mikeymike wrote:
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.
You don't need market restrictions and licensing requirements placed on third party hardware to decide what hardware that your software will run on, nor to simply state to your potential customers what hardware that your software is compatible with. Hardware X in its "normally" sold form is identical to Hardware X when/if it's sold under another trademark license.
OS4 isn't likely to set the world alight, so it makes perfect business sense to get as large a return on as small amount as possible.
It's apparently been decided that there should only be an as small as possible amount to get a return from. I.e. the return on AmigaOS can only come from the few people who are prepared to buy a Teron via Eyetech (or other licensed hardware sold by other licensees - yeah, right...), plus a bunch of Amiga owners with CS-PPCs.
* Presumably Eyetech and Hyperion have or will have some kind of partnership, and as there's more money in selling hardware than software, both companies can have their fingers in both pies.
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. Larger gross income per unit, yes it's possible (at least when we're discussing consumer hw/sw), but not as a general rule to build a business plan upon.
If Eyetech/Hyperion decide to go with a completely different chipset and say the G5 in future, then Hyperion will develop the OS to cater for that as well.
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.
Replace "[whatever hardware trademark licensee]/Hyperion" above with "Hyperion or third party driver developers", and we're set. It'd be nice if "Amiga, Inc." would fit in there too, by actually having a solid vision, set goals, some common sense and some interest in the future of AmigaOS, but everything we've seen from them seems to be shortsighted haphazardly concocted schemes to rake in some small but quick cash from very small or no efforts/investments/products (licensing fees, distribution deals, club memberships/pre-payments).
