So to say that it's good for the Amiga market to have choice is true from someone within the market, however, overall the lack of a solid standard and a united front against the main PC market makes it hard (or impossible) for the general Amiga market to grow.
I'll go you one further: the Amiga market is, in fact, so small relative to the mainstream market that subdividing it and trying to market either AmigaOS or MorphOS doesn't make the challenge any more difficult. In other words, whether we were "united" with a .05% share of the whole computer market, or divided into Amiga and Pegasos platforms, each with .025% shares, the challenge is still immense. So I'd say, forget about trying for unity. The effort spent would be better put into product development and marketing targetting outside users from the get-go.
There is really only one chance for the Amga to make a comback and that is re-unite.
IMHO the only chance is to have a product that has some convincing selling points relative to the mainstream alternatives. That is, after all, why people buy things. "Unity" amongst a bunch of apparent retro-computing fans means zilch in the bigger picture. What if the Pegasos/MorphOS really were the better product package (for sake of argument)? Would it be better to drop them and rally behind Amiga simply because of the name? This doesn't make sense when in the end it's product features, etc., that people buy, not some dusty brand name. It's all a matter of product features and corporate viability. Of course, if it were possible to have the advantages, such as they are, of both the Amiga name (and fan loyalty in its positive forms) and things like the Pegasos motherboard and Genesi's apparently strong funding, that'd be great. But as long as there are two product paths here, the marketplace should determine the winner (and will, inevitably).
The name "Amiga" is far more powerful then any technical merits and thus makes it a wise choice to become the back-bone of the market.
As others have rightly pointed out, the Amiga brand is at this point in time a rather questionable commodity. Most ordinary mainstream computer users will probably never have heard of it. People who do follow technology will probably be evenly divided into positive and negative reactions to the name, depending on which chapters of the history they are aware of. In the best-case scenario, the name recognition will only give a fleeting moment of warmth. Then come things like feature list, price/performance, software and hardware compatibilities, file format capabilities, etc. At this point the brand name means nothing and any other alt OS is weighed on the same basis.
Sounds like a winning combination to me.
That's fine, but you're already a supportive fan. Ask an objective analyst about the prospects of three tiny, underfunded companies trying to build and market a proprietary alternative to Windows/Intel/AMD and see what reaction you get.
Support for MorphOS is a waste of time in my opinion and only serves to guarantee the complete failure of both platforms.
The same thing could be said about AmigaOne/AOS4. Of course from my perspective the Amiga name brand has little current value, so this is why I think so. It remains to be seen which of the packages is actually stronger on technical merits.
You could also consider the fact that Genesi is in control of its own hardware development, which enables it to leverage technology into different markets. At the same time, while MorphOS is presently tied to the Pegasos, plans are to get MOS onto other hardware. And, as you know, Genesi is actively aiding ports of other OSs to the Pegasos. This is just to illustrate that there are distinct advantages to Genesi's position, something that should be considered before calling support for their products a waste of time.
And Genesi appears to be well-funded and well-run. This is another important factor to consider. It'd start another flame war to try to discuss Amiga, Inc.'s financial and legal troubles here, but the main point is that Amiga, Inc. has bought its IP with borrowed money and has contracted out and licensed development. In contrast, Genesi is self-funded and does its R&D, product development and marketing and promotion. These are significant advantages.
-- gary_c
