The purpose of the "dongle" (AFAIK some code in the BIOS of the A1 that OS4 detects and allows itself to be installed/run) is for a number of reasons, take your pick:
* The smaller the number of configurations that OS4 can be installed on, the less development and testing work that needs to be done.
Which of course is not a relevant reason, and IMO a ridiculous excuse.
Ok, let me put this to you simply. Given a very small budget and that a particularly large return is unlikely, would you like to design a piece of software that works on one platform, or every desktop computer platform, mobile phone, and toaster? Which seems like the less work to you? Think of the amount of extra testing that has to go in, the amount of extra code to handle compatibility for each platform, even more extra bits of code to handle strange quirks of each platform. And we're not talking in this case about just any old bit of software, but AN OPERATING SYSTEM. The thing that has to handle loads of different types of hardware already despite the "supported hardware" standards imposed by Hyperion/Eyetech. Operating system design is a monumental task, even for one platform and a very specific hardware set! If you think it is so easy, where is the AmigaOS port you've been doing in your spare time that runs on all hardware platforms perfectly?
If you don't have some restrictions, customers will complain that your software doesn't work on their hardware setup, and since you didn't specifically knock on their hollow skull and tell them that it wouldn't work, it is totally your fault. Not all operating systems makers have Microsoft's R&D budget.
It's apparently been decided that there should only be an as small as possible amount to get a return from
Or maybe they're aiming at a market that is realistic for them to aim at, at least to start off with.
I don't think that anyone, not anyone who's said anything "officially" at least, would claim that there's more money to be made from hardware than from software.
No, no-one "officially" will admit that. Why do you think Sun Microsystems and Apple are primarily hardware makers? Their OS comes secondary. Microsoft are the only ones who have made it work any other way, and they played the game exceptionally well, as well as throwing in a large number of low tactics that should be illegal.
Microsoft don't like to admit that their main income is from MS Office, but it is.
Now please think about this. An operating system can typically cost say ~$100, anywhere up to that and a little bit beyond. There are few exceptions to this. Now, how many man hours go into making that $100 product? How many buyers is AmigaOS4 likely to net? Now think about the hardware. The variation in costs is so much bigger, all kinds of things can be done to the setup to make it cheaper or more expensive, and generally to make a much fatter return on the product.
That "Eyetech/Hyperion" pair is a problem. Whether there's a licensee for the hardware in question should be irrelevant for development decisions IMO. If there is a willing licensee, then great, but that should not be the stumbling block. I think the question should simply be "is a port technically and commercially feasible?" That should cover it, just as it always has for most software publishers.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
