[News] Fleecy Moss clarifies on ANN | ANN.lu |
Posted on 20-May-2002 22:17 GMT by SlimJim | 186 comments View flat View list |
For those of you lacking the stamina to wade through the 300+ posts-thread
on ANN (named "the next ppc amiga" ), Fleecy Moss, CTO at Amiga Inc,
made a short surprise visit to dispell some rumours about the BPlan-AInc situation (apparently
after getting the thumbs up from AInc:s legal advisors).
Snippets from various posts:
[...] "For AmigaOS4, Amiga said that it will welcome ANY and ALL hardware companies
which develop hardware. We have spent many hours of email with
representatives of bPlan and in all of them, our line has been consistent.
1.We will be very happy to provide bPlan with an OS4 licence, and to have
OS4 running on the Pegasos
2.Amiga compatability within MorphOS comes from illegally obtained source
tapes and we will use all legal process to prevent it from entering the
market.
It is not Amiga Inc preventing AmigaOS4 from running on the Pegasos. As far
as Amiga Inc is concerned, we consider the two issues mentioned above as
being completely separate."
[...]
"Most of you (with an interest in the truth anyway) have already asked the
obvious question. What would Amiga Inc gain from NOT allowing OS4 to run on
the Pegasos. Answer - absolutely nothing.
The licence terms for OS4 are the same for bPlan as for Eyetech and anyone
else who wishes to sell an Amiga product that runs OS4. It is a typical OEM
licence, and presents a level playing field, for producers, for distributors
and for customers. You will find NO exclusive deals done for any product
that carries the Amiga seal of approval, and no favouritism played to any
company or individual.
Any company that says that they approached us and we rejected them is lying.
They may not have liked certain elements of the OEM deal, but it is the same
deal as everyone else is offered."
[...]
"Anything to do with MorphOS and its 'amiga compatability' will be decided,
so it seems, in the courts."
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
Fleecy Moss clarifies on ANN : Comment 167 of 186 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Aram Iskenderian on 21-May-2002 23:56 GMT | In reply to Comment 162 (Christophe Decanini): Christophe Decanini Wrote:
>"BeOS gained lots more users when it went x86, and yes, it went to x86 when it had no choice. BeOS was also Be Inc's only source of revenue, but Be Inc
>decided to stop investing in BeOS and put all their money in BeIA, which was earning them nothing. "
>
>Why do you think they went to BeIA ?: they were not doing any money selling >BeOS on x86. They had no choice.
>
Where do you get this infomration from?
Here is the USA Be OS was being sold for around $80 in retail stores.
How is that not what I call mot doing any money.
>>The inevitable happened, because you can't keep selling an OS you don't invest >anything in.
>
>Because they did not have a market big enough to support their development.
>
No one has any market in the x86, especially when he/she/it doesn't bring anything new to the user.
Look at Linux, all this hype, still no desktop market.
>"Microsoft didn't kill BeOS. x86 didn't kill BeOS. Be Inc. killed BeOS, and YES, they did have a choice. They made the wrong one, that's all."
>
>Did you miss all the BeOS vs Microsoft story ?
You are reading Be's side only.
Be has nothing to lose if they take someone down with them, and what is better than riding the current wave?
They will have very little change going after someone else.
>Be had major PC companies ready to ship BeOS. Then Microsoft threatened them and Be lost any chance to really penetrates de x86 market.
>
>These OEM contract would have helped Be to have more revenues for development and woudl have gain a momentum to get software from Adobe, Macromedia ...
>
I have yet to see any documentation supporting this.
I am not saying that Microsoft didn't do it in the past when companies wanted to remove Internet Explorer's icon from Windows desktop, but the lack of hardware support, Be's limited mentality, and with an OS claming itself to be media OS lacking multimedia support for popular and common hardware is what made companies look somewhere else.
>And please don't tell us it is FUD.
It is FUD.
It is something that we have seen in the past.
When someone is accused of something, everyone will blame their failures on that.
I am not a fan of Microsoft, and I don't think that Bill Hoggett is either, but fair is fair.
Be tried with Apple, and failed, went to x86, and their market trippled (if not more), they dropped their hardware because they don't enough resources (remmeber the Be Box?), and focused on software development, saw that a company with less than 40 software engineers cannot compete with multi-billion empires like microsoft and Apple, saw this market that everyone was eyeing (the embedded, STB, ....etc.) decided to jump in there, released their OS for free, and then harsh reality bit them in their backsides.
Anyone who was around at that time can tell you the same story. |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|