Licensing vs certification (part deux)

[DaveP]

I think there is some confusion about OEM on here.

AmigaOS4 ( with the exception of Cyber/Blizzard versions ) is only
sold as OEM.

The industry practise is that the manufacturer bundles something together
with the product that is being OEM licensed and sells it under a brand.

Normally this means that the OEM licensee handles level one support
for the entire bundle ( in this case AOS4 and a PPC board ), level two
and level three support mechanisms are generally handled by the individual
component owners of the bundle.

So, L2 and L3 queries that were Teron related would go to Mai.

L2 and L3 queries that were OS4 related would go to Hyperion.

L2 and L3 queries that were driver related would go to the providers
of the drivers.

So, to recap,

The OEM license provides for bundling, and some level of responsibility
on the part of the licensee for marketing, support and costs.

The OEM licensee is actually the reseller - who has agreed to take on
the task of bundling and L1 support.

Of course in practise customers can still go direct but if it is a bundling
issue they are likely to be rebuffed to the OEM provider.

So all these comments about "hardware manufacturers" taking responsibilities
where they should not be is moot. It is the vendor/reseller/bundler or rather
the OEM licensee that takes ownership of L1 support for the entire
bundle.

So it seems to me that where people get hung up is when they fail
to differentiate between the entity that is the OEM bundler and the
entities that contribute to the bundle under OEM license. This is most
evident when someone that manufactures one component of the bundle
is also an OEM licensee for a bundle that includes one component.

So, in the case of Genesi, consider the hardware manufacturer to be
BPlan, the software provider to be Hyperion and the bundle to be a
combination of BPlan and Hyperion developed products sold under an
OEM license that allows combination of both where Genesi is the
OEM licensee for both components.

Those that issue the OEM license are well within their rights to
stipulate terms and conditions for the license. If the potential licensee
does not like the terms and conditions - then they don't have to become
an OEM licensee.

This is at least the way it works for IBM OEM agreements in both
directions.

[DaveP]

I also just read Bills point about costs being astronomical. That is why
sometimes ( in fact more frequently here ) the support side
is "outsourced" back to the component provider for L1 support
( these things are always handled in the contracts ) at a fee. What
sometimes happens then ( and I know, I work next to a department that
does this ) is that a customised exchange number is set up on a
customer support line such that when a customer dials into that number
the call is flagged as say.... oh..... Fidelity Systems Support and
it is handled by the L1 support staff who answer the call with
"Welcome to Fidelity Systems Support", if another line number gets
used it is flagged as X then Y then Z.

The practicalities are seperable from the actual license you know and often
published OEM terms are merely a starting point for bargaining.

[DaveP]

Oh and another thing, I called MicroSoft support for help with the
OEM version of WindowsXP that came with a packard bell I bought
for Julie and they said "Do you have a support ticket from Packard Bell?"

I said no.

They said "Ring Packard Bell on this number, or contact the shop where
you bought the equipment"

PC World in the UK hires a plethora of staff to help with L1 support
queries, Packard Bell provides L1 support for their Windows/PC OEM bundles
( which I went through and eventually found it was actually a packard
bell specific patch that was needed ).

So don't say it doesn't happen.

It might not be "fair" but it does happen.