OS4 rollout schedule

[HyperionMP]

3. Some claim that Hyperion has to cover high development costs, in a small market, and that justifies milking money from the mainboard manufacturer, on top of charging customers for supplying the OS. Considering that the mainboard manufacturer has had considerably higher development costs, I don't see the moral justification for the software side charging the hardware side. One side gets an OS, the other side gets a platform, costs and benefits are evenly split, and the money comes from the customers alone.

First of all, your statement is erroneous in the sense that we are only charging a per unit OEM royalty. We will determine whether or not it is economically feasible to undertake support of a given platform and a manufacturer might or might not want to induce us by guaranteeing a minimum number of sold copies.

Furthermore, your statement betrays a lack of insight into commercial policy and economics. The consumer always ends up paying the bill whatever license scheme is put in place. The distinction between what the hardware manufacturer pays and what the consumer pays is therefore completely artificial.

Let's not fall victim to the same delusions that have people claiming MSN messenger and IE are free of charge. The consumer ends up paying for it through other products.

HyperionMP wrote:
2. It was claimed that the scheme is used to protect IP by complicating piracy with a hardware device. That's a perfectly valid approach but it is just unreasonable to charge the mainboard manufacturer for a service that primiarily benefits Hyperion. Many of us are developers, none of us requests special chips on mainboards.

Another misconception. There never has been talk of "adding" chips on the mainboard. This is something some MorphOS enthusiasts came up with.

We either require access to the already present  flashrom or are willing to consider some kind of external dongle like a USB token.

Furthermore, we are not charging the hardware manfucturer as such but only a per unit royalty for every copy of OS 4 sold.

So the manufacturer gets OS4 OEM for free, sells the board + OS to end user and pay you a fee for the copy of OS4 they sold?  Is that right?  Sounds fair to me.

[HyperionMP]

That about sums it up, yes.

I honestly cannot see what is so terrible about this.

We don't want to be involved in shipping end-user copies to dealers for several reasons:

1. This would put a strain on us as we would need to put into place an infrastructure for shipping, warehousing and distribution which goes beyond what we have now for selling our games.

Obviously a manufacturer already has this infrastructure in place.

2. We would end up at the losing end of all the piracy. At least with the OEM scheme we'd be reasonably sure that every board sold for the explicit purpose of running OS 4, would actually have a paid for copy of OS 4.

[bloodline]

So when I buy myself an A1 I get AOS4 for free? cool... that clears that up.

[xeron]

bloodline wrote:
ok... bad turn of phrase... but you're a clever bloke you must know what I was saying....

Well, I wasn't meaning to imply that you were bashing OS4, it just seemed like a strange conclusion to draw. When you said "...like AROS did in the early Amiga version", i figured you meant like it actually needed components from OS3.1 to be installed on top of OS4, which would be strange ;-)

HyperionMP wrote:
That about sums it up, yes.

I honestly cannot see what is so terrible about this.

We don't want to be involved in shipping end-user copies to dealers for several reasons:

1. This would put a strain on us as we would need to put into place an infrastructure for shipping, warehousing and distribution which goes beyond what we have now for selling our games.

Obviously a manufacturer already has this infrastructure in place.

2. We would end up at the losing end of all the piracy. At least with the OEM scheme we'd be reasonably sure that every board sold for the explicit purpose of running OS 4, would actually have a paid for copy of OS 4.

Does the manufacturer HAVE to ship OS4 with the board or can the end user say "I don't want OS4 thanks" and therefore pay less?  Or is it a Microsoft style scheme where manufacturers have to sell their PC's with an OEM copy of Windows?  Option 1 is fine, Option 2 is arrogance.

[HyperionMP]

The answer is obvious from 1) the fact that Eyetech also sells boards in the Linux market 2) my post above.

Only customers that explicitly want OS 4 will need to pay for it.

[xeron]

Does the manufacturer HAVE to ship OS4 with the board or can the end user say "I don't want OS4 thanks" and therefore pay less?

Hasn't Ben already said, in many places, that if a customer asks for OS4 they ship a board with OS4, otherwise they get a board that can't run OS4?

[Desolator]

Ehm, Am I the only one here that is actually happy that we GET an OS4 at all?

Too many complaints about this and that and "this person said that so it must be true" chitchatting IMHO.

All my respect and support to the Hyperion guys that continues to create a great OS even if half the comunity play inquisitors on them.

HyperionMP wrote:
The answer is obvious from 1) the fact that Eyetech also sells boards in the Linux market 2) my post above.

Only customers that explicitly want OS 4 will need to pay for it.

And the manufacturer definately only has to pay you for each copy of OS4 they ship?  No up front fee or anything like that?

Can't see why theres a problem shipping it.  The only problem I can see is having to pay you to do a port.  Do eyetech pay you to write OS4 for Teron boards?

Also, what about CSPPC/BPPC Amigas?  Who paid for that port?

[Warface]

We will determine whether or not it is economically feasible to undertake support of a given platform and a manufacturer might or might not want to induce us by guaranteeing a minimum number of sold copies.

What is the "minimum number of sold copies" required for a platform to have OS4?

[Dietmar]

HyperionMP wrote:
That about sums it up, yes.

Ben, you have lost me now. Taking this statement alone, it appears that Hyperion will give the OS to the mainboard distributors for a bundled sale, and take royalties for sold units? That would be a perfectly normal scheme. Until now, I was under the impression that Hyperion plans a certified-hardware licensing scheme (on top of selling the OS and taking royalties).

But that begs the questions: why? Bundling normally is used as an alternative distribution path, not as sole distribution path. If you don't sell the OS as standalone product, won't you be shooting yourself into your feet? Everybody already using a Pegasos and everybody deciding to skip the bundle offer (when purchasing the mainboard) would be a customer lost forever.

[jd997uk]

@Desolator

Ehm, Am I the only one here that is actually happy that we GET an OS4 at all?

Nope. But as you can see, the FACT that Hyperion actually have done something that has been shown, has got certain people rattled. OK, the OS has not FULLY got to a releaseable state, but Hyperion (and their co-programmers) are reaching the final lap (so to speak).
The closer they get, the more the 'noise to truth' ratio will change. Those with agenda's outside of OS4 will raise their volume, in order to (fruitlessly) try and take emphasis away from their efforts.

@anyone

Why, BTW, are so many people clamouring for OS4 to be released on a Pegasos? Surely, if MOS is so good, another "technically inferior" OS would not be needed? Or are the 'powers that be' who are central to the marketing the MOS/Pegasos efforts, worried that that it's their product that will be shown to be the technically inferior one?

Just a passing thought................

 :-P  :-P

-john

[HyperionMP]

Why bundle?

For the reasons outlined above: to cut down on piracy and to reduce distribution related expenses. Again, we do not have an infrastructure in place to handle distrubution on this scale. You cannot compare an OS release for several hardware platforms with an AmigaOS game of which maybe a few hundred get sold.

The hardware certification as you call it is also necessary to ensure proper cooperation and disclosure of the hardware manufacturer.

How does the firmware operate especially when it contains proprietary extensions? We also require chipset documentation of all onboard chipsets etc.

[bloodline]

jd997uk wrote:
@Desolator

Ehm, Am I the only one here that is actually happy that we GET an OS4 at all?

Nope. But as you can see, the FACT that Hyperion actually have done something that has been shown, has got certain people rattled. OK, the OS has not FULLY got to a releaseable state, but Hyperion (and their co-programmers) are reaching the final lap (so to speak).
The closer they get, the more the 'noise to truth' ratio will change. Those with agenda's outside of OS4 will raise their volume, in order to (fruitlessly) try and take emphasis away from their efforts.

@anyone

Why, BTW, are so many people clamouring for OS4 to be released on a Pegasos? Surely, if MOS is so good, another "technically inferior" OS would not be needed? Or are the 'powers that be' who are central to the marketing the MOS/Pegasos efforts, worried that that it's their product that will be shown to be the technically inferior one?

Just a passing thought................

 :-P  :-P

-john

"Technically inferior" is a stupid statement (Both solutions have their own merits and limitations)... But some people, myself included, liek choice... Why do I like having a Multiboot machine at home? So I can run a technically inferior OS?

I like Choice... I want Choice... Give me choice.  please  ;-)

[KPK]

This thread and some other threads could be summorized into a "ask Hyperion" article with alot of answers...

Just a thought (of filtering out the noise...)