The AmigaOne is NOT "just a Teron board"!

[Tigger]

Graak wrote:
Even if the AmigaOneSE/XE boards are identical to the Teron CX/PX boards, does it really matter? I mean, what difference does it make?

Why does it matter??
1) This thread was started by someone saying they werent the same board, to everyone who knows they are, thats a pretty silly statement, those who believe in the divinity of Eyetech continue to argue the point that they are different.   Apparently if you are an Eyetech employee, touch a board and say in a load commanding voice "You are an Amiga" it becomes so, otherwise you are just an unclean Linux board.
2) It points out the lies told to the Amiga Community by Eyetech in relation to the cost of these boards.  Since they arent designing them or building them, it is silly that they are much more expensive with the Eyetech Rom then without the Eyetech rom.   At LinuxWorld is became quite apparent that Eyetech is making a pretty good premium from each board.  
3) Makes it quite apparent that the OS is becoming dongalized (ala XP, though worse) when only "Eyetech" Teron boards will run the OS.  I am very curious how we are going to see 4.0 on the Phase5 boards as I am sure the folks behind the Teron rom dongle arent going to just let you install 4.0 on your PPC amiga without some hoop to jump through.  
     -Tig

[GadgetMaster]

@ Seehund and company

Amiga inc is a company
Eyetech is a company
Hyperion is a company

Companies need to make money

This is how the world runs whether you like it or not.

Its easy to see the world through rose tinted glasses and sigh "if only this or that was true blah blah blah wouldnt it be an ideal world?"

Cant you just wake up. Why have you got anything against those companies trying to make money.

Licencing someone elses product and shipping it with you own name is not a new concept in any industry.

If I want to buy an Amiga branded Teron board then what is your problem. I am more than enough capable of making my own purchasing decisions without some Anti-everything zealots  preaching down my neck "Oooh dont buy this !" "don't buy that"
 "You are getting ripped off!"They are killing amiga!!

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!

I vote with my wallet and will make whomsoever I choose a little richer with my hard earned cash.

How many copies of OS4 do you think would really sell if at this point it was made available on any PPC platform??? It is hardly a revolutionary OS that people are going to rush out to buy . Its a limited interest OS aimed at providing the beginning of an upgrade path to the existing userbase. If it is succesful then and only then can you expect them to broaden their horizons to target the mature PC userbase.

Its money that allows a company to create a product that can compete in the marketplace and what you propose would kill these companies before they recouped a single penny of their investment.

They have much more money and time invested in the Amiga platform on a commercial level than any of you have.

So no THEY are not out to get us but your rants ARE beginning to wear me down.

Stop trying heartlessly an selfishly to abort an unborn foetus.



I am not really a frequent visitor of Amiga sites anymore and I am not one to get involved in flame wars but I just had to get this out of my system.

[strobe]

This bears repeating:

IT'S THE SAME BOARD!

So go stick that in your whatever and do whatever to it.

Crap, how did this thread get so long?

[samface]

I roll my own and I smoke a pipe, but there's nothing besides tobacco in it...

Hmmm... How do you know that? I mean, perhaps the tobacco company is only the trademark owner of what you think is a tobacco company? Perhaps they have outsourced the tobacco cultivation using certain licensing policies which restricts the cultivators from growing "real" tobacco. Ever thought of that?

By this little sarcasm, I just wanted to point out that by your reasoning, how do we know if any brand or product is "real"?

The "commercial" revision of the TeronCX is the "new" A1 G3SE. I don't see why that is so controversial, or why you consider it's "trolling" to say it.

Because there are no changes in the A1 G3SE specifications since Escena got out of the picture. Eyetech got a hold of a MAI evaluation board and modified it to suit their needs. Like Eyetech said, the original Teron CX wasn't even made for mass production in the first place.

Also, the newer Teron CX design is not the first "commercial" version, the so called "evaluation" board was even possible to buy in as large quantity as you wanted with prices in proportion to the quantity (more boards ---> lower price per board). So, that version was just as "commercial" as this new version. However, after Eyetech became a partner, they now have much cheaper boards with better specifications due to a more mass production friendly design. Your theory simply fails to fit into any logic here as MAI was never interested in creating a mass production adopted design in the first place. This was even explained very clearly on their website as the initial design was more of a proof of concept thing for their chipset.

Your speculations are nothing but just that as long as you don't have proof. Show me proof of your theories or stop trolling. I mean, why should we simply believe you when official information as well as facts speaks an entirely different language? Because you say so?

Please don't give me that "I've spoken to the developer of the MAI boards" crap as I don't believe in a single word of it. Even if you would have spoken to *one of the people* (please note the use of plural) who made the design, his words would be twisted around by you into suiting your agenda anyway. Kind of like the way you twist Amiga Inc.'s or Bill McEwan's words around.

That reminds me, I would like your reply to that thread which we never finished off properly on slashdot. You can reply here as I can simply cross post from there:

>> The AmigaOne is an "Amiga" wether you think of
>> it as such or not.
>
> Oh yeah? And my daddy is stronger than your
> daddy! Lalalala-I-can't-hear-you!
>
> What the hell kind of argument was that
> supposed to be?

You say "no new Amigas" and then my reply is that it is per definition new Amigas as they own the trademark and noone but them define what an "Amiga" is.

> An Amiga was a home computer system that ran
> AmigaOS. The same company made both the
> hardware and the OS. The hardware was a custom
> job, as all computers back then, and the OS was
> dependent on custom chips and tightly coupled
> to the Amiga hardware. The hardware and the OS
> were made for eachother.

That is what *you* think an "Amiga" is but like I said, the meaning of the trademark isn't defined by you.

Sure, what you're talking about *used* to be the definition. But then, please wake up and realize that the definition has been redefined.

> Those days are over. THANK GOD! Unless some
> industry giant or inhumanly rich hardware
> genius comes along and pulls out the fastest,
> most advanced and cheapest hardware anyone's
> ever seen - and can keep up with development
> and pricing - then "new Amiga hardware" is
> something to fear.

Now that is per definition FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), period.

> AmigaOS is all that is left today, and you
> simply cannot have avoided that nobody makes or
> is planning to make any hardware with AmigaOS
> in mind, especially not Amiga Inc. Instead
> AmigaOS will run on third party hardware. No,
> you haven't missed that.

So, are you saying that Eyetech's AmigaOne hasn't been made with AmigaOS4 in mind? Please don't even mention MAI, Eyetech wouldn't have chosen their design if it didn't suit AmigaOS4. I'm sorry but, the AmigaOne has been made available to Amiga users for one purpose and one purpose only; to run AmigaOS4.

>>> I'm sure those "AmigaOne 1200/4000"
>>> motherboards are still praised somewhere on
>>> the horribly outdated amiga.com web site.
>>
>> You should really try reading the official
>> information available from Amiga Inc. before
>> citisizing them. Your speculations are not
>> appreciated, Seehund.
> Oh well. Here [amiga.com] is my "speculation."

That is an old section of the website, of course you will find outdated information there. I'm sure even you are competent enough to find the new AmigaOne section which is here: http://os.amiga.com/products/one/

I mean, I can look at the news archive of Amiga.org or even slashdot, does the fact that they have old information mean that they are outdated? No.
 
> While you read it and weep, please note the old
> humourous references to an operating system
> based on "AmigaDE". It's really good for a
> laugh.

AmigaOS4.2 will have AmigaDE support. That means this information is still pretty much valid as they are talking about a future product.

> Ooooh, they've got that embarrassing old
> Zico [amiga.com] joke still up there! "AmigaOS
> will run on... ummm... a computer... with some
> processor of some kind... And a next generation
> Matrox GFX card! That's mighty important!"

You're reading the corporate part of the Amiga website, of course they present simple concepts. Why would a potential investor be interested in more details?

Anyway, all of this are parts of the former design. Try pointing your browser to http://www.amiga.com and then navigate from there. If anything is outdated, then it is your bookmarks.

Oh, BTW: AmigaOne stuff is AmigaOS4 related, not corporate related.

>> That should read; "In order for your product
>> to be officially AmigaOS4 licensed, the
>> hardware vendor has to:".
> Which is synonymous in this case. What the ####
> is your problem?

Let me put it like this:

That should be "What the COPULATING is your problem?".

If you still can't see it, let's just end this argument right now.

>> AmigaOS vendor? Please elaborate, I have no
>> idea of what you're refering to. You do NOT
>> have to distribute AmigaOS4 with your licensed
>> product.
> "we will require, as part of the licence
> conditions, that a copy of Amiga OS is
> purchased with all boards sold that are capable
> of running it." [amiga.com]

Oh for christ sake! Of course I meant that you can sell the very same piece of hardware either as AmigaOS4 licensed (distributed with AmigaOS4 and the hardware verification bits) or unlicensed (without AmigaOS4 and the hardware verification bits). This means that even if you license your hardware, you can still sell it without AmigaOS4 just as long as you don't distribute any AmigaOS4 hardware verification binaries with it. Licensing your hardware does NOT restrict your hardware to be distributed with AmigaOS only, period.

> I've had it with you. I have said THE EXACT
> SAME ####ING THING as quoted above FOR EIGHT
> DAMN MONTHS, and I even said IN THE VERY SAME
> POST that you're replying to, and you start
> babbling about me failing to understand?

Yes, you are failing to understand the difference in what we're both saying. Things isn't always about what you say but rather *how* you say it. Saying "you have to be an AmigaOS vendor in order to license your hardware" is the same thing as "hardware with the AmigaOS4 hardware verification binaries installed must be distributed with AmigaOS4", but at the same time it isn't. You're saying the right things in the wrong way and I do believe this is intentional.

> Amiga Inc has NOTHING to do with AmigaOS apart
> from the trademark and license.

They OWN the AmigaOS, isn't it relevant enough? They provide support for AmigaOS3.9 on classic Amiga hardware today and they will be providing support for AmigaOS4.0 on AmigaOne hardware tomorrow.

> "Amiga Inc ALLOWS anyone to become an AMIGA
> HARDWARE manufacturer"? And you compare the
> AmigaOS situation with Apple's OWN HARDWARE?
> And you top it off with basically saying "it
> doesn't suck because it sucks less than another
> totally unrelated and incomparable and
> irrelevant thing that really sucks"?

Exactly. I mean, if they suck more, why don't you have a petition against them instead?

> Begone. You made me SHOUT. My brain hurts.

Don't blame me because you are emotionally involved.

I would also like a reply to a specific contribution I made to a discussion we had on ANN the other day (http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1036645965&category=web&start=301#message306):

>> have the thought that this is actually causing more damage than helping ever
>> crossed your mind, Seehund?
>
> Damage to whom or what, and how? What is it you think could cause damage to
> something? Actually selling the software, or just people saying that the
> software should be available for sale?

So, claiming that:

* the AmigaOne is not an "Amiga" computer at all
* Amiga Inc. isn't interested in the Amiga desktop market at all
* their hardware licensing policies will kill the Amiga market
* they are repeating the mistakes of commodore

all over every computer related news website on the net isn't the slightest little bit of damaging PR? I mean, if you haven't followed the Amiga the last decade, why should you even bother looking at it if this is the information you get? I'm telling you: IT ISN'T HELPING YOUR CAUSE! It will only make people look away and most definitly contribute to your doom predictions. And if this happens, like the little prick that you are, you will probably go around telling everyone how right you were.

Now, I could make this post ALOT longer if I wanted to, as there are ALOT of flaws in your (internet) widely spread theories. I normally don't bother with people like you but your actions has simply gone too far. This Anti Amiga Inc. PR of yours simply must be stopped before you kill the little chance that we have left, if any at all exits.

Surprise me by replying with perfectly sensible logic. No, that would more than just surprise me, it would probably give me a fatal shock.

[Seehund]

GadgetMaster wrote:


@ Seehund and company

Companies need to make money
[megasnip]

I'll try to keep this short... To me it seems like you have totally misinterpreted everything that I have said so far (dunno what the "& co." people have said). IMO, the compulsory dongling/licensing/bundling/yadayada restrictions applied to AmigaOS is CONTRADICTORY to actually SELLING your product, AmigaOS. It's an obstacle in the way of seeing even a moderate commercial success and future for AmigaOS. Some try to excuse it with that the obstacle is easy to overcome, but there's no valid reason to have that obstacle there at all.

I don't care about any hardware distributor in particular, Eyetech or any other. It's just hardware. There's no reason to why consumers are supposed to play charity to one vendor over another just because of licensed trademarks. That, if anything, is looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses. It's simply incompatible with commercially sound practices in what IMO fortunately is a largely capitalistic world.

Yes, people can and will vote for products with their wallets, like things should be on a free market. There is however a big fat reason right there to make people "vote" for something else than AmigaOS, and that reason needs to be removed before "the election."

[Glaucus]

This Anti Amiga Inc. PR of yours simply must be stopped before you kill the little chance that we have left, if any at all exits.

I think you give those guys too much credit.  Btw, How's Pro-Pos doing?

  - Mike

[Glaucus]

I'll try to keep this short... To me it seems like you have totally misinterpreted everything that I have said so far (dunno what the "& co." people have said). IMO, the compulsory dongling/licensing/bundling/yadayada restrictions applied to AmigaOS is CONTRADICTORY to actually SELLING your product, AmigaOS. It's an obstacle in the way of seeing even a moderate commercial success and future for AmigaOS. Some try to excuse it with that the obstacle is easy to overcome, but there's no valid reason to have that obstacle there at all.

Apple does it and they get away with it.  MacOS only runs (or is supposed to run) on hardware built by Apple.  Amiga is actually a fair bit more open about it as anyone can build the hardware, all they need to do is get a license to allow the OS to run on it.  It's a dongle, but I can't totally blame them for it either.  Realistically, a legit owner of an AmigaOne and OS4 would have nothing to worry about.  In fact they would never even know about it.

Having said that, Amiga Inc and Hyperion are small enough to adapt and change policy rather quickly.  If it turns out this dongle aproach is counter productive it can easily be dropped.  As a consumer it's definetly not something I'd lose sleep over.

  - Mike

[samface]

It's an obstacle in the way of seeing even a moderate commercial success and future for AmigaOS.

Now all this boils down to your twisted view about Amiga Inc. beeing a software only company. Well, let's try setting a few things straight here:

Amiga is a platform. That includes hardware as well as software. Amiga Inc. has no intentions of changing that. However, they did decide to outsource the hardware production part, but that's it. Their product is still a complete computer, not just an OS.

I do not share your view that they would have greater success if they simply made a PPC OS which would run on anything POP. You see, joe avarage don't even want to nor know how to install the OS onto the hardware himself. For this reason, why sell the products seperately at all? I mean, when you bundle the OS with the hardware as one, won't that basicly kill piracy completely? You see, I strongly believe that the "no piracy" factor is alot bigger than the "nerd who wants to build his own computer" factor.

Also, if we should learn something from the x86 market, then it is the power of the preinstalled bootstrap code. This is how Windows became such a success (surprise: not because of it's great functionality) and effectively killed the competition. Only a fool wouldn't learn from history. To me, enforcing AmigaOS to be bundled with the hardware is simply an act of survival instinct.

[Seehund]

samface wrote:
Hmmm... How do you know that? I mean, perhaps the tobacco company is only the trademark owner of what you think is a tobacco company? Perhaps they have outsourced the tobacco cultivation using certain licensing policies which restricts the cultivators from growing "real" tobacco. Ever thought of that?

By this little sarcasm, I just wanted to point out that by your reasoning, how do we know if any brand or product is "real"?

To retort, I know it's tobacco, I know I like the taste of it, and I know the price is agreeable to my wallet. That's all I need to know. Maybe it's "Drum" that has sold some stock of tobacco to "Samson," and I'm actually smoking "Drum" instead of "Samson."

So what? The trademark doesn't matter to me there, I still know that it's tobacco, I like the taste of it, and I like the price of it.

It's hardware, it can run my OS, I like it's features and price, I don't give a sh|t about what trademark somebody has slapped on it as long as those criteria are fulfilled. I shouldn't have to, there's no technical reason. Hardware is a commodity much like tobacco.

The "commercial" revision of the TeronCX is the "new" A1 G3SE. I don't see why that is so controversial, or why you consider it's "trolling" to say it.

Because there are no changes in the A1 G3SE specifications since Escena got out of the picture. Eyetech got a hold of a MAI evaluation board and modified it to suit their needs. Like Eyetech said, the original Teron CX wasn't even made for mass production in the first place.

"Because" what??  Why is it controversial to state the fact that Eyetech is distributing the Teron CX and PX, and why is it considered trolling to say it? Also, Eyetech neither designs nor modifies any designs of any motherboards.

Also, the newer Teron CX design is not the first "commercial" version, the so called "evaluation" board was even possible to buy in as large quantity as you wanted with prices in proportion to the quantity (more boards ---> lower price per board).

Sorry, I meant "consumer release," that's the term the guy who designed the CX used to describe it. And you have always been able to buy the "evaluation" version in single units for $300 directly from Mai, or from a VAR/distributor like Inguard.

That reminds me, I would like your reply to that thread which we never finished off properly on slashdot. You can reply here as I can simply cross post from there:

Oh, look at that, an old thread on Slashdot. Quaint. Hate to disappoint you, you "finish it off properly" instead, please. I don't know the proper procedure.

[samface]

Btw, How's Pro-Pos doing?

Well, thank you for asking but surely you know where to find us, Glaucus? Anyway, we're fine. Major updates coming up during November so please check us out once in a while to keep yourself updated. :-)

PS. We still have a few unassigned tasks, let us know if you're up to any of them. :-) DS.

[Seehund]

Glaucus wrote:

Apple does it and they get away with it.  MacOS only runs (or is supposed to run) on hardware built by Apple.

You can't compare this with Apple. Apple makes, sells and makes a living on their Macs. They don't depend on anyone else to supply hardware for their OS.

In some aspects, you could compare it to how Apple killed off the clone market. Only in the AmigaOS case, there's no hardware to clone, and the OS isn't commercially attractive enough to have hardware vendors dedicate time, money or resources to adapting to the whims of an OS vendor, like Apple actually could get away with during the clone-times.

[ShadesOfGrey]

IMO, the compulsory dongling/licensing/bundling/yadayada restrictions applied to AmigaOS is CONTRADICTORY to actually SELLING your product, AmigaOS. It's an obstacle in the way of seeing even a moderate commercial success and future for AmigaOS. Some try to excuse it with that the obstacle is easy to overcome, but there's no valid reason to have that obstacle there at all.

I'd like to point out (again) that your problem is with the terms of Amiga Inc.'s OEM license.  And the OEM license does place restriction on what hardware Amiga OS 4 can run...  BUT this does not preclude licensing terms for a 'retail' or 'consumer' version not bundle with hardware (well, beyond a USB/serial/parallel dongle).

Do you concede this?

[samface]

"Because" what?? Why is it controversial to state the fact that Eyetech is distributing the Teron CX and PX, and why is it considered trolling to say it? Also, Eyetech neither designs nor modifies any designs of any motherboards.

Now would be a good time to serve the proof, the accusations are starting to become stronger than our stomachs can digest.

And you have always been able to buy the "evaluation" version in single units for $300 directly from Mai, or from a VAR/distributor like Inguard.

That's not what their website used to say. However, no reason for bouncing the ball against that wall again...

[samface]

Oh, look at that, an old thread on Slashdot. Quaint. Hate to disappoint you, you "finish it off properly" instead, please. I don't know the proper procedure.

Well, in case you think my arguments are incorrect, correct me with logical reasoning. It's really as simple as that. If you don't reply, then I interprete that as that you either has nothing to argue against me with or that you simply agree.

Please don't forget about that ANN quote, I'm really interested in knowing what kind of logic you use to explain that.

[Seehund]

samface wrote:

Amiga is a platform. [...] Their product is still a complete computer, not just an OS.

Read less marketing. It's harmful for you.

You see, joe avarage don't even want to nor know how to install the OS onto the hardware himself.

So if Joe Average actually would be interested in a little niche OS, he'd have the option to buy a bundled and licensed "AmigaOne(TM)" system if some vendor voluntarily would feel that Joe Average would be a suitable target market. Imagine that, options.

 For this reason, why sell the products seperately at all? I mean, when you bundle the OS with the hardware as one, won't that basicly kill piracy completely?

Of course not. AmigaOS will run on hardware from third parties, and no matter how much some may wish, nobody can control what happens with normal, "unlicensed" hardware. When OS4 has been out for two days, the dongle code will be cracked and it'll run on "unlicensed" hardware like Terons, and someone will hack it onto a Pegasos. Illegal copies will be the only copies running on normal hardware, even though people WANT TO BUY it. If someone gets a license for distribution with "dongled" Macs, normal Macs will run the OS within days too, and so on.

At the same time, the OS will actually be sold separately to the Amiga market for use with CS/Blizzard PPCs - without any protection.

Then we have people using the excuse "but vendors will be 'allowed' [how generous!] to use USB dongles or whatnot, ROMs are only Eyetech's solution". This is the same as trying to say that a dongle is more efficient when it's distributed by a licensed hardware vendor, than when it's sold in a shrinkwrapped OS package.

The "anti piracy" excuse is so transparent. It's only function is as a hardware-license verification mechanism, it cannot hinder software piracy.

Also, if we should learn something from the x86 market, then it is the power of the preinstalled bootstrap code.

WTF does licensing/dongling/bundling requirements have to do with bootloaders in this case? You're not trying to suggest that an AmigaOS installation should prevent dual booting are you? Or that people already using other OSes on PPC boxen cannot install AmigaOS due to bootloader issues?

[Seehund]

samface wrote:

Now would be a good time to serve the proof, the accusations are starting to become stronger than our stomachs can digest.

What accusations? And why the pluralis maiestatis? I think you're pretty alone in regarding a statement like "company X does not design motherboards, they're a distributor" as an accusation! It's a damn business description.

That's not what their website used to say.

I know, I found the "$3,900" or whatever it is listed so odd that I actually e-mailed them a question about it and got a clarifying reply... A revolutionary concept, this e-mail thing.