Pegasos running native OS4 apps?

[bloodline]

@Rogue

Well, that's fair enough, I hope that Mr Hermans has thought over all the issues. I personally don't want to see "Two Years" of your work go down the drain.

do understand you. If in doubt, try to bring it up on AW.net's "Ask Fleecy" session

Do you honestly think I would get an answer? On that note, do you honestly believe anything that Fleecy says? Are you allowed to disscuss this issue?
(or did the smily face say it all? :-D )

[bhoggett]

@Rassilon

I think you may have misunderstood. Its not specifically about restricting the hardware to run the software. Its about restricting the hardware to a  SUPPORTED subset.

Is it really? Once you've settled on PPC only, how big is the range anyway?

The original arguement for not producing OS4 on x86 was due to the myriad of PC hardware that would not be able to be supported.

Yeah, I remember. I don't remember why it was not possible to specify a subset of that which would be certified (which is what Zico was meant to do in the first place) and supported. It would then have been down to system vendors and users to ensure they had supported hardware. Of course, there wouldn't have been an opportunity to artificially inflate prices and maximise margins that way.

If you bring that arguement back to Amiga now, where the market is much smaller - it costs time and money (which is not exactly abundent in the ,market) to adapt an OS for specific hardware (Pegasos etc).

Why? Why should Hyperion have to "adapt" the OS? If it's properly designed, it should just be a matter of using the right drivers, and the responsibility for writing the drivers can be passed back to the hardware manufacturer.

So its not about forcing the user to use specific hardware, its about supporting a small subset of mobo's well, rather than loads of mobo's shoddily.

Loads?!?

Look, let's say I did accept the subset argument. Why do it via this licensing model? Surely it makes far more sense to do it via a certification scheme? The hardware manufacturer supplies all the drivers, Hyperion test and certify them, and the manufacturer pays a certification fee. Then Hyperion have the responsibility for first line software support. The licensing scheme requires the manufacturer to pay a fee, disclose their hardware design specifications so that Hyperion write the drivers, AND be the first line of support for Hyperion's software running on their system. That doesn't sound like a very balanced deal to me.

But it's moot anyway, because people are being forced to tow the line. Any system that is licensed to ever run AmigaOS4 must be bought with AmigaOS4, irrespective of what the user may want to run on it. Apparently the manufacturer can supply non-licensed versions of the same hardware, but it will be impossible for buyers of those systems to ever buy AmigaOS4 without buying a separate complete hardware system, even if the only physical difference is the dongle.

I seem to remember a precedent where people were entitled to get their money back on Windows if they bought it with a system where it was bundled but they didn't want to use it. Will Hyperion or their vendors offer refunds on AmigaOS4 licensed systems if the users don't want to run AmigaOS4 on them?

(Note: that's users who want to buy a licensed system for possible future AmigaOS4 use, but don't want to buy AmigaOS4 now as they plan to use Linux for instance)

Rassilon[/quote]

[bhoggett]

@Rogue

In essense, all I saw from you was an offensive post that got a hypocritical twist by stating that you didn't want to offend someone. It's like saying "You are an idiot, but I mean that in a friendly way"

No. Once again you misquote me.

I did not say I didn't want to offend anyone. I said I am sorry if anyone feels offended, because that is not my intent. However, it is also not my intent to consider people's sensibilities when voicing an honest opinion, and I don't see why that opinion should be supressed because certain people feel offended whenever their assertions are challenged.

You keep saying I never raised any issues despite me spelling it out twice already. Here it is a third time: why should the hardware manufacturer or the vendor bear any burden of responsibility for software issues when it is Hyperion who write the OS and the drivers, get paid for that, AND get paid a licensing fee as well? Shouldn't the hardware manufacturer have to deal with hardware faults only, without having the extra burden of managing first line response regardless of the type of fault it is? After all, if I have a problem with Internet Explorer I don't ring nVidia to get it fixed do I?  

[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.

[bhoggett]

@Seehund

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

It won't be dropped because it scores emotional points. How can anyone criticise anything designed to combat piracy?

It comes down to siege mentality:

it is better to have 2000 genuine sales and 0 pirated copies than 5000 genuine sales and 50000 pirated copies.

That's what I call "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

[Rassilon]

@Bill

If you ever read any of my posts on A.org or AW.net you'll see I always have trouble trying to say what I mean / So I'll have another crack at it....

The licensing scheme is put there by Amiga Inc (Not Hyperion) to guaruntee that OS4 will work on certified hardware. So far only Eyetech with their AmigaOne have applied for this certification.

With that sorted Hyperion can write the mobo specific parts of the OS4 distribution. As you say with a PPC based mobo, its mainly the drivers that have to be re-written.

So by certifying each hardware solution for OS4 Amiga Inc probably gets a royalty, and the consumer gets a hardware/software combo that they know will work.

If you think about it, its not the certification that limits the number of different mobo's for which OS4 is available, its the number of mobo's whose manufacturers wish to have OS4 run on them.

If the manufacturers of the Barbie PPC mobo wanted OS4 to run on it they would contact Amiga Inc.

If a user wanted a mobo to run OS4 on, they would buy a mobo capable of running OS4?!?! At the moment this is only Eyetech.

And as Rogue said, if a user wanted to upgrade his mobo, that originally came without OS4 but is now capable of running it, they may be able to purchase an upgrade pack, much like the Blizzard and Cyberstorm ones.

You can't really specify any restrictions when we are talking about a hypothetical situation, which is what we are doing /

Rassilon

[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.

[Rassilon]

@Seehund

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.

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.  But how do you decide which ones?

..... by running a certification process. If a manufacturers wants OS4 to run on their board they approach Amiga Inc for certification. - There is no point in spending time and money getting OS4 to run a mobo X if the manufacturer isn't bothered about it and provides no help. Thats where the 'better support' arguement comes in. Why bother trying to support a particular mobo if the manufacturer is being unelpful.

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.

Rassilon

[downix]

@Rassilon

this business model has been tried before, and failed every time.  Why do you assume that it can work this time around?

[Rassilon]

@downix

I am only referring to perhaps one aspect of the business model, but its just not profitable spending time and money supporting numerous platforms if you don't know the future of said platform, or know if there is enough demand.

The certifiction process supports these points by limiting the supported platforms to a manageable amount, and the support of the manufacturer would at the very least suggest there is reasonable demand to justify expenditure.

Rassilon

[bhoggett]

@Rassilon

The licensing scheme is put there by Amiga Inc (Not Hyperion) to guaruntee that OS4 will work on certified hardware. So far only Eyetech with their AmigaOne have applied for this certification.

Actually the licensing scheme was arrived at after consultations between the three partners. I'd guess Amiga Inc were the least influential of the three.

With that sorted Hyperion can write the mobo specific parts of the OS4 distribution. As you say with a PPC based mobo, its mainly the drivers that have to be re-written.

Which should NOT be Hyperion's job. Drivers should be supplied by the hardware manufacturer.

So by certifying each hardware solution for OS4 Amiga Inc probably gets a royalty, and the consumer gets a hardware/software combo that they know will work.

At a very hefty premium, and with absolutely no fallback should one of the cogs fall by the wayside.

If the manufacturers of the Barbie PPC mobo wanted OS4 to run on it they would contact Amiga Inc.

But WHY would they want to?

Let's see:

- They would have to pay a license fee, which even when passed onto customers, would hurt their bottom line.
- They would have to give Hyperion detailed schematics of their hardware.
- They would have to manage first-line support for any problems on their system, including software they have no involvement in. This would include training staff for the purpose.
- They would have to take on the burden of administrating their customers as two distinct groups, meaning they would be administering two products instead of one.
- They would gain an unproven OS based on IP whose future is uncertain.
- They would gain a couple of hundred extra customers at best.

It doesn't stack up too good from where I'm looking at it.

> If a user wanted a mobo to run OS4 on, they would buy a
> mobo capable of running OS4?!?!

And what if a user doesn't want to run OS4 now, but wants to have the option of running it in the future? Why should he have to buy it now?

And as Rogue said, if a user wanted to upgrade his mobo, that originally came without OS4 but is now capable of running it, they may be able to purchase an upgrade pack, much like the Blizzard and Cyberstorm ones.

I'd treat this as speculation unless officially confirmed. From what has always been said, Amiga Inc's license only permits stand-alone CSPPC and Blizzard PPC versions. There has never been any credible suggestion that upgrades will be available separately for anything else.
 

You can't really specify any restrictions when we are talking about a hypothetical situation, which is what we are doing /

We can talk about the declared conditions and the restrictions they impose, surely. Otherwise, what would be the point of imposing conditions at all?

[downix]

@Rassilon

But we're not discussing a certification system at all.  We're discussing a licensing system.

[_PAB_]

@meerschaum:
What do you think who is doing the *work* for porting OS4 ?
If there are enough units sold (which is not the case yet) Hyperion could do this work because they would get the revenue. But how can you assure the sales of OS4 on Pegasos if there is no copy-protection mechanism like on AmigaOne ?
But if anytime Genesi (or any other) would make a PegasosOne *with* copy-protection and pay the license to AmigaInc. to be able to run OS4 legally on that platform, then you can say that they have done all to bring OS4 to Pegaos.
Until now they have not done anything like that and therefore it is very unsure if OS4 wil ever run on Pegasos.
Spending a Pegasos to Hyperion just nothing. You can't start writing an OS on a machine that you don't know (internally). And that infos Genesi will not share with their competitors. Vice versa Hyperion will not share the infos on how to write the OS4-HAL (Hardware abstraction layer) on a new machine.

[Warface]

Spending a Pegasos to Hyperion just nothing. You can't start writing an OS on a machine that you don't know (internally). And that infos Genesi will not share with their competitors. Vice versa Hyperion will not share the infos on how to write the OS4-HAL (Hardware abstraction layer) on a new machine.

I'm pretty sure that Hyperion'd receive the same support as anyone else who are porting an operating system to the Pegasos (and there are quite many of the kind).

Not to mention AROS - Aros is a competition to MorphOS as well, yet they receive all what is needed.

"They won't provide support as they are competition" is a bit paranoid IMHO

[IonDeluxe]

Alot of misconceptions in this thread.
OS4 is for AMigaOne and other supported Amigas
To have OS4 available for a particular board, then that board must have Amiga certification, this involves a liscence fee to Amiga Inc.
The purpose of this certification is to ensure the manufacturer complies with AmigaOne specifications, and that adequete hardware support  section is available from that company.
An AmigaOne as defined by fleecy in one of the Q&A recently is a certified motherboard supplied with OS4 in a bundle.Amiga certified boards can be sold without OS4, but at the same time they wont be AmigaOnes either.The Dongle is an important feature of this arrangement so ensure OS4 only runs on certified hardware, and that certified hardware comes with OS4 so pirating is uneccesary.
This arrangement in no way relieves Hyperion of any software support whatsoever, it is in place to ensure that there is adequete HARWARE support so that some bodgey company cannot just come along and sell bodgie boards and then hurt the Amiga name.
The only impedance of OS4 going to the pegasos is simply that Genesi refuses to get that certification which is Amiga Inc. method of quality control.

Of course this could change in the future, and has been hinted at by BBRV in other threads.

The other reason for this certification is to limit the amount of hardware that needs to be supported by OS4, hence speeding development time etc, and also reducing the number of places where things can go wrong.

[cgutjahr]

@Bill Hoggett:

- They would have to pay a license fee, which even when passed onto customers, would hurt their bottom line.

You are assuming that they would have to pay a license fee, I doubt that you know more about that issue than Rogue. They could aswell have to guarantee a minimum amount of sales to Hyperion (as in: "you want OS4 on your hardware? you'll have to buy XX copies in advance").

And even if they have to pay a license fee: How is paying a license fee any different than paying your own programmers to adopt OS4 to your hardware ("Drivers should be supplied by the hardware manufacturer")?

- They would have to give Hyperion detailed schematics of their hardware.

And that's a bad thing because...? They certainly would want to have Linux running on their hardware (PPC hardware not running Linux wouldn't run much software at all), so their hardware docs wouldn't be the biggest secret anyway. And there's that thing called "NDA" - you make it sound as if they would have to disclose important business secrets to the whole world.

- They would have to manage first-line support for any problems on their system, including software they have no involvement in. This would include training staff for the purpose.

Are you suggesting that a manufacturer should port OS4 to his own hardware ("Drivers should be supplied by the hardware manufacturer") without training his support staff? That idea sounds scary to me.

And as far as I can tell, everybody who sells desktop computers to end users manages first-line support on its own, regardless of the operating system running on the hardware.

- They would have to take on the burden of administrating their customers as two distinct groups, meaning they would be administering two products instead of one.

Right. So a manufacturer (or a dealer or whoever else may apply for a license) does the maths and either comes to the conclusion that it's worth the effort (and affiliated risks) or it isn't.

Let's assume there would be two or three hardware platforms (in addition to the A1) that would be capable of running OS4. Which scenario is more likely to get OS4 ported to all of them:

1. Hyperion (a company with three full-time employees and less money in its bank account than Amiga Inc.) ports OS4 to all of them (financing the port upfront, taking all the financial risks involved with porting the OS), handles end-user support for all five platforms (Classic Amiga + A1 + 3) and still continues to develop new improved versions of AmigaOS.

2. Porting OS4 to each platform is supported - both financially (e.g. by guarateeing a certain amount of sales to Hyperion) and in terms of marketing and end user support - by a third party.

- They would gain an unproven OS based on IP whose future is uncertain.

Sigh. If it's doomed anyway, why should anybody (including Hyperion) bother about porting it to new hardware?

That's like saying: "Only fools would mess with that crap. Hyperion are fools, that's why they are the only logical choice."

- They would gain a couple of hundred extra customers at best.

I guess every remaining Amiga dealer would be very happy about "a couple of hundred extra customers at best".

And you're completely ignoring the fact that both Alan Redhouse and Ben Hermans are pretty busy hyping AmigaOS' appeal to the B2B market (embedded appliances, info terminals etc.).