Pegasos running native OS4 apps?

[bhoggett]

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.
 :-(

[bhoggett]

@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?

[bhoggett]

@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]

[bhoggett]

@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?  

[bhoggett]

@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".

[bhoggett]

@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 /

We can talk about the declared conditions and the restrictions they impose, surely. Otherwise, what would be the point of imposing conditions at all?

[bhoggett]

@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).

[bhoggett]

@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.

[bhoggett]

@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.