Pegasos running native OS4 apps?

[Seehund]

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.

Can't we just drop the "anti-piracy" card? It's just tedious to see it still being played.

[Seehund]

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]

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.

[Seehund]

_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.

[Seehund]

@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.

[Seehund]

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.

[Seehund]

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"? 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.

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....

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.