Amiga Inc answers your questions (updated)

[gary_c]

Just read the questions and then the answers. It's just that simple.

It'd be simple if a) you knew everything Bill McEwen said was technically sound and he was incapable of saying anything but the truth, and b) the implications of what he said and didn't say were easy to know. But things being what they are, IMO there's plenty to speculate about if a person wants to spend the time. ;-)

-- gary_c

[Insanity]

wayne said:

The biggest problem between what was said and what you see now is that it was sent (by necessity) through the lawyers who wouldn't let him say some things as EXACTLY as he had hoped.

Everybody should ponder that before posting.

[Seehund]

JKD wrote:

WTF is this? A low flying time warp? OS5 on schedule and rockin'? Welcome to 4 years ago.....?

Seriously now....anyone buy any of this crap (apart from the Hyperion/AI OS4 dispute...which seems plausible)

Quoted For Truth, as the kids say these days.

[Tomas]

I see now why AmigaINC has been silent for the last few years. As soon as they dare say anything, people jump at them without even proving them wrong first.

Not a single one of us knows what has been going on behind the scenes. For all we know, OS5 might both be built upon amigaos code and be nearly finished. I am indeed skeptical, but i still try to be open minded about it and will just wait to see what happens. The same thing about the tensions between hyperion and amiga, we just dont know the full story.

I for one look forward to see what it is about and wether OS5 has anything to do with amiga at all.

[Quixote]

;-) Agreed.  I too, look forward to more information from Amiga, Inc.  These answers were illuminating, but they've only whetted my appetite for more.

The products that I'm in the market for are hardware running Amigs OS natively, and not hosted atop something else, as usefull as that can admittedly be.  In particular, it would be nice to see Amiga desktops, laptops and handhelds.

@ Seehund:

:roll: I'm familiar with "QFT" from other sites, and was actually hoping not to see it here....  Oh, well.

[Hans_]

@Argo and all

Discover the McEwen Code
A best seller soon to be a major motion picture...

Really, people.
Just read the questions and then the answers. It's just that simple.

I just started a brainstorming session for a good title for the TV series over at AW.net. Feel free to contribute.  

Hans

EDIT: here's the link

[ne_one]

For those of us that have been out of loop does anyone have a quick reality check on where things stand?

It sounds from reading the responses that Amiga exercised a buy back from Hyperion but there are legal issues concerning outstanding payments for that IP.

A few years ago the Friedens indicated that they had no interest in migrating OS4 to an Intel architecture. Did the tune ever change and see a HAL introduced to make this practical?

I just can't imagine OS4 and OS5 being developed independently unless OS5 was mainly a set of extensions that were to be added to the foundation of OS4.

In the end, it's far too easy to be a naysayer when there is nothing tangible to bank on. The legal and technical hurdles look like a nightmare.

[wajdy]

Mr. McEwen:
Can you please elaborate more on OS5?  :angel:

Answering this question will cool -> :headwall:  down

[Tigger]

how do you expect eh minimig thing to make it to production when bill stated that deceded on someting else...(going a differt direction) how can He get a license to build it?

You need to reread that section, he said that Dennis (minimiga's creator) had decided on doing something else, ie not working with Amiga Inc.  That doesnt prevent anything, for ROM availability we still have Amiga Forever tact (which is likely where they will be going) or use the replacement ROM that is part of the AROS effort when its completed.   You could also require people to get there own ROM file from a current amiga.  
     -Tig

[Damion]

Amiga OS5 FTW!!!!!1!1!!

LOL.

But seriously, much thanks to Wayne and Bill.

:cheers:

[Argo]

@Gary_c

   Well, that is all we have. What was asked and his answers. Speculation I feel is just a waste of time. Same as searching for hidden meanings. It is best just to keep one's eye and ears open and take in all the information that comes their way. Filter out the noise and base conclusion on what you know or think may be true.

[CodeSmith]

@Wayne

(Cc'd from my post at AW...)

Since you seem to be able to communicate freely with Bill, could you please ask him these questions and relay the answers back? I think the answers will clear up most of the questions we have and should not break any NDAs:

Regarding OS5, will I be able to:

1. Take source code for any OS-legal AmigaOS 3.x program (ie a program that follows the guidelines in the Amiga 2.x/3.x programming manuals), compile it with the appropriate tools and expect it to work?
2. Take an OS-legal AmigaOS 3.x program from Aminet and have a reasonable expectation of it working?

These two questions will tell us all we really want to know about OS5 (source and binary level compatibility). Anything else is just details.

[redfox]

Thanks Bill and Wayne.

To Bill McEwen,

Thankyou for taking the time to answer our questions.

Gordon Proudfoot
MicroA1-C with IBM PowerPC 750 GX
AmigaOS4.0 pre-release, update #4

[Scavy]

Thanks Bill for some good answers. It's understandable that you can't go into more details then you have already done.

I think that Bill McEwen has done a good job of answering the questions as good as possible. Remember he is in a position where he can't just tell every single company secret to everyone. That is standard company business. I even think that Bill goes further in providing answers then we could ever hope for.

And for the $500,000 revenue per year limit on businesses that can gain IP license.
That is a good move, and would even be considered standard in many businesses.
From how I understand it: Amiga Inc. is only interested in licensing their IP to companies that are able to get products to market and to stay on the market to help build the brand. Their not interested in small companies just barely getting a product on market and then goes bust without any support for the customers who has bought the amiga branded or licensed product.
IE. their interested in building their brand and not destroying it (even more).

And I would say that $500,000 isn't that much in this type of business.
I own a company generating more then twice that amount in revenue a year. And I would have a hard time sustaining a production of quality hardware and also provide support.
Companies of this size comes and goes all the time. So for Amiga to require that the company to have more then a certain amount of revenue is a good move, in the direction of establishing a more stable market.

[Tomas]

And for the $500,000 revenue per year limit on businesses that can gain IP license.
That is a good move, and would even be considered standard in many businesses.

It might make sense for a big company with a very strong brand and product, but that is not the case with Amiga at the moment. You have to aim low atleast until you have built up the brand name again and have a great product that is also interesting for the non amiga hobbyists. You would have to market it alot to be able to gather any interest from outside of the community and i highly doubt that Amiga inc has the resources to do that.

Atleast you get some promotion of the OS if the amiga community gets their hands on hardware and the OS. I dont think Amiga INC would have much lose on handing out a license to for example ack other than maybe a bit of good OS reviews if the project is realized. Also we would get to build a software archive with more devs getting their hands on OS4 and having a good selection of native apps is also a good thing if they want to take it further in the future.

[JoePillow]

"Hi, it's Amiga Inc here, our security certificate has run out. Can you renew it please and send us the bill" and Starfield said "Yes, Bill, we'll do that right away"

This may apply for any other service, but a security certificate is a statement about who you are. This statement is not accessory to the service, but rather this is what the service, and what you declare, and what is verified, are all about. If you cannot even state properly who you ("us") are, then I would say that you have a problem. And if you call a certification authority pretending that you are Amiga, Inc. (Washington) when instead you know that you are Amiga, Inc. (Delaware), an unrelated company, then that could even be considered something like fraud, I guess.

Of course, this may be bordering conspiracy theory, but think about it for a moment, because it could even make sense: maybe they can't change the certificate, because their little secret is that the new Amiga, Inc. (Delaware) does not own the domain amiga.com. So they can only renew it by pretending that they are the dead company. Which, according to whois data, is the owner of the amiga.com domain. I don't think this is peanuts. People know how much a domain like this is worth, especially if they care so much about "intellectual property", and if they carefully transferred things from one company to the other in several steps. So, I'd be curious to know what is behind this. If it was just a mistake, it could confirm how everybody treated the two companies as if it were one, which is also a bad thing to do, when you are trying to avoid legal and financial problems by setting up a new and "unrelated" company. Certainly, by running two businesses with the same name, as they are doing now out of two states, and even providing and renewing services for each other, and in particular doing so on such important things like your web presence and your digital identity, you don't help support the "unrelated" claim.