Licensing vs certification (part deux)

[bhoggett]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bhoggett]

@bloodline

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

[bhoggett]

@lempkee

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

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

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

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

[bhoggett]

@lempkee

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

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

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

[bhoggett]

@Rassilon

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

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

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

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

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

[bhoggett]

@Wilse

This is not certain. If stand alone versions can be released for Blizzard, theoretically this could also happen for Peg.

No it can't. It's been made abundantly clear that no stand alone versions (except for "Classic" Amigas) will be licensed for sale. Fleecy has just confirmed that once more in his statement. It will be impossible to buy AmigaOS4 unless you are buying it as part of a complete hardware+software system.

Even if Genesi got a license, those people who already own a Pegasos would not be entitled to buy AmigaOS4 without buying a whole new hardware system.

Hyperion seem to contracdict that when they mention dongles, but that does not tie in with Amiga Inc's statements.

It won't happen any more than MOS being made available for AmigaOnes. The reasons are political on both sides.

[bhoggett]

@Fats

To my knowledge you can buy A1 without OS4.

Nope. Alan did say he intended to make the motherboard available without AmigaOS4, but that is not the case yet. Even if it did become available, it cannot be called an AmigaOne, because both Alan and Fleecy confirmed that the name is tied to the bundle.

Furthermore, if you did buy such a motherboard without AmigaOS4, you cannot later buy AmigaOS4 for it. You will have to buy a whole new system.

The equivalent is Microsoft telling you that if you don't buy Windows bundled with your hardware, you can't buy it at all.

What is strange is that Eyetech have, AFAIK, sold AmigaOnes without AmigaOS4. The customer is comitted to buy AmigaOS4 when it is released, but they haven't been charged for it yet and it is questionable just how enfoceable such a condition is under law.

Whichever way you look at it, it's a "unique"scheme.

[bhoggett]

@swoop

What you are talking about is the corporate/business model of support.

In these cases the "dealer" is not just selling you a box with the software or hardware, but an entire support package. This is quite normal and how most businesses work.

However, what you are talking about in the Amiga context is someone buying something over the counter of a shop and then expecting that shop to handle all his problems. Small vendors cannot operate this way, because they simply cannot absorb the immense costs, unless you think AmigaOS should cost $2000 a copy or so. Furthermore, a vendor can only provide that support if you only use the kit he sold you and nothing else. As soon as you start upgrading your system with off the shelf components, the vendor won't want to know.

The reality is that neither Amiga Inc nor Hyperion have the support infrastructure to support a product of the complexity of an operating system. Hyperion's support is mostly carried out by the coders themselves and sufficient for their games, but not for complex applications, while Amiga Inc's support is of the "fob 'em off with some BS" variety, or at least that's my personal experience.

The proposed licensing arrangements are designed to benefit one side only, while leaving the other party to carry all the expense and responsibility. Eyetech are happy with this because they were involved in the formulation of the conditions and the unpalatability ensures they get a monopoly. No one else agreeing to the deal thereafter would get that.

I repeat: when I have a software problem with my OS I don't go to my hardware manufacturer. I go to the software publisher whom I have registered my product with.

[bhoggett]

@f94sbu

I find it pretty amusing that you seem to think that the computer industry works totally different from the rest of the commercial industry.

First thing, support is always the responsibility of the person/company/entity that sold you a product and since MS never has sold me a product directly, it is never their responsibility to support me. Support is supposed to go through the retailer. Why else would they be allowed to add 30% on the price of a product?

For getting the product into the hands of the user? To cover the costs of the administration involved in the retail operation, plus a profit margin for the retailer?

If you honestly think every retailer is responsible for giving first line technical support on every software product they sell you're totally mad. The costs involved would be astronomoical.

There is another issue you're all ignoring. First line support includes not only call vetting but problem ownership. Handling this is both time consuming and takes considerable manpower. Don't you realise how much companies that provide this service for the corporate sector charge their customers, and for limited periods? For the retail sector to do the same it would add at least $200 or so for every single software item sold, no matter what the original cost. Operating systems, because of their complexity, would be specialy prohibitive.

I honestly think most of you haven't got a clue as to what's involved in "first line support" for a product like this.

Second, if you think that you can go and ask for a refund of the licence price, try to figure out what the licence cost really is. Cost is never a fixed number, it varies quite abit depending on volume. So, you will never be able to determine the cost of the non OEM part in that case.

Like I said, the legal precedent already exists.

Regarding the superbundle, you said that Genesi owns the software. What? Doesn't the superbundle contain lots of different software licenced from lots of different developers. Please correct me if I am wrong, but your logic doesn't work here imho.

Genesi supply the software. They are the publisher of the bundle. (If I said they owned the individual software copyrights then I apologise for being misleading, but I don't think I did). Therefore it is impossible to prove that they charge their customers for the bundle. In other words the theory would be that Genesi absorb any license costs and supply it to the user for free.

This is not the case with OEM's whose contracts with the software suppliers spells out that the vendors charge for it, specially when, as you say, the fee is closely tied to volume.

Look, let's let it go and agree to disagree. You're not going to convince me without far better researched arguments than you've come up with so far, and I keep having to repeat myself in replying to you. The thread is clearly going nowhere and should be put to rest now we've all had our say.