix
I am only referring to perhaps one aspect of the business model, but its just not profitable spending time and money supporting numerous platforms if you don't know the future of said platform, or know if there is enough demand.
The certifiction process supports these points by limiting the supported platforms to a manageable amount, and the support of the manufacturer would at the very least suggest there is reasonable demand to justify expenditure.
Rassilon
-
@Rassilon
The licensing scheme is put there by Amiga Inc (Not Hyperion) to guaruntee that OS4 will work on certified hardware. So far only Eyetech with their AmigaOne have applied for this certification.
Actually the licensing scheme was arrived at after consultations between the three partners. I'd guess Amiga Inc were the least influential of the three.
With that sorted Hyperion can write the mobo specific parts of the OS4 distribution. As you say with a PPC based mobo, its mainly the drivers that have to be re-written.
Which should NOT be Hyperion's job. Drivers should be supplied by the hardware manufacturer.
So by certifying each hardware solution for OS4 Amiga Inc probably gets a royalty, and the consumer gets a hardware/software combo that they know will work.
At a very hefty premium, and with absolutely no fallback should one of the cogs fall by the wayside.
If the manufacturers of the Barbie PPC mobo wanted OS4 to run on it they would contact Amiga Inc.
But WHY would they want to?
Let's see:
- They would have to pay a license fee, which even when passed onto customers, would hurt their bottom line.
- They would have to give Hyperion detailed schematics of their hardware.
- They would have to manage first-line support for any problems on their system, including software they have no involvement in. This would include training staff for the purpose.
- They would have to take on the burden of administrating their customers as two distinct groups, meaning they would be administering two products instead of one.
- They would gain an unproven OS based on IP whose future is uncertain.
- They would gain a couple of hundred extra customers at best.
It doesn't stack up too good from where I'm looking at it.
> If a user wanted a mobo to run OS4 on, they would buy a
> mobo capable of running OS4?!?!
And what if a user doesn't want to run OS4 now, but wants to have the option of running it in the future? Why should he have to buy it now?
And as Rogue said, if a user wanted to upgrade his mobo, that originally came without OS4 but is now capable of running it, they may be able to purchase an upgrade pack, much like the Blizzard and Cyberstorm ones.
I'd treat this as speculation unless officially confirmed. From what has always been said, Amiga Inc's license only permits stand-alone CSPPC and Blizzard PPC versions. There has never been any credible suggestion that upgrades will be available separately for anything else.
You can't really specify any restrictions when we are talking about a hypothetical situation, which is what we are doing :o/
We can talk about the declared conditions and the restrictions they impose, surely. Otherwise, what would be the point of imposing conditions at all?
-
@Rassilon
But we're not discussing a certification system at all. We're discussing a licensing system.
-
@meerschaum:
What do you think who is doing the *work* for porting OS4 ?
If there are enough units sold (which is not the case yet) Hyperion could do this work because they would get the revenue. But how can you assure the sales of OS4 on Pegasos if there is no copy-protection mechanism like on AmigaOne ?
But if anytime Genesi (or any other) would make a PegasosOne *with* copy-protection and pay the license to AmigaInc. to be able to run OS4 legally on that platform, then you can say that they have done all to bring OS4 to Pegaos.
Until now they have not done anything like that and therefore it is very unsure if OS4 wil ever run on Pegasos.
Spending a Pegasos to Hyperion just nothing. You can't start writing an OS on a machine that you don't know (internally). And that infos Genesi will not share with their competitors. Vice versa Hyperion will not share the infos on how to write the OS4-HAL (Hardware abstraction layer) on a new machine.
-
Spending a Pegasos to Hyperion just nothing. You can't start writing an OS on a machine that you don't know (internally). And that infos Genesi will not share with their competitors. Vice versa Hyperion will not share the infos on how to write the OS4-HAL (Hardware abstraction layer) on a new machine.
I'm pretty sure that Hyperion'd receive the same support as anyone else who are porting an operating system to the Pegasos (and there are quite many of the kind).
Not to mention AROS - Aros is a competition to MorphOS as well, yet they receive all what is needed.
"They won't provide support as they are competition" is a bit paranoid IMHO
-
Alot of misconceptions in this thread.
OS4 is for AMigaOne and other supported Amigas
To have OS4 available for a particular board, then that board must have Amiga certification, this involves a liscence fee to Amiga Inc.
The purpose of this certification is to ensure the manufacturer complies with AmigaOne specifications, and that adequete hardware support section is available from that company.
An AmigaOne as defined by fleecy in one of the Q&A recently is a certified motherboard supplied with OS4 in a bundle.Amiga certified boards can be sold without OS4, but at the same time they wont be AmigaOnes either.The Dongle is an important feature of this arrangement so ensure OS4 only runs on certified hardware, and that certified hardware comes with OS4 so pirating is uneccesary.
This arrangement in no way relieves Hyperion of any software support whatsoever, it is in place to ensure that there is adequete HARWARE support so that some bodgey company cannot just come along and sell bodgie boards and then hurt the Amiga name.
The only impedance of OS4 going to the pegasos is simply that Genesi refuses to get that certification which is Amiga Inc. method of quality control.
Of course this could change in the future, and has been hinted at by BBRV in other threads.
The other reason for this certification is to limit the amount of hardware that needs to be supported by OS4, hence speeding development time etc, and also reducing the number of places where things can go wrong.
-
@Bill Hoggett:
- They would have to pay a license fee, which even when passed onto customers, would hurt their bottom line.
You are assuming that they would have to pay a license fee, I doubt that you know more about that issue than Rogue. They could aswell have to guarantee a minimum amount of sales to Hyperion (as in: "you want OS4 on your hardware? you'll have to buy XX copies in advance").
And even if they have to pay a license fee: How is paying a license fee any different than paying your own programmers to adopt OS4 to your hardware ("Drivers should be supplied by the hardware manufacturer")?
- They would have to give Hyperion detailed schematics of their hardware.
And that's a bad thing because...? They certainly would want to have Linux running on their hardware (PPC hardware not running Linux wouldn't run much software at all), so their hardware docs wouldn't be the biggest secret anyway. And there's that thing called "NDA" - you make it sound as if they would have to disclose important business secrets to the whole world.
- They would have to manage first-line support for any problems on their system, including software they have no involvement in. This would include training staff for the purpose.
Are you suggesting that a manufacturer should port OS4 to his own hardware ("Drivers should be supplied by the hardware manufacturer") without training his support staff? That idea sounds scary to me.
And as far as I can tell, everybody who sells desktop computers to end users manages first-line support on its own, regardless of the operating system running on the hardware.
- They would have to take on the burden of administrating their customers as two distinct groups, meaning they would be administering two products instead of one.
Right. So a manufacturer (or a dealer or whoever else may apply for a license) does the maths and either comes to the conclusion that it's worth the effort (and affiliated risks) or it isn't.
Let's assume there would be two or three hardware platforms (in addition to the A1) that would be capable of running OS4. Which scenario is more likely to get OS4 ported to all of them:
1. Hyperion (a company with three full-time employees and less money in its bank account than Amiga Inc.) ports OS4 to all of them (financing the port upfront, taking all the financial risks involved with porting the OS), handles end-user support for all five platforms (Classic Amiga + A1 + 3) and still continues to develop new improved versions of AmigaOS.
2. Porting OS4 to each platform is supported - both financially (e.g. by guarateeing a certain amount of sales to Hyperion) and in terms of marketing and end user support - by a third party.
- They would gain an unproven OS based on IP whose future is uncertain.
Sigh. If it's doomed anyway, why should anybody (including Hyperion) bother about porting it to new hardware?
That's like saying: "Only fools would mess with that crap. Hyperion are fools, that's why they are the only logical choice."
- They would gain a couple of hundred extra customers at best.
I guess every remaining Amiga dealer would be very happy about "a couple of hundred extra customers at best".
And you're completely ignoring the fact that both Alan Redhouse and Ben Hermans are pretty busy hyping AmigaOS' appeal to the B2B market (embedded appliances, info terminals etc.).
-
@IonDeluxe
It is their business model, correct. But that model has been shown to be flawed in the past. (see BeInc's early mis-steps in licensing their OS as discussed in the recent Haynie interview)
Blaming Genesi for AInc's flawed business tactics is akin to blaming Met@box for Be going under.
-
Rogue
to me you seem like an OK guy caught up in a tangled web of sh*t, I'd like to see your OS make its way onto Pegasos but I dont know if that will ever happen and to be honest about the license questions? I dont think you answered very much (not your fault)
-
I'll reply to abunch of this tonight, but til then...
Okay, So how is Hyperion suppost to make money on OS4 if licencing is bad. Is all licencing bad? If so, then alot of you have trouble just buying anything...
-
a license isnt bad per-se, but this license isnt public information we call look at, its murkey waters... not clear to anyone what the license stipulates and with Amiga.inc's past history? I wouldnt trust it.
-
@Argo
Same way QNX does: license to end-providors, *not* to solution-providor. So, say Mr. Hardware, for example, wants to sell Pegasos w/ AmigaOS 4. Mr. hardware signs up for the license, and sells machines w/ AOS4 on them. Or to end-users, say meers above wants AOS4 on his Peggy, he pays for a copy, gets the EULA, the USB port dongle which he plugs into one of his USB ports, and goes on his merry way. In other words, the same way Microsoft, QNX, LynxOS, even AT&T handle licensing to incredible sucess. By forcing the licensing onto the manufacturers, AInc cripples their availible marketplace, as manufacturers have, historically, balked at any licensing of their product. (Might I remind everyone of the backlash against the Apple $1 licensing fee for Firewire?)
-
downix I agree entirely, good sensible answer there!
-
Rassilon wrote:
The majority of people wanting to buy OS4 will be in three camps:
1) Blizzard users - they will buy the appropriate upgrade pack.
2) Cyberstorm users - they will buy the appropriate upgrade pack.
3)People wanting to buy newer/faster Amiga's - Currently their only option is an Eyetech AmigaOne.
Slight correction; the people above are the only people that are allowed to buy AmigaOS4. Replace "Eyetech AmigaOne" with "whatever hardware that is or will be licensed", it's still just as abysmal.
That's us hardcore AmigaOS nuts. That "market" alone doesn't make it worth bothering.
As software developers in a small market its not profitable for Hyperion to write OS4 so that it runs on every PPC mobo out there. So what did they do? They decided to target OS4 for specific mobo's.
Which is quite natural and obvious. No software developer no matter their size supports all hardware...
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a compulsory licensing scheme for third party hardware. For all future versions of AmigaOS. If AmigaOS runs on hardware X, we AmigaOS users in contrast to everybody else may not buy this hardware X (which has nothing to do with AInc or AmigaOS) from anyone we like, in any way we like, new or used. Furthermore we may only buy AmigaOS in conjunction with the purchase of one piece of hardware X from this/these licensed dealer(s).
This has nothing to do with the technical issue "with which hardware is this OS compatible?" That should be a simple question of whether there are drivers for the hardware - either by Hyperion or a third party - and whether AInc says that "AmigaOS is compatible with this hardware". Most software companies no matter how small/insignificant/poor seem to manage that simple task just fine.
Trying to substitute a simple hardware compatibility list with restrictions on whom your customers are allowed to buy their hardware from does not make sense. It's counterproductive. It makes the OS (the product that's supposed to be sold) less attractive. It prevents porting to more hardware from ever happening.
But how do you decide which ones?
..... by running a certification process.
Yes, but again that's not what we're talking about. A certification process is allegedly supposed to be one part of the whole licensing lunacy, and if we didn't know it before, it has been proven continuously since it was all announced just how worthless, or inexistent, that process has been. There can be certification without telling customers from whom they're allowed to buy their hardware, that they're not allowed to by the exact same hardware from any vendor they prefer. Hardware is not an AInc product.
If a manufacturers wants OS4 to run on their board they approach Amiga Inc for certification.
Generally, manufacturers couldn't care less about AmigaOS, no matter how much we wish things would be otherwise. However, if AmigaOS was allowed to be a player on the manufacturer's normal playing field, together with other OSes, it could potentially generate extra hardware sales without any licensing/bundling/software support/market division hassles. Like other OSes.
It's nuts to make everything dependent on the hardware market's interest in licensing (with all that involves and with the absence of licensee benefits compared to an open market) for ever even seeing AmigaOS ported to a piece of hardware and for sale.
I've said it before, that if someone would be interested in certification or trademark licensing, like Eyetech today, then I think it would be great. Obviously there are some customers who even give a damn about things like that. But this simply cannot be restricted to be the only venue of development and sales for AmigaOS!
To stick more specifically to the topic of this thread: Say some dealer got a license to sell Pegasoses with AmigaOS. Yay! He gets the right to call it "AmigaPeg" or something. Now, the problem and question remains, why should AmigaOS users/customers only be allowed to buy their Pegasoses from this dealer? Why should AmigaOS lose the opportunity for marketshare among those who bought or will buy their Pegasoses elsewhere?
The same of course goes for Macs, Terons and whatever you could think of. The "licensed" and the "normal" hardware are exactly the same, there are no more Amigas. But we would only be allowed to access a subset of the market, divided by something that doesn't need to be there and can only be removed by those who put it there with a stroke of the pen.
Its encomies of scale really, get it to run on a small selection of baords first, and then when it has proven (hopefully) a success other manufacturers may want it to run on their mobo's.
Very true, but even if AmigaOS would become The Dominant Player on the PPC market (heh), it still would be a crazy idea to reject hardware and vendor options solely on the grounds of a trademark licensing situation. Keep the doors open, and then there might be growth in the first place, and maybe even interest in licenses (however not compulsory ones, from a customer/user perspective). I think hardware targets for porting should be chosen on criterias that actually benefits and matters to us customers and AmigaOS's sales and future, like ease of porting, features, availability, price, current market penetration et c.
-
_PAB_ wrote:
But how can you assure the sales of OS4 on Pegasos if there is no copy-protection mechanism like on AmigaOne ?
How, pray tell, are larger OS4 sales assured when it can only be bought bundled with hardware from a particular dealer, compared to the same sales plus sales of separately available shrinkwrapped (and copy protected damnit, let's drop the "anti-piracy" crap once and for all, please) OS4 copies?
Separate sales for Pegasoses, or whatever hardware, are not assured. Neither are bundled sales. Both combined at least gives better chances.
-
@Downix
I hate you break it to you, but thats exactly how the licensing/certificating scheme can work. Ben Hermans has said so on this very forum (If only I could manage to find his post)
Rassilon
-
@Downix:
Ex-friggin'-actly! :)
Sell licenses to your heart's content.
Just don't put the sales and the future of your product on the line, making yourself dependant on license sales to an independent market that's not interested.
-
Rassilon wrote:
I hate you break it to you, but thats exactly how the licensing/certificating scheme can work. Ben Hermans has said so on this very forum (If only I could manage to find his post)
No. No end-user is allowed to buy AmigaOS (in other words, an end-user license) separate from licensed hardware. The AmigaOS customer/user (you and me) is restricted to and depending on the existence of licensed vendors and licensed hardware.
-
@Rassilon
So then licensing to Genesi is not necessary, since then licensing would be done to either resellers or to end users. So my whole point stands, that Genesi is not the one blocking the port of AOS4 to the Pegasos platform.
-
>But how can you assure the sales of OS4 on
>Pegasos if there is no copy-protection mechanism
>like on AmigaOne ?
Seriously, how can you assure it on the AmigaOne?
The AmigaOne is now available for almost a year
with this copy protection ROM and there is still no
OS4.
But what is there already for several months is a
detailed description and program on Aminet by
Digital Corruption to readout and modify the
AmigaOne copy protection ROM. So I assume that
those pirates already have cracked the copy
protection mechanism and can therefor tune a
LinuxOne into an AmigaOne easily.
So the copyright protection has already been
cracked even before the actual product using it is
out.
-
Wow. I thought before that seeing AmigaOS 4 on the Pegasos 2 might be a possibility but after this thread appeared, I consider it highly unlikely.
I doubt at this point Eyetech have sold any boards not slated to run AmigaOS 4. This guarantees that every one that has sold will be running a legit copy of AOS 4.
The moment any Pegasos machine is sold with AOS 4, the piracy door is wide open. Hardware dongles don't work. They didn't work 20 years ago and they don't work now. It's amazing at times what lengths pirates will go to so they don't have to pay for something. You might not like hearing this, but it's a fact.
I doubt any reseller is going to pay for a license for a machine they sell but don't make. They'd have to pay for the license and for the development of whatever dongle would be used. Honestly, what Amiga reseller has money to burn for stuff like this these days?
And if Amiga Inc have any say in who does and does not get a license, forget Genesi ever attaining one.
(All IMO of course.)
-
That's some pirate group if they can modify a ROM... Seriously, how come that program has been up there for months? You'd have thought someone has had it removed, citing DMCA law and what not.
I'm sure that any determined cracker can break the copy protection mechanisms present inside any given computer---think of all those nice modchips available for game consoles. The question is, as always: is the way to crack the system difficult and expensive enough as to scare off sufficient amounts of would-be-pirates?
-
>That's some pirate group if they can modify a ROM.
Heh. Ok you got me ;)
-
That's some pirate group if they can modify a ROM... Seriously, how come that program has been up there for months? You'd have thought someone has had it removed, citing DMCA law and what not.
Remember that ROM means READ Only Memory. Just look at the kickstart. You can save that off to disk and even modify it or softkick it. Same deal applies here.. They could modify OS4 to load the rom image from disk and access it from ram.
As far as the DMCA goes.. That's US law. Aminet isn't limited to US servers you know.
I'm sure that any determined cracker can break the copy protection mechanisms present inside any given computer---think of all those nice modchips available for game consoles. The question is, as always: is the way to crack the system difficult and expensive enough as to scare off sufficient amounts of would-be-pirates?
Of course. But see my earlier argument about AOS4/Pegasos (or any other 3rd part PPC board.)
-
The way I look at it is this, you had your choice, you bought a Pegasos for whatever reason, and now you're bleating because you can't run OS4.
You pays your money, you should have waited.
I'm not moaning because I can't run OSx on this Wintel box or on a Miggy one...
Some of the Mos crowd (not all) have gone on and on and bloody on about how bad OS4 is going to be and how smashing, great , super MOS is.... and now theyre crying foul play because they can't run OS4.
Stick with Morphos guys, it's much better, you've been telling us that for years.
If it wasn't so pathetic it would be funny.
-
@Madgun68
Wow. I thought before that seeing AmigaOS 4 on the Pegasos 2 might be a possibility but after this thread appeared, I consider it highly unlikely.
I think you're right. It would go against Amiga Inc's wishes and against Eyetech's interests.
Not that I ever thought it was seriously on the cards anyway. Too many huge egos would have to back down for it to happen.
I doubt at this point Eyetech have sold any boards not slated to run AmigaOS 4. This guarantees that every one that has sold will be running a legit copy of AOS 4.
True. It doesn't guarantee a big number of sales though, nor is there good reason to assume that the majority of Eyetech's industrial customers will be using OS4, even if they're entitled to it.
The moment any Pegasos machine is sold with AOS 4, the piracy door is wide open.
The piracy door is already wide open. The dongle, external or in ROM, is just a paper shield.
In fact, the parties are creating their own problem rather than combating it. There must be plenty of people out there who would like to have access to OS4 and MOS on the same system, for a variety of reasons. However, there are no realistic prospects of this being possible legally in the foreseaable future, so a fertile ground for piracy of either or both products is being created right there.
Hardware dongles don't work. They didn't work 20 years ago and they don't work now. It's amazing at times what lengths pirates will go to so they don't have to pay for something. You might not like hearing this, but it's a fact.
It's not so much avoiding to pay for something as it is the culture of cracking and releasing. It's the same culture that was there when the Amiga was in the big time, and which is mostly concentrated on Windows these days. The faces may change, but the culture won't, because those trying to fight it don't understand their enemy.
I doubt any reseller is going to pay for a license for a machine they sell but don't make. They'd have to pay for the license and for the development of whatever dongle would be used. Honestly, what Amiga reseller has money to burn for stuff like this these days?
Don't forget they'd have to provide first-line problem diagnosis too, which involves considerable expense and training in someone else's product.
It ain't gonna happen.
And if Amiga Inc have any say in who does and does not get a license, forget Genesi ever attaining one.
True, but then I consider Amiga Inc an irrelevance now (and I'm being kind).
-
@Skyraker
Who is "crying foul play" here??
Noticed that this threat was started by someone from the red side of the
fence ? Just like all the other allmost identical threats in the last ~15 months ?
Noticed that those from the blue side only stated that Hyperion can port their
OS if they want ?
Noticed that those demanding OS4 for the Peg are mostly "red", and some neutrals ?
I can tell, we at the blue side have very little interest in OS4, except maybe as
a running gag ......
/me waits till someone calls him "insecure" or other bullcrap
-
the rom wont stop anything and they KNOW it wont, thats why I view it more as a control mechanism for legitimate distrobution then as a way to keep pirates at bay, think about it! has there EVER been any dongle that HASNT been broken?, I mean dongled by very rich companies, copy protection that MICROSOFT works on with all their billions, and the recording industry... dongles dont work, they are there more as a way to control the legitimate side of things than anything else.
-
@Coco
I'm not commenting on the original thread, this went waaaaay off topic half way thorugh.. i'm refering to the ones (you know who you are) whingeing about licences and how unfair eveything is.
-
If you want AOS4 buy an AmigaOne
If you want MorphOS buy a Pegasos
If you want AROS buy a platform with a port available, x86 at the moment
If you just want to run systemfriendly programs at faster than m68k speed NOW:run UAE or Amithlon on x86, buy a Pegasos IN THE FUTURE: A1 with AOS4 is another option
And finally
If you want Amiga buy an real Amiga with customchips and m68k :-)
It´s as simple as that :-D
Don´t you remmeber what got us in this situation( being without modern machines and a modern os) from the start?
For me AOS or MOS will only be a temporary solution until I can get a fast and integrated emulation for m68k-apps in AROS. When that comes( in 10years time or so :-) ) then both MOS and AOS will be facing a quick death. :-D
-
@Skyraker
This conversation was pretty civil until you showed up throwing accusations around. I don't give a #hi# what I happen to purchase, I'm still entitled to an opinion and I'm going to express it if I so choose.
Furthermore, these people that are "crying foul" as you put it are important because they are still potential customers. That's important here because Hyperion isn't a charity.
Let's put this another way: IF.. and I state IF.. Hyperion has $100k wrapped up in AOS4 development (and it could be higher, who knows) and they receive $50 in pure profit with each sale of AOS4, they need to sell 2,000 copies before they even break even. That's if they even receive $50 in profit off each sale.
How much they earn off AOS is going to decide whether or not they're willing to stick with it past their current obligations. Are you positive that with the sales from the classic machines and what Eyetech manages to sell they're going to be happy with the results? Can you guarantee them this in writing?
I would think that more potential earnings would be considered a good thing. The only thing we're really discussing here is that, in fairness, the licensing sucks. (Back to the part about opinions.)
-
Madgun68 wrote:
Remember that ROM means READ Only Memory. Just look at the kickstart. You can save that off to disk and even modify it or softkick it. Same deal applies here.. They could modify OS4 to load the rom image from disk and access it from ram.
True, but the original thread implied that the ROM itself was modified. I'd certainly be impressed by that feat of hackery :-D.
Apart from that, I seriously wonder about the feasibility of softkicking these modern machines. We're talking the boot ROM here. That is not the same as the Kickstart ROM. Besides which, the old Amigas allowed softkicking thanks to continuous RAM refresh and resident memory areas, the Cold-, Cool- and WarmCapture-offsets deep in ExecBase, and a very interesting library call called SetFunction(). I have strong suspicions all this functionality has been removed. I would have, if I were to develop AmigaOS 4.
No, methinks the best way would be to extract the code in the boot ROM, modify it, burn it back onto an EEPROM, and bypass the protections that way. (Provided the EEPROM is electrically compatible too!) Far too much hassle for the casual user, in any case. (There was a thread about someone ripping the ROM's socket from the motherboard not too long ago.) Then I also suspect that it will not be easy to boot your illegally acquired machine-readable, deprotected version of AmigaOS 4, as it assumes either a forgiving boot ROM, or that you are already running some OS. And that brings up the softkicking problems again. Double if the machine has set up MMU tables.
Doable, yes. Easy, no.
As far as the DMCA goes.. That's US law. Aminet isn't limited to US servers you know.
Your point...? :-D
-
@Madgun
Fair enough, but the fact remains that some of those who now want OS4 for the Pegasos are the same who were knocking it at every opportunity beforehand.
And correct me if i'm wrong but the current userbase is only 600, what percentage of these will buy OS4 do you think.
Contrary to what you might believe, I actually don't have a problem with a Pegasos port, what I do think is a little out of order are users who bought Genesi's hardware feeling as though they have a God given right to an OS4 port.
-
@Cymric
The fact that it is the boot ROM is irrelevant. The protection code is added to the ROM, but it's not actually part of the boot software (which Hyperion do not own, I believe). As such, you can load the protection code from wherever it should be, be that a ROM, an external dongle or perhaps... a file? It's not likely to be that hard to then persuade the OS that it's reading the code from ROM address space and not standard memory.
All right, that's a simplification, but the fact remains that the ROM protection will prove to be as efective a protection as a fishnet umbrella in a rainstorm.
-
I personally probably would not buy OS4, but I dont think its a bad idea to have it on Pegasos, people act as though pegasos is such a renegade, OS4 on Peg might serv to re-unite the community somewhat?.
-
If Genesi need a license from Amiga inc to get OS4 ported to the Peg, isn't suing them in a rather public manner something of a retrograde step?
-
Skyraker wrote:
If Genesi need a license from Amiga inc to get OS4 ported to the Peg, isn't suing them in a rather public manner something of a retrograde step?
Why would Genesi need to license it? They just manufacture the board. Couldn't Some third party have genesi build the boards, slap a AmigaOne badge on it and resell it themselves licensed as an AmigaOne? (Like Eyetech does)
That should be possible, but Amiga Inc is ignoring requests to do this, Seehund was right on the money about the license scheme limiting options once more boards appear.
-
@Bill
The hardware manufacturer supplies all the drivers, Hyperion test and certify them, and the manufacturer pays a certification fee
So you'd be happy if the hardware manufacture had to do all the work and pay a fee?
But you somehow think it's unfair that Hyperion is offering to do all the work and there may or may not be a fee?
WTF??
-
@All
This is what Fleecy just posted over on AW.net
(The original post can be found here AW.net Fleecy Post (http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1689&forum=14&16))
It is all very simple and has been explained countless times. The fact that it is still being presented as something else gives our legal department great cause for concern.
AmigaOS (and AmigaDE) are commercial products. As a result we have to measure whether there is business opportunity in expending our limited resources to put them on new platforms. This means that when we are approached about such a possibility, we will only move to a formal evaluation when the company or organisation presents us with both full technical specifications and samples, and also with full business plans, including predicted sales and marketing plans.
Only then can we measure whether it is worth our effort. After all, no one is going to sign a contract where we have to support a platform that requires huge resources in exchange for poor sales, or where it is technically unfeasible (or even impossible). For example someone can't sign a contract for putting AmigaDE on a handheld and then demand that it means we also agree to put it onto any device they chose, whether it be an electric toothbrush or a custom vector core super computer.
A formal approach for an AmigaDE port would first of all require that the Tao-Group support the host, either in HW or SW deployment mode. It would then require that the device actually be available and selling in numbers that provide a business opportunity.
A formal approach for the AmigaOS would first of all require that the product be a PPC platform. It would then require that the device actually be available and selling in numbers that provide a business opportunity.
AmigaOS4.0 is not a shrinkwrapped product. It is sold with a motherboard only, and thus comes with a system. Any company wishing to sell AmigaOS4.0 has to thus provide both technical and business information that provides a decent profit for both sides otherwise there is no point. Only a madman would engage in business activity to make a loss.
For the AmigaOS4.0 product in general, we have only limited resources to apply to it. Once AmigaOS4.0 is finished, the majority of those resources will move forwards to the AmigaOS4.1 and/or AG2 platforms. This will leave a small group of resources with the responsibility of moving the AmigaOS4.0 out across different products. Given that these resources are limited, our decision on which platforms and products to support will be strictly on a money making basis.
As for the AmigaOne, AmigaOne is an exclusive trademark which belongs to Eyetech Ltd. They are the only ones who can manufacture and sell a product called the AmigaOne. They can sell these products on to dealers who can then sell AmigaOnes.
This is the final, definitive comment on AmigaDE and AmigaOS4.0 concerning third parties and OEMs having it ported to their hardware. If you read anything else, it is not true and you should report it to us and the parties are mis-representing Amiga Inc in public.
cheers
fleecy moss
cto
amiga inc
-
This is just hilarious, 'legal department' ?, HAH!
-
Rassilon.. Oh, but it ain't official until it's on AmigaIncs own Web
page. :-D
-
It is all very simple and has been explained countless times. The fact that it is still being presented as something else gives our legal department great cause for concern.
Yup, they're down the hall, first right, just passed the AOS5 development lab.... :roflmao:
For example someone can't sign a contract for putting AmigaDE on a handheld and then demand that it means we also agree to put it onto any device they chose, whether it be an electric toothbrush or a custom vector core super computer.
Certianly, but if Amiga Inc. sign a contract for porting AmigaDE to a handheld *AND ANY FUTURE DEVICES*, then Amiga Inc. can't moan if that comanpy wants to make an electric tooth brush and port AmigaDE to it (which if I'm not mistaken was the sort of thing Mr McEwan was origianlly sprouting, Amiga on your fridge, cooker... blah blah blah...).
I think Mr Moss forgot to tow the company line there ;-)
-
> I think Mr Moss forgot to tow the company line there
How do they explain the situation to prospective new lawyers???
Fleecy: We have this revolutionary new product, it's an OS that runs everywhere, we call it AmigaAnywhere. We want it to run on everything.
Lawyer: Ok, so what can I do for you?
Fleecy: Well, we're being sued.
Lawyer: Why are they sueing you?
Fleecy: Well, they want to run our OS on their hardware.
Lawyer: Ok, and what's the problem?
Fleecy: We don't want to.
Lawyer: Why not? Arn't you supposed to run everywhere? What about your contract?
...
How do they explain that to the Lawyers? It looks like to me, with the information that's public anyway, that Amiga's reluctance is personal, rather than business. Could this be the problem that drove the last law firm away?
I don't know, just talking out of my ass.
-
@ To all anti Amiga Incs.
If I see the Amiga going PPC (AmigaOne) - and AmigaOS 4.0 being released....I'd say that Amiga Inc. did one hell of a job.......no matter what their official or legal status is. No matter if it was Hyperion or Eyetech doing all the stuff..........I don't belive they would have done it without Amiga Inc. ;-)
-
Remember that before you laugh at them........they did something very very very good for the Amiga situation.
Show some respect please.......no matter how foolish they've made them selves look.
-
Hondo_DK wrote:
@ To all anti Amiga Incs.
If I see the Amiga going PPC (AmigaOne) - and AmigaOS 4.0 being released....I'd say that Amiga Inc. did one hell of a job.......no matter what their official or legal status is. No matter if it was Hyperion or Eyetech doing all the stuff..........I don't belive they would have done it without Amiga Inc. ;-)
No, Hyperion and Eyetech did the "hell of a job". Amiga Inc. are the ones who consistantly stalled the development of a new Amiga system.
If Amiga Inc. had not beein in the way we would have had a new system much sooner.
-
@ Bloodline
I belive that neither of us is a position to judge whether or not they did anything.....and it dosn't matter who did it.........THEY DID IT!!!!
That's the only thing that counts!
Maybe Hyperion and Eyetech is the workhorse........but it's Amiga Inc. who's got the overall plans and visions for the future which hopefully will lead to a great revival of the Amiga platform.......hopefully!
-
Skyraker wrote:
Some of the Mos crowd (not all) have gone on and on and bloody on about how bad OS4 is going to be and how smashing, great , super MOS is.... and now theyre crying foul play because they can't run OS4.
Stick with Morphos guys, it's much better, you've been telling us that for years.
If it wasn't so pathetic it would be funny.
Sigh... Again someone from the "One Machine, One OS" crowd? I currently use 3 different operating systems on my Pegasos, to my greatest satisfaction. All three has it's strengths and weaknesses.
Luckily we're not living in the computer stone age where we had only one option. Pegasos has and will have plenty OS options - OS4 would be only one of them. Nice or ugly, good or bad, is still yet to be seen. If a port ever happens, that is.
-
Hondo_DK wrote:
@ Bloodline
I belive that neither of us is a position to judge whether or not they did anything.....and it dosn't matter who did it.........THEY DID IT!!!!
That's the only thing that counts!
Maybe Hyperion and Eyetech is the workhorse........but it's Amiga Inc. who's got the overall plans and visions for the future which hopefully will lead to a great revival of the Amiga platform.......hopefully!
From this statement I can only conclde that you are not aware of the last 3 years...
There are plenty of sources of information for you to look up, you will see that one of Amiga Inc.'s first announcments was to state that the Amiga computing platform was dead, and that AmigaDE was the future. This put pay to any AmigaOS for the PPC.
Then AmigaDE, or rather intent turned out to not be suitable for much other than as a system agnostic games platform.
So a massive U-Turn was made, and Amiga Inc. declared that AmigaOS 4 was in production. Fleecy even claimed to have seen it running, and on an AmigaONE no less... probably the same Amiga ONe that was being developed even after Eyetech had stated they were no longer working on an AmigaONE (they later decided to use the Terron PPC Boards instead, which makes more sense than the original thing they attempted to make).
You only have to read the court documents to find out what a massive mess Amiga In. made of this whole situation.
Had they put some dev money into an Amgia system from the word go, then an Amgia system would have been finished years ago... they screwed up.
-
@amigaguy
So you'd be happy if the hardware manufacture had to do all the work and pay a fee?
But you somehow think it's unfair that Hyperion is offering to do all the work and there may or may not be a fee?
WTF??
Thank you for taking that out of context. It helps the debate no end.
I expect that people should supply first-line through to last line support for their own product. Therefore, if the hardware manufacturer wrote the drivers, anything either driver or hardware related should be handled by them. Anything else relating to the operating system should be handled by Hyperion. That is a responsibiliy a company accepts when they decide to develop a commercial OS.
-
@bloodline
Certianly, but if Amiga Inc. sign a contract for porting AmigaDE to a handheld AND ANY FUTURE DEVICES, then Amiga Inc. can't moan if that comanpy wants to make an electric tooth brush and port AmigaDE to it (which if I'm not mistaken was the sort of thing Mr McEwan was origianlly sprouting, Amiga on your fridge, cooker... blah blah blah...).
If I remember correctly, from the details of the Thendic/Amiga Inc contract that have been published, the any future devices was at the discretion of Amiga Inc, ie if they didn't want to port it to the Genesi Pegabrush they didn't have to.
Rassilon
-
Hondo_DK wrote:
Remember that before you laugh at them........they did something very very very good for the Amiga situation.
You must be joking now? :-)
Show some respect please.......no matter how foolish they've made them selves look.
There is nothing AI could do to regain the respect back. Nothing.
-
Guys, take a step back, you've ventured straight into the usual rut of Peg vs. A1, and the usual helpings of corporate slating. Consider that everyone has heard all of this before and try to think up something original and interesting to say.
-
Okay, We've ventured way off topic but it was going better good there for awhile. I'm going to lock the thread before it goes off the deep end. Feel free to spin off in to a new topic(s) from this one. Just try to stay on topic and civil.
-
@ BHogget
You keep saying I never raised any issues despite me spelling it out twice already. Here it is a third time: why should the hardware manufacturer or the vendor bear any burden of responsibility for software issues when it is Hyperion who write the OS and the drivers, get paid for that, AND get paid a licensing fee as well? Shouldn't the hardware manufacturer have to deal with hardware faults only, without having the extra burden of managing first line response regardless of the type of fault it is? After all, if I have a problem with Internet Explorer I don't ring nVidia to get it fixed do I?
[/quote]
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.
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.
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.
I am sure you would be the first to shout if for every revision of the OS you had to have another version of each and every program you had purchased. (i.e. Win95/98/milenium/2000/XP etc.)
As far as drivers are concerned, in the Wintel world, the hardware manufacturer is responsible for providing their own drivers, whether there is a certification fee paid to MS, I dont know, but I doubt that until there is a sufficient market, those same manufacturers will write drivers for OS4. Hence the necessity to restrict the hardware spec required for 0S4.
Essentially it seems this thread is about the same thing from two different angles. Hyperion, quite rightly, want some sort of recompense for their hard work, and it would seem the people on this thread are prepared to pay for the use of OS4. The argument (sorry discussion), is about whether this is through licensing fees for the OS, or certification fees for the drivers.
I am sure the Pegasus/Mos developers are not working for nothing, and I for one, dont expect Hyperion, or Eyetech to either.
Peter Swallow.
-
Rassilon wrote:
This is what Fleecy just posted over on AW.net
*giggle*
our legal department
Mouahahaha
[snip irrelevant drivel on why not selling AmigaOS is the only way to sell AmigaOS]
For example someone can't sign a contract for putting AmigaDE on a handheld and then demand that it means we also agree to put it onto any device they chose, whether it be an electric toothbrush or a custom vector core super computer.
A formal approach for an AmigaDE port would first of all require that the Tao-Group support the host, either in HW or SW deployment mode. It would then require that the device actually be available and selling in numbers that provide a business opportunity.
In that case, perhaps AInc should not have entered a license agreement with Thendic and signed a contract which does not include and even directly contradicts what Fleecy says here...
As it happens, they licensed "AmigaDE" (together with "Any and Other Amiga Marks that Amiga has the rights to") for e.g. a bloody "smart chip reader"!
And now Fleecy indirectly compares a Pegasos motherboard to a toothbrush? He has publicly and repeatedly said that AmigaDE will be included in/with AmigaOS. I think "it's on amiga.com" as well. ;) AmigaOS will run on e.g. computers built on Teron mobos.
Now it's up to the court to decide whether AInc is "unreasonably withholding consent to expand the list of Thendic Products", as their contract says.
My personal thoughts: If AmigaDE is announced by AInc to be ported to AmigaOS and run on a Teron PPC mobo, as well as on things like a Thendic "chip reader", is it then unreasonable of Thendic/Genesi to expect a license for the AmigaOS API compatible MorphOS (or Linux, which AACE/whatever already runs on) plus another PPC mobo, the Pegasos?
I bet the already licensed chip reader has more in common with that toothbrush than it has with a Teron/Pegasos... ;)
But, all that is about AmigaDE, so why should anyone care? Well, I think it's interesting because it's also about the right to use the main AInc "product"; the "Amiga" trademark.
The judge will judge. :)
A formal approach for the AmigaOS would first of all require that the product be a PPC platform. It would then require that the device actually be available and selling in numbers that provide a business opportunity.
Heh, just like the early evaluation Teron CX motherboards then, when they were sold as "AmigaOne G3SE's"? :D Oh, wait. The Teron CX is no longer in production - after how many were sold? Oh, hold on, that "AmigaOne Lite" mobo has not even left prototyping stage yet.
Maybe this is why a shrinkwrapped AmigaOS won't be sold for Macs. They're not available and not selling in numbers, compared to real heavyweights and great opportunities on the market like the discontinued Teron CX. :P
AmigaOS4.0 is not a shrinkwrapped product. It is sold with a motherboard only, and thus comes with a system.
[...]
Only a madman would engage in business activity to make a loss.
Those two statements in succession... Well, he said it best himself.
[snip #### about new fleecian acronyms and talk about future AmigaOS4 revisions, with which AInc has nothing to do other than killing them off]
As for the AmigaOne, AmigaOne is an exclusive trademark which belongs to Eyetech Ltd. They are the only ones who can manufacture and sell a product called the AmigaOne. They can sell these products on to dealers who can then sell AmigaOnes.
WHOA!
I guess he said more than he intended to just now.
The "AmigaOne" trademark belongs to what's supposed to be yet-another-third-party-hardware-licensee?
In other words, whatever hardware this... ahem... licensee could find, they have the right to slap their own "AmigaOne" label on it?
Ooooh, precious "strict certification procedure", "quality assurance testing" and OS4 compatibility tests by AInc... Preeeecioussss.... :P
There is no "certification". Just like everyone with open eyes could have seen for the last two years ("we haven't seen an 'AmigaOne' yet" - Bill McEwen), only now it is in writing by Fleecy.
This is the final, definitive comment on AmigaDE and AmigaOS4.0 concerning third parties and OEMs having it ported to their hardware.
From Fleecy in online fora, or from AInc in general?
In the latter case, AmigaOS is finally, definitively dead.
Anyway, thanks Rassilon for the cross post. It's always hilarious to read whatever Fleecy can come up with. At the same time it's a bloody tragedy when considering the effects.