[News] Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware | ANN.lu |
Posted on 25-May-2002 20:50 GMT by Seehund | 187 comments View flat View list |
There's a petition aimed at Amiga Inc. set up at http://www.petitiononline.com/amigaos/ for all those who disagree with Amiga Inc's presented plans regarding compulsory OS/hardware bundling and licensing.
An excerpt from the petition:
On April 12th, 2002, you, Amiga Inc., published your plans regarding distribution policies for the forthcoming AmigaOS4 in an "Executive Update" on your web site.
In short, what you say and what we the undersigned object against is this:
* Any hardware capable of running AmigaOS must first be modified with "AmigaOS specific extensions" to its "boot ROM" in order to be allowed to run AmigaOS.
* Such hardware and its distributors must be approved and licensed by Amiga Inc. and the hardware distributors must also sell and support AmigaOS4.
* AmigaOS will only be available bundled with such hardware.
We think that the above will seriously hurt AmigaOS users, the POP/PPC hardware market and thus ultimately you, Amiga Inc., yourselves.
To read the entire petition and sign it, please click here.
Before those imagining sides, factions, camps and personal enemies everywhere start commenting, it must be emphasised that this poll is not intended to "promote" anything else than the success of AmigaOS, the POP/PPC hardware market, free choice and ethical business practices.
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 171 of 187 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Jules on 28-May-2002 09:04 GMT | In reply to Comment 169 (gz): > Having to sign a compulsory licence deal with AI for getting a "permission" will even harder scare 3'rd party manufacturers away from us.
If they want to supply 'Amiga' machines, it'd be no skin off their nose to sign. Once signed, there's absolutely nothing to stop such a manufacturer from supplying 2 versions of a machine, one called a 'POP' board, the other called an 'Amiga'. If the hardware manufacturer values the Amiga OS, then this agreement is not a show stopper as it doesn't limit any of their other targetted markets whatsoever.
> In my opinion software is made for HW and not HW made for software. A strictly software company shouldn't be in a position allowing them to dictate hardware manufacturers of how to proceed with their products or how to sell them.
Amiga don't dictate anything. The hardware manufacturer is free to do what they want. The only time conditions are made is if the hardware manufacturer wants to run the AmigaOS. In this instance Amiga make stipulations about use for this. Such stipulations still do not impact that harware manufacturers other business (i.e. they can carry on producing their pop boards aimed at other markets). For those who then buy 'Amigas', there's nothing stopping them loading on alternative OS'es later on.
> You can say that nobody has to sign the licence (which they don't) but that is no good for us customers either because it would leave us short with another possibly good HW choice.
Then put pressure on the relevant hardware manufacturer to sign up with Amiga to produce an Amiga computer.
> We can say all beautiful things we can think of this compulsory licence deal,
It's not compulsory. No hardware manufacturer is forced to sign. Thy are only required to sign if they value the AmigaOS and want to provide an Amiga. If they don't, I'd personally worry about buying hardware from them in the first place if what I want is a new Amiga.
> but we will always end up with a closed market in which AInc has control over a market it does not own.
No, it doesn't 'own' the hardware, but as part of the agreement to allow it's software to run, Amiga has certain requirements to be satisfied for such machines.
> Owning a brand name does not give you the right to claim control over an area of industry in which a software company has no part of.
It does if the hardware manufacturer wants to use any of Amigas intellectual property. If they want to use such property, then they have to conform to the regulations of use for that product. If they don't want to conform (and that's their decision) then they won't be allowed to use Amiga products. Considering that the rules of conformity are not outrageous, that's fair enough. Oce again, conformity does no impact that hardware manufacturers alternative markets.
> Even microsoft with their dubious business "ethics" isn't dictating intel and amd what to do with their mobo design and selling.
So what? Just because other companies aren't seen to be doing this, does that make Amigas strategy wrong?
> No, the only market which allows a stunt like this pulled off, is the amiga market which has such a marginal and loyal following and where the hunger for seeing new products for the past 8 years has grown so big that it can blind them.
Or maybe where the market is so small that Amiga cannot afford to lose a single sale to piracy at least in the early stages, and where the relevant hardware manufacturers want some return for their loyalty and their R&D (yes, this agreement is as much to do with helping the hardware manufacturers who have signed as it is to Amiga).
> There are good aspects in the licence aswell, such as the stated software piratism control, and the quality of service assurance. However these things sound more like an excuse to me to cover the control over the market part of the deal.
Why would it benefit Amiga to exert such 'control' if piracy and quality wasn't an issue? Basically, the benefit would be fairly minimal. The Amiga market is very very small. Amiga and associates cannot afford to lose any sales due to piracy at least in the initial period. The hardware companies who have signed have invested heavily into this project and they also need some return. This protects the AmigaOS and also protects the signed hardware manufacturers. It's not an exclusive deal and anyone who wants in on the action has the option to join. If you want to take this argument a little further, by Amiga protecting themselves and their partners in this way, they are also inadvertantly protecting the consumer; it wouldn't be in the consumers interest if the company they bought their hardware from goes bust, or even if Amiga go bust.
> It doesen't make it right to "gently force" HW manufacturers to secure Amiga Inc's profits,
Erm, it also secures the profits of those hardware manufacturers who join. As I said, choice lies with the hardware manufacturers.
> And if they don't do that, it should mean they don't get Amiga certified, BUT it shouldn't restrict them from selling a product freely in our market.
I think alot of people may be missing a vital point here. From everything I've seen, Amiga don't want Amiga 'Certified' machines. They want branded 'Amigas'. Look at it this way. A company starts out producing it's own hardware/software solution called 'XYZ'. It then outsources the manufacturing of the hardware part to another company. The hardware still has to conform to the originating company's specifications as part of the agreement. The ensuing product is still known as product 'XYZ'. The next logical progression would be to open up the market a little and say that any other manufacturer is welcome to produce 'XYZ' hardware SHOULD THEY WISH. That hardware still has to conform to 'XYZ' specs and will be called 'XYZ' (note, NOT 'XYZ Certified' or 'XYZ Compatible').
There are many advantages to this approach.
a) Product Definition
b) Product Awareness
c) Product Recognition
d) Product Quality
e) Product Compatibility
f) Product Support
g) Anti Software Piracy
h) The Chance For Harware Manufacturers to Enter A New Market
i) Guarantee Of Being Part Of The Future Amiga Roadmap
> The freedom of choice should be on the customer.
The freedome of choice still is with the customer. You'll have a choice of Shark based Amiga, AmigaOne, Classic PPC, hopefully Promethius. If sales are seen to be good, I'm sure other hardware manufacturers will be keen to join.
> Whew... Anyways that's all just my opinion so don't sweat it if you don't agree :)
Yep, I don't agree with the majority of what you said, but everyone is entitled to their opinions. Hope I haven't caused you to sweat with my ones :-)
> I can't be more right than you are because we both have valid points, just from different sides of the coin.
Such a shame that more people don't take that stance. Totally agree with you there (although remember, every coin has an edge) :-)
Rgds
Jules |
|
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.
|