17-Aug-2017 09:40 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 68 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 68]
[Rant] Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunkedANN.lu
Posted on 24-Jul-2004 12:37 GMT by Johan Rönnblom68 comments
View flat
View list
For some time now, rumours that the Pegasos is sold at a cheaper price than production cost have been frequent in some circles. Recently, these claims were brought out into the open and could quickly be shown to be based upon incorrect assumptions about the Pegasos hardware. For some time now, rumours that the Pegasos is sold at a cheaper price than production cost have been frequent in some circles. In this thread well known AmigaOS4 contributor Stefan Burström brought the rumour out into the open claiming: "The USERS of a cheap, subsidised mainboard are happy because they have cheap hardware. However, they did not pay the actual cost of the hardware. [...] The Pegasos users may be happy for a short while the Pegasos is cheap, but the truth is that it doesn't finance itself."

He later clarified himself to speak only about the Pegasos 1: "Well, I was refering to Pegasos 1 since that is the only board I have made any homework on, so don't put any words in my mouth I didn't speak.", "I brought it up simply because this 'subsidised' discussion has been here before so I decided to do some homework. On _that_ board. I have no information on the Pegasos II so I decided not to discus it. Simple eh?" and "I insist on it because I am not claiming that the Pegasos 2 is subsidised. Simple eh? This whole subsidised story started with the Pegasos 1 and back then I supported it and did some homework."

Stefan supported his claims by stating that he had experience in the field: "Oh, btw, a part of my professional job is to design cost effective consumer electronics, so I think I have a fair amont of knowledge of the actual costs associated with PCB manufacturing."

He then claimed that based upon his calculations of the Pegasos mainboard PCB cost, the machine must be too expensive to make: "I started out with the PCB to get a starting point of the discussion. [...] I find it hard to believe that a board like this would have a PCB with a cost of 1/3th of the total BOM [Bill Of Materials]."

He explained that his guess was based mainly of his estimate of the PCB cost: "I started building a BOM way back yes. I guess I still have the draft somewhere on my old A4K. I never got that far as checking prices for the more advanced chips though." and "But fwiw, I calculated the PCB cost now just because it was the easiest one to do with most chance of getting accurate prices even 2 years back. For the NB, SB, Ethernet Phy, AC97 etc. it would have been much harder to find the accurate numbers which I started to look up way back."

Stefan's estimate of the mainboard PCB cost: "Right but it is still a ~100 sq inch PCB. 6 or 8 layers I'd guess. Microvias between layer 1-2 and 7-8 to be able to route the BGA's. A small scale production run of such a PCB easily reaches 100 USD per board. And that is before the startup costs for the PCB fab is distributed on the boards." and later clarified that "The expensive part is the micro via layer, not the actual # of the layer it goes through."

The inclusion of a the cost for a micro via layer did not come from knowledge about the Pegasos 1 board, however: "I havn't seen anything but pictures of a Pegasos so I havn't been able to inspect the boards."

Instead, he motivated it by referring to his stated knowledge about PCB design: "Nope, since I know that the Artica is a 492 pin BGA with a ballpitch of around 1.27 mm. Further more, the southbridge is is most likely as similar package as the VT82C686 (I have the datasheet here) which also has ballpitch of 1.27mm. Given a track width of 5 mils and clearance of 5 mils that would make it impossible to route using only through hole vias. Convinced yet?"



However, the fact is that the Pegasos (1 and 2) boards have six layers, that the area is 63 square inches rather than 100, and that they do not have any expensive micro vias.

Thus, it seems that the rumours that the Pegasos 1 (and Pegasos 2, even if Stefan is not among those making that claim) is based on incorrect assumptions about the Pegasos hardware.

Finally, I'd like to give Stefan some credit for having the guts to bring this up in public, rather than keeping it "behind the scenes" where these claims are seldom questioned and are quickly accepted as facts by many people.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 1 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom (193.11.251.131) on 24-Jul-2004 10:41 GMT
Sorry for the quadruple quotes, they didn't show up in the preview.
Better double double quotes than no quotes, I thought.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 2 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström (213.114.40.50) on 24-Jul-2004 10:50 GMT
Debunked? I'd rather say counter argued. Nothing is "debunked" until we see actual verified facts such as Genesi/bPlan's bookkeepings or something along those lines.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 3 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 10:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Sammy Nordström):
> Debunked? I'd rather say counter argued.

In such a way as to debunk the reasoning. The reasoning was based on a set of certain assumptions, if these assumptions are proven wrong, then the reasoning is proven wrong.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 4 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by anonymous (64.26.139.102) on 24-Jul-2004 11:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Fabio Alemagna):
But you are still assuming that anyone cares.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 5 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström (213.114.40.50) on 24-Jul-2004 11:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Fabio Alemagna):
Well, basicly this is Johan's whole case against Stefan:

>However, the fact is that the Pegasos (1 and 2) boards have six layers, that
>the area is 63 square inches rather than 100, and that they do not have any
>expensive micro vias.

And if you read the relevant thread, you will see Stefan repeatedly stating that his calculation was based on either a 6 or 8 layer board, which is confirmed in the quotes of Stefan in news article as well. Johan's point about the layers is therefore rather irrelevant.

Furthermore, the fact that Stefan's calculations was based on a bigger sized design does not support Johan's case either. Everyone knows that smaller designs are more expensive than bigger ones, hence the price difference between a mobile computer and a desktop.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 6 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 11:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Sammy Nordström):
> And if you read the relevant thread, you will see Stefan repeatedly stating
> that his calculation was based on either a 6 or 8 layer board,

That's an hilarious statement, to say the least. You can't give the same price figure for "either a 6 or 8 layer board". The prices are by force different. Moreover, that was a price for a 100 square inches, whilst the peg1 is 63 square inches, and it assumed there were microvias, and the Peg1 doesn't have microvias.

In other words, the premises were all flawed, and thus the conclusions can't be logically inferred from them.

> which is confirmed in
> the quotes of Stefan in news article as well. Johan's point about the layers
> is therefore rather irrelevant.

Yeah, sure. :-)


> Furthermore, the fact that Stefan's calculations was based on a bigger sized
> design does not support Johan's case either. Everyone knows that smaller
> designs are more expensive than bigger ones, hence the price difference
> between a mobile computer and a desktop.

Sigh... :-D Priceless!
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 7 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (81.67.193.222) on 24-Jul-2004 11:23 GMT
AFAIK Genesi didn't make any money on the Peg 1 because they had to exchange it in Peg 1 April.
Now, they have to exchange Peg 1 to peg 2 . in this operation Geneis won't make any money as well. The first goal being to satisfy their customers.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 8 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Sammy Nordström (213.114.40.50) on 24-Jul-2004 11:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Fabio Alemagna):
Yes, priceless... *sigh*
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 9 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Troels (80.62.224.221) on 24-Jul-2004 11:56 GMT
Well as long as Genesi doesn't make enough money to pay it's (former) employes the pegasos is to cheap :-)

I dunno if it's sold below production price but I believe its not, since Gensi probably got a good deal with DCE(those f#cking liars), for cheap production.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 10 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 12:44 GMT
What difference does it make? I mean really, how Genesi does their bookkeeping isn't our concern, so why even bother with these kinds of things?
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 11 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by XraalE (82.40.24.92) on 24-Jul-2004 12:50 GMT
Well, it's pretty obvious, isn't it? If Genesi were underpricing simply to cut out the A1, they'd sell for 50, maybe 100 euro cheaper.

But 400 euro cheaper? Come on. Only fanatics could even entertain that thought.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 12 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 13:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Sammy Nordström):
Sammy, as usual you were comparing apples with oranges. The Peg1/2 mobo is in no way comparable to a laptop mobo, and in no way it's size accounts for higher production costs, as the density of the components on it is basically the same as with other mobo's.

What accounts for the high prices of laptops vs desktops is

1) The LCD monitor
2) The completely custom mother board (no such standards as ATX in the laptop world)
3) The very high density of the components, which in turn also means high number of layers on the PCB.
4) Higher components costs: RAM costs more, HDD's cost more, and so on.
5) Costs of the research involved in getting the computer to, say, not melt for the heat it generates and still not have 4 fans which cool it down.

Get your facts straight for once, Sammy.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 13 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by corpse (172.188.146.109) on 24-Jul-2004 14:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Fabio Alemagna):
" 1) The LCD monitor"

LCD panels are seriously cheap within the industry unless your looking for a pixel perfect class 1 device. Higher prices are attached because they're currently a cool thing to have and they're a bastard to give warranty on.

"2) The completely custom mother board (no such standards as ATX in the laptop world)"

The guys that produces the mobo are probably going to produce the case, the drives etc with a laptop, they have standards of their own. ATX is for a board that will go in a third parties case with another third parties drives etc. Having their own standards means they don't have to spend money making it standards compliant.

"3) The very high density of the components, which in turn also means high number of layers on the PCB."

I don't see this being any different from Micro ITX boards, most ATX boards are pretty sparse because they have to be a certain length and contain bus slots.

"4) Higher components costs: RAM costs more, HDD's cost more, and so on."

Eh? The IC's used for Laptop memories are exactly the same as those used for desktops. They're just packed onto a smaller PCB, the cost of production probably works out the same, it's smaller so cheaper on materials but more complex so you pay more on labour. The reason it's more expensive for the consumer is the "laptop" factor, laptops don't shift at the rate desktops do.

The HDD well .. my Fujitsu lappy has a Fujitsu drive, probably cuts the costs ;). Lets not forget that most of the companies producing laptops also produce components. Batteries are probably the most expensive thing for laptops costing around a tenth of the whole unit price for a replacement

"5) Costs of the research involved in getting the computer to, say, not melt for the heat it generates and still not have 4 fans which cool it down."

You haven't used a recent laptop have you? "Ow my legs are burning" comes to mind.

N.B. You can pick up a decent 14" laptop for under the ¡ò600 mark these days.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 14 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (217.187.202.254) on 24-Jul-2004 14:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Sammy Nordström):
>Everyone knows that smaller designs are more expensive than bigger ones,
>hence the price difference between a mobile computer and a desktop.

Hihi, you are so cute.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 15 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (217.187.202.254) on 24-Jul-2004 14:30 GMT
I think yabba should get a better clue before posting.
If we assume BBRV meant the whole Pegasos board in their "We make five new boards with April 2. Making five April 2 PCBs cost $1800." statement*, a single Pegasos I board costs 300USD.
The CPU card is said to have not 6 or 8 but just 4 layers, too.

How many layers does the microA1 have?

* http://www.flyingmice.com/cgi-bin/squidcgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/85760.shtml
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 16 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (217.187.202.254) on 24-Jul-2004 14:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Anonymous):
>a single Pegasos I board costs 300USD.

Uhm, this should read 360USD.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 17 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (217.187.202.254) on 24-Jul-2004 14:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (XraalE):
The TeronOne was meant to sell at 500USD:
http://www.mai.com/news&events/PressRelease090302.html

See http://amigapop.8bit.co.uk/newamiga.jpg why AmigaOne is so expensive again...
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 18 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (63.201.91.101) on 24-Jul-2004 15:05 GMT
Not development costs LOL.

But bPlan spent alot of time and money designing the board in the first place. Sadly they ran out of money (surprise!) and therefor had to partner with Thendic-France.

Boards production isn't too high if you leave out the costs of designing the boards.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 19 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Nate Downes (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 15:11 GMT
Well, Thendic going under also may have eliminated the R&D costs, as that debt may have been taken on by Thendic-France.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 20 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by priest (80.223.170.229) on 24-Jul-2004 15:25 GMT
Perhaps pegasos should cost more...
BBRV:"Today MorphOS only works with the Pegasos, so as step one we could offer 1.5 (when it is done which could be a year away)"
http://www.morphzone.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=2&topic_id=2560&post_id=20720&viewmode=thread&order=0#20720
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 21 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by priest (80.223.170.229) on 24-Jul-2004 15:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Anonymous):
Someone needs to pay the R&D of the OS and the HW eventually.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 22 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Thomas Frieden (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 15:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Amon_Re):
> What difference does it make? I mean really, how Genesi does their bookkeeping
> isn't our concern, so why even bother with these kinds of things?

Well, the difference is that _IF_ it is true it's illegal in the EU (unfair competition law).
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 23 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by brotheris (213.226.136.231) on 24-Jul-2004 15:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (priest):
quote out of context does no good to your health
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 24 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Tryo (217.237.151.237) on 24-Jul-2004 16:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (Thomas Frieden):
No need for your "IF".

Now you need to search for other FUD to spread internally to brainwash and persuade users to go for your overpriced, buggy hardware with a useless bugridden, incompatible OS that somehow got the name for whatever reasons.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 25 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by XraalE (82.40.24.92) on 24-Jul-2004 16:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (Thomas Frieden):
Thomas Frieden, the hero of GPL-theft, presumes to lecture us on law once more.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 26 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (81.173.168.161) on 24-Jul-2004 17:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (Thomas Frieden):
Well Thomas, why don`t you tell us then? I mean, look your company allways knew sooo much about Bplan, how much articias they had, that the board will never apear, and even if, it would cost a fortune, at least much more then the Aone. Or that MOS is based on stolen Amiga OS Code... Well so why can`t you tell us now, how much a Peg really cost?
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 27 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 17:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (Thomas Frieden):
It's pretty much illegal everywhere, and if it is true it seems to have backfired on them bigtime, judging from their tight wallets.

Personally i don't think that it's us, the users, who have to look into that, that's the job of the people in the industry. And well, it's a sinking ship already
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 28 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 17:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Tryo):
What? LinuxPPC? :D Thomas isn't the one who started this thread, nor did he insinuate that it is indeed being underpriced.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 29 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 17:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (XraalE):
Got any proof for that? Or is it just your brain farting again?
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 30 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 17:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Anonymous):
If you have issue's with statements made by Ben Hermans, take it up with Ben Hermans, i have issue's with statements made by BBRV, do you see me attacking other staff from Genesi?
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 31 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 17:41 GMT
Crap, been taking flamebait again...
*glues sticker on monitor*
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 32 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (81.173.168.161) on 24-Jul-2004 17:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Amon_Re):
well amon, the Problem is, that wasn`t only Ben Hermans... I have mails from some of the Hyperion stuff, (from 2002 or so) which claim exactly that. Not that all of them will make such statements in public, but they do...
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 33 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by XraalE (82.40.24.92) on 24-Jul-2004 17:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Amon_Re):
LOL

Frieden posts unresearched troll bait, I do the same back to him, and suddenly you find *just my* statement unacceptable?

Sometimes I wonder if you have a brain to fart, Amon. Irony is apparently not in your vocabulary.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 34 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by reflect (217.215.157.170) on 24-Jul-2004 18:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (XraalE):
actually, he stated "IF".. did you do that?
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 35 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by corpse (172.190.109.167) on 24-Jul-2004 18:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (XraalE):
"GPL-theft,"

I don't see sticking to the exact letter of the GPL as theft... It's a bit different when someone gets GPL code, uses it.. say in a DVD player and denies all use of the code let alone release their version's source. I don't see the EFF,FSF etc all over Hyperion's backs ;)
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 36 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re (Registered user) on 24-Jul-2004 18:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (corpse):
I don't even have a clue what "theft" he's refurring to, i guess it's because they don't offer the source up for download, but send them out on cd (wich is perfectly legal, but perhaps a drag)
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 37 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by XraalE (82.40.24.92) on 24-Jul-2004 19:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Amon_Re):
Except you have to buy an AmigaONE to get the CD. Nice.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 38 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n (194.106.52.30) on 24-Jul-2004 21:54 GMT
I'll say this for you Johan, you have got some balls for posting this. Shall I resume our little war of words now or hold off for a a while....
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 39 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by minator (81.53.93.251) on 24-Jul-2004 22:00 GMT
I read the thread in question and even commeted.

Mr Burström stated the Pagasos was "subsidised", impling it is sold below cost.
I stated that was (to my knowledge) never the case, I used to work for Thendic-France and I heard the prices, the Pegasos is a lot cheaper to produce that you may think so yes, it makes a profit and always has done.

Mr Burström's estimation of price is based on list prices of components and a wrong estimate of thesize and number of layers for the main PCB (the correct figure is not mentioned in the thread at all).

Nobody is taking account of deals bPlan may have done with suppliers or the numbers produced, the numbers produced is the single most important factor as it pretty much determines the manufacturing price.

--

>Everyone knows that smaller designs are more expensive than bigger ones, hence the price
>difference between a mobile computer and a desktop.

No, thats because they use more expensive components, the cost of a smaller board is lower.

Someone quotes BBRV:
>We make five new boards with April 2. Making five April 2 PCBs cost $1800." statement*,
>a single Pegasos I board costs 300USD.

Producing prototypes in single number quantities is incredible expensive, yes, but they were just prototypes, that was not a production run.

--

If the Pegasos was subsidised it wouldn't be selling at $500, it'd be selling a hell of a lot cheaper - like $50 PC boards.

The pegasos makes money but no it probably doesn't pay for the MorphOS development (yet) or the marketing done by Thendic-France, but thats irrelevant as Thendic-France went bankrupt last Janurary, you can believe me when I say thats something I know *all* about.

--

Now if you think I'm wrong, try posting some FACTS, not guesses based on numbers you've pulled out of your backside.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 40 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n (194.106.52.30) on 24-Jul-2004 22:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (minator):
Mr Burström stated the Pagasos was "subsidised", impling it is sold below cost.
---
Well, The PRE-Production versions HAD to be subsidised, there was clearly no money going to be made on those. Seeing as you and he are in some agreement, May I presume that this 'pre-production' occurred under 'Thendic-France'.

---

I stated that was (to my knowledge) never the case, I used to work for Thendic-France and I heard the prices, the Pegasos is a lot cheaper to produce that you may think so yes, it makes a profit and always has done.
---

Are you including all the production variants that had problems, customers whom needed help, and additional costs. Thendic/Genesi/Whatever name you are arguing as a basis clearly had to take these on the chin, therefore, one could say these were also subsidised, no? Would that be unfair?

---
Mr Burström's estimation of price is based on list prices of components and a wrong estimate of thesize and number of layers for the main PCB (the correct figure is not mentioned in the thread at all).

I can't comment. I would say there are people on both sides who have ideas about what it costs, and either could be right/wrong.
---
Nobody is taking account of deals bPlan may have done with suppliers or the numbers produced, the numbers produced is the single most important factor as it pretty much determines the manufacturing price.

Nor does it seem YOU are taking into account the fact that these are low in number, and buying hardware/cpu/memory/chipset from vendors in low numbers does'nt equate well with you statement. Now I COULD be wrong, and vendors may have stumped up special pricing, if so, the onus lies on those who claim its cheap to stump up the evidence.

--

>Everyone knows that smaller designs are more expensive than bigger ones, hence the price
>difference between a mobile computer and a desktop.

No, thats because they use more expensive components, the cost of a smaller board is lower.

---

I'm sorry, I have to argue here, many laptops use specifically lower cost components, bar the TFT, Battery, normal mobile extra's, and I really do question your statement on these grounds. I don't think the board is the cause of the cost difference to the degree you just claimed.
---
Someone quotes BBRV:
>We make five new boards with April 2. Making five April 2 PCBs cost $1800." statement*,
>a single Pegasos I board costs 300USD.

OK, does that include all components, design time, wages. I'd also like to point out to you that your statement smells iffy. For the design changes, devlopment, testing, we KNOW it was'nt hours, it was months, therefore, unless BBRV pays his staff with fresh air, I question this statement as well. If you want to talk about 5 X April 2 boards, I want you to include the devlopment, design and testing in the damn costs. Once you do that, we'll come back to subsidised..

Producing prototypes in single number quantities is incredible expensive, yes, but they were just prototypes, that was not a production run.

Agreed: But, as you have stated, You indicate that this was done under Thendic-France. So I now have a question for you. How did the design get to be taken away and used by a 'seperate company'? Am I missing something here? If the design was done under Thedic-France, then the Auditors of the bankruptcy should have frozen and gained control of such assets, ESPECIALLY after your ex-collegue here has made such pained efforts to claim there was not/is not a link between the two companies.

--

If the Pegasos was subsidised it wouldn't be selling at $500, it'd be selling a hell of a lot cheaper - like $50 PC boards.
---

From your explanantion so far, I would say you have made an excellent case for thinking that Thedic-France, Its creditors, The Tax Payers in France, have all subsidised the design and building of a product someone else (if you bother listening to Johan's bullshit) is miraculously now building, selling, and perhaps even making money on. And yes, You probably could say it is NOW not under subsidy, after all, those nice socialist French look to have absorbed all that rather nicely (if what you indicate is anything to go by..)
---
The pegasos makes money but no it probably doesn't pay for the MorphOS development (yet) or the marketing done by Thendic-France, but thats irrelevant as Thendic-France went bankrupt last Janurary, you can believe me when I say thats something I know *all* about.

OK, if you know all about that, what does Genesi owe Thedic-France and its creditors for the design, sales and marketing, development and initial work on the product. You see, Johan as far as I am concerned has made a wild effort to cover his story, but I'm not buying. I don't buy his statement that he has no connection with Genesi, I don't buy his statement that he refuses to accept Genesi was formed by management, and that bPlan and Thendic-France according to official documents and press releases were going to merge(pre air france disasters), and anyone from Thedic-France who starts to claim such dubious bullshit deserves all the heat that comes there way. The side story about how the companies were firewalled of by accountants and auditors is'nt going to make me go away, that is just someone trying their get out of jail free card.

Now wether Stefan is right or wrong about the actaul nitty gritty of the hardware build of material costs, I confess I do not know, But I'de still say that Thendic-France staff or EX staff have amazing balls to come here claiming that they were part of the development, then on the other hand claim there is no possible links between Thendic-France and Genesi. Sheer ****** bull. If Thendic are bust now, and they and not Genesi paid for and did the sales and marketing, then Genesi are today building every single board under a subsidy, legal or not, sematics or not, fact, or fiction.

--

Now if you think I'm wrong, try posting some FACTS, not guesses based on numbers you've pulled out of your backside.

I like nothing BETTER than tangling with Genesi, and (I shall tread carefully for now), Thendic-France/Genesi Staff, or EX-either-entity(I regard them as being one and the same, the difference is an administration issue) and talking about *facts*.

Shall we ?
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 41 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n (194.106.52.30) on 24-Jul-2004 22:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (minator):
I point you and Johan to Senex's Chronicle, which to my mind is reasonably representative PRE-Jan2004.

Read it, then try and make claim that Johan can with any legitimate effort make the comments that lead to such total lack of credibility as he has attempted in recent days:

http://www.pegasosppc.de/chronike.html
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 42 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom (193.11.251.131) on 25-Jul-2004 10:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (AdmV0rl0n):
Admvorlon: You assume a lot of things. First, you assume that Thendic
would, at any point in time, have had any sort of ownership of the
Pegasos designs.

Now, that would have depended entirely upon the details of their
contracts with bPlan. I have no inside knowledge about this, but I
doubt Thendic were involved with that. They were always the marketing
side, not the design and production side. They are likely to have
owned any *marketing* related stuff. Well, they owned the boards they
were re-selling of course, but they sold all those boards long before
their bankruptcy, nothing fishy there.

Then, you assume that, even if such an ownership would have existed,
bPlan or Genesi have not re-aquired that from the Thendic bankruptcy.
As I don't think Thendic had any ownership here, I'm not surprised
that I haven't heard about any such deal, but really, I don't think I
would have heard about it even if it did happen.



You also seem to lack a basic grasp of how things like ownership are
decided. If company A markets a product from company B, and then
company A goes bankrupt, it is not the case that company A would have
some sort of ownership in company B's products, or that company C
would have to pay the bankrupt company A in order to continue
marketing of said products. That's just total nonsense.


You also claim that Thendic would have paid for the *production*, not
just the design, of products someone else is now selling. Well that's
something I can refute right away, as all boards produced under
Thendic were sold out.


Frankly, you seem to base your accusations on absolutely nothing,
except that Thendic went bankrupt. Now could you tell me under what
circumstances you think it would be ok for another company to take
over the marketing of a bankrupt company's products? Could it ever
happen? Or do you think that anytime a company folds, the only "fair"
thing to do is to cancel any products that have somehow been involved
with the now bankrupt company?


Anyway, if you have some facts pointing towards improper conduct here,
I think you should send them to the Liquidator for Thendic.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 43 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Rob (195.92.67.76) on 25-Jul-2004 11:19 GMT
I couldn't be arsed to read through all the guff, but, if the pegasos
(1) boards were/are not subsidised why were they once a few hundred
dollars more to purchase?


Bill Buck actually offered me a Pegasos 1 G3@600Mhz for 400 euro
(excluding tax) in November 2002 (This was supposed to be a discount
price) yet later they were selling them for 300 euro including tax.

There is no way in hell that Genesi have sold enough boards to bring
the price down.
Anyhow it is Genesi's decision as to how much they sell a board for
and if it benefits users in the long run it must be a good thing.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 44 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n (194.106.52.30) on 25-Jul-2004 11:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Johan Rönnblom):
Admvorlon: You assume a lot of things. First, you assume that Thendic
would, at any point in time, have had any sort of ownership of the
Pegasos designs.

----

Prove they did not.
----

Now, that would have depended entirely upon the details of their
contracts with bPlan. I have no inside knowledge about this, but I
doubt Thendic were involved with that. They were always the marketing
side, not the design and production side. They are likely to have
owned any *marketing* related stuff. Well, they owned the boards they
were re-selling of course, but they sold all those boards long before
their bankruptcy, nothing fishy there.

You doubt that Thedic have anything to do with a contract they had with bPlan. Thats interesting.

----

Then, you assume that, even if such an ownership would have existed,
bPlan or Genesi have not re-aquired that from the Thendic bankruptcy.
As I don't think Thendic had any ownership here, I'm not surprised
that I haven't heard about any such deal, but really, I don't think I
would have heard about it even if it did happen.

What you think is irrelevant.
---
You also seem to lack a basic grasp of how things like ownership are
decided. If company A markets a product from company B, and then
company A goes bankrupt, it is not the case that company A would have
some sort of ownership in company B's products, or that company C
would have to pay the bankrupt company A in order to continue
marketing of said products. That's just total nonsense.

No, that depends entirly on the real issues, not your idea of what those issues are.
---
You also claim that Thendic would have paid for the *production*, not
just the design, of products someone else is now selling. Well that's
something I can refute right away, as all boards produced under
Thendic were sold out.

No, what I said was different, but so what, I can hardly explain to someone who is brainwarped and unable to understand what was said.
---

Frankly, you seem to base your accusations on absolutely nothing (snip)

Well, I've long since stopped worrying what you come up with.

---

Anyway, if you have some facts pointing towards improper conduct here,
I think you should send them to the Liquidator for Thendic.

Oh I think a business may well be able to carry all this through 'by the book', and comply with whatever rules and regulations, but thats not the issue. The issue is the possible subsidy in development and production of the Pegasos range of machines. If you are incapable of understanding this, then you are more stupid than I can cater for.

I have a simple example for you to understand.

When under Thendic, fairly considerable sums were spent in development, testing, production.

That money was not available any other way than a subsidised influx of funding.

Now under Genesi, there is clearly no subsidy. And clearly they are limping along on a minimum of ability to spend funds.

Thedic-France went bankrupt with how much debt? And how much of this money was piped into the Pegasos programs, developments, production.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 45 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom (193.11.251.131) on 25-Jul-2004 11:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (AdmV0rl0n):
Admvorlon wrote:
> Prove it.

No. You're the one spewing forth defamating statements, so you're the
one who will have to present evidence. Btw, I have no interest in
trying to clear Genesi. If I really thought you had some way to get
money back to Thendic, I'd be interested. But it doesn't seem you have
anything more than foul words.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 46 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n (194.106.52.30) on 25-Jul-2004 11:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (Johan Rönnblom):
What evidence do I need to produce?

Evidence that Thendic went into an agreed bankruptcy with the French state?
Evidence that Thedic paid for the development of the pegasos/pegasosapril1/april2/pegasos2, evidence of money now gone?

Evidence from company public statements stating 'Thendic-France' and bPlan will merge, and Become Genesi. This was to be overseen by external accounts and auditors.

All of which matters nothing. This discussion was about if the Pegasos was in some way subsidised. It looks to me that it was. Wether this was fair or any other issue interests me not in the least.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 47 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom (193.11.251.131) on 25-Jul-2004 12:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (AdmV0rl0n):
No, what we discussed was whether it was subsidised in the way that it
was sold below production price, nothing else. I and Stefan agreed
that if production price was $300 or higher, that would be likely to
be the case (actually I see that Stefan suggested $330, so I was a
bit generous it seems.. not that I think anyone could make such an
accurate cost estimate, anyway).



You're discussing something totally different, which is not at issue
in this post.


In the same way, you could of course say that Hyperion are
"subsidised" because they base OS4 on sources which come from
Commodore's and Escom's bankruptcies. But I haven't heard any rumours
accusing either Hyperion or Genesi for having an improper advantage
in this way. The rumours I've heard, and which were restated by
Stefan, is that the Pegasos would be (or have been) sold below
production cost. That's what this news item refers to, both in the
summary and in the main article.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 48 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n (194.106.52.30) on 25-Jul-2004 12:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Johan Rönnblom):
How can Hyperion be subsidised? They've not been able to sell a copy of the so called subsidised product. It can't be subsidised, because its not available.

In terms of what was bought during bankruptcy, Escom, Gateway, Commodore, these are different subjects, different stories.
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 49 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom (193.11.251.131) on 25-Jul-2004 14:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (AdmV0rl0n):
Uhm, maybe you don't know this, but the AmigaOnes sold thus far (I
don't know if it's all of them, but at least many) have been sold with
the price of AmigaOS4 included. Presumably Hyperion have been paid for
this. And now, the so-called "Developer Pre-Release" of OS4 has indeed
been shipped, as far as I can understand to exactly those people who
paid for OS4. So yes, they have sold it for a long time, and now they
have actually shipped something, too.

However, I'm not claiming this would be "subsidised", as I think it's
perfectly legitimate to take up development again. And I think the
additional cost for OS4 more than covers the production cost for the
CDs, even though I'm sure it does not pay for the many hours spent on
development of OS4 and the other things which are included.

Now of course, Hyperion has some outstanding issues, for example their
contract with GPSoft where it seems Hyperion don't intend to honour
the contract. However, again, just for this reason, I wouldn't say
that GPSoft have subsidised OS4 - even though I do think that Hyperion
should honour the agreements they've made. There's just no reason to
try and change the meaning a word like "subsidise".
Pegasos "too cheap" rumours debunked : Comment 50 of 68ANN.lu
Posted by AdmV0rl0n (194.106.52.30) on 25-Jul-2004 14:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (Johan Rönnblom):
You seem to think I am somehow a fan of one side or another. I'm quite happy picking holes in eaither side, but right now, you and the side you represent have most holes, so its your lucky day.

This is'nt about Hyperion, Amiga Inc, Its about the Genesi/Thedic-France/bPlan axis, and wether those motherboards are built under a subsidy, amongst other things. Its interesting seeing you try and change the subject matter, maybe you're getting desperate.
Anonymous, there are 68 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 68]
Back to Top