@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @Helge & all If it is true that Amiga Inc. now has fundings to continue the AmigaOS4.0 development, why not let them? People obviously needs to be reminded that Amiga Inc. are not fighting the AmigaOS4.0 developers here, just their work assigner (who should be Amiga Inc. in the first place, IMO).

Because:
(a) they don't have the funds
(b) they don't have any knowhow to develop an OS
(c) by all accounts, they've squandered all goodwill with the OS4 developers
(d) they've never had any interest in desktop or AmigaOS
(e) they don't own the trademark "Amiga" so couldn't call it "AmigaOS" anyway.

@smithy

Quote:

Because: (a) they don't have the funds (b) they don't have any knowhow to develop an OS (c) by all accounts, they've squandered all goodwill with the OS4 developers (d) they've never had any interest in desktop or AmigaOS (e) they don't own the trademark "Amiga" so couldn't call it "AmigaOS" anyway.

You left out (c_2) or (f), if you prefer:
by all accounts, they've squandered all goodwill with every hardware developer who ever attempted to bring hardware to the users in any way, shape, or form.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@fairlanefastback

You're missing out on the point completely. It's irrelevant wether ACK are able to deliver as promised or not, it's irrelevant wether Hyperion "interfered" with Amiga Inc.'s attempts to negotiate a deal with ACube or not, it's irrelevant who Hyperion's contractors have "sided" with. We still know that ACK and Amiga Inc. has an agreement, we still know that Amiga Inc. tried to negotiate a similar agreement with ACube and we still know that Amiga Inc. has been negotiating with Hyperion's contractors for future development of AmigaOS4. These things tells us that Amiga Inc. doesn't just want to put the AmigaOS IP away in some IP vault as you claim. That's the point I'm trying to make here.

As for the Kent story, stop repeating that like one thing would have to exclude the other. First of all, rounding up funds for one business investment isn't neccessarily as easy as rounding up funds for another. It's all about what their investors are prepared to spend their money on rather than what Amiga Inc. would like to spend their money on. Heck, this whole thing might just be a publicity stunt for getting another round of investments, money they might as well spend on AmigaOS development (if Hyperion would let them). So, the Kent story really tells us nothing about anything.

Last edited by samface on 30-Jul-2007 at 01:20 PM.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@samface

Quote:

We still know that ACK and Amiga Inc. has an agreement,

Just for the record in Adam's own words here on AW in July, 2007:

Quote:

A little known fact is that Eyetech nearly decided to wait for the MicroA1-I from MAI. It was August 2004 when I had met with Jason and Alan and told Jason that I would buy the 300 Teron Minis (MicroA1-C) as I felt there was a demand for them. Alan pretty much decided to take them right after that.

From merely the standpoint of past performance, do you see the statement above indicating in any way that AI was a driving force in bringing hardware to the users?

Quote:

The design and manufacturing is the easy part. The lack of a solid license agreement has affected me the most. Part of why I have been so busy as of late is that I'm finalizing an m68k emulator for use with the PV LT to run OS 3.x.

Does "an agreement" for NG hardware mean much if he's going another direction due to lack of a license agreement?

Quote:

Well if you want to know what a ping pong ball feels like, try getting a price for an OEM copy of OS4 for the classics from Amiga Inc. or Hyperion. Both parties are on opposite ends of the spectrum. The lawsuit was inevitable and dealing with both sides, it was clear that it was going to happen. My intention was to ship with OS4 to prevent piracy issues, but now I'm just going to release the PV LT to serve as an accelerator for the A1200 with the potential to run OS4.

Does "an agreement" for NG hardware really outweigh the reality that Adam is posting about here?

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@samface

Quote:

So, the Kent story really tells us nothing about anything.

I think it speaks quite directly to the difference between an agreement that is honored or not.
See above references by Adam himself.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@samface,
I agree with much of what you had to say in your post which I'm about to partially quote, execept for one thing:

Quote:

Now, from what can be told of the information that has been made available, it seems that Hyperion are not able to fully pay their contractors for the work on AmigaOS4.0 any longer. What I'm thinking is; If it is true that Amiga Inc. now has fundings to continue the AmigaOS4.0 development, why not let them? People obviously needs to be reminded that Amiga Inc. are not fighting the AmigaOS4.0 developers here, just their work assigner (who should be Amiga Inc. in the first place, IMO).

I don't think AInc. has stated that they intend to continue development on OS4. In fact their actions the last few years implies that they have no interest in developing OS4. IMO this isn't a bad thing, just an observation.

_________________
Here for the whimpering end

Wrinting to penttikouri@earthlink would be a start

_________________
ikir

@jorkany

Quote:

I don't think AInc. has stated that they intend to continue development on OS4. In fact their actions the last few years implies that they have no interest in developing OS4.

From the 25 answers on amiga.org:

Quote:

Bill McEwen -- It is obvious to me that from this question and the others that are like it, that we have done a very poor job in communicating about Amiga. Amiga has always been interested in the operating system, and this includes OS 4, and beyond. Our plans have always been to produce, create, develop, market, enhance, sell and support the operating system.

Quote:

The first thing that I need everyone to know is that I would very much like to see OS 4 shipping and for sale on multiple devices and device types. This has been our plan since the beginning and there were numerous communications and plans to expand beyond the AmigaOne hardware and it is still my prayer that we can make that happen.

From the post q/a comments, again from Bill:

Quote:

We have been working for months to get the OS 4 hardware and software situation resolved and we will continue to do so, but we also realize that we can not wait, and started work in 2004 on version 5 of the operating system, and we are very pleased with our progress.

Please note I am not arguing results, just posting quotes.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 30-Jul-2007 at 02:29 PM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @fairlanefastback You're missing out on the point completely. It's irrelevant wether ACK are able to deliver as promised or not, it's irrelevant wether Hyperion "interfered" with Amiga Inc.'s attempts to negotiate a deal with ACube or not, it's irrelevant who Hyperion's contractors have "sided" with. We still know that ACK and Amiga Inc. has an agreement, we still know that Amiga Inc. tried to negotiate a similar agreement with ACube and we still know that Amiga Inc. has been negotiating with Hyperion's contractors for future development of AmigaOS4. These things tells us that Amiga Inc. doesn't just want to put the AmigaOS IP away in some IP vault as you claim. That's the point I'm trying to make here. As for the Kent story, stop repeating that like one thing would have to exclude the other. First of all, rounding up funds for one business investment isn't neccessarily as easy as rounding up funds for another. It's all about what their investors are prepared to spend their money on rather than what Amiga Inc. would like to spend their money on. Heck, this whole thing might just be a publicity stunt for getting another round of investments, money they might as well spend on AmigaOS development (if Hyperion would let them). So, the Kent story really tells us nothing about anything.

If they announced ACK as their partner knowing they are a firm with one and only one part time employee (the owner), yet announced complete systems would be delivered to retail by the end of this summer I think its pretty obvious they knew this would produce no machines for us. Let alone running an Amiga OS on them. They wouldn't work for months together as claimed and it be likely that they did not know this was the makeup of ACK internal resources. Therefore the chance of this being an example of any real effort to release Amiga product to us (on the part of AInc.) is extremely, extremely unlikely, if not plain impossible IMO.

We know Acube approached Amiga, thinking thats where they needed to get a license from. We don't know why Acube decided it wasn't the place to make an agreement, and we don't know of any serious efforts on Amiga's part in this area. All we know is that Acube instead signed a deal with Hyperion.

Who the developers stand with seems to be a likely indication of who they think is serious in moving forward, both in efforts with them and for the OS in general.

You only have showboating to point to. We are well familiar with Amiga showboating. Its not proof of genuine interest given the track record.

The Kent affair further shows us a lack of credibility with a third party IMO. You are probably correct in characterizing this as a publicity stunt. Turns out its looking like a backfired one. But that just shows even you seem to believe they lack the funds they said they have. Your theory that Kent was possibly a scheme to gain investments to further Amiga OS development. Man thats one wild theory with no tie to reality that can be seen or likely rationally thought of.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Jul-2007 at 03:14 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Jul-2007 at 03:13 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Jul-2007 at 03:12 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@jorkany

From the very beginning when the AmigaOS4.0 contract between Hyperion and Amiga Inc. was signed, they always said that they would to take AmigaOS development back in house eventually. It was even a clause in the contract. While it was a correct observation that Amiga Inc. outsourced AmigaOS development to Hyperion, it was obviously a false assumption that they would have no interest in the AmigaOS development.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@fairlanefastback

Sorry, your conspiracy theories doesn't support your claim that Amiga Inc. would only want to put the AmigaOS IP in an IP vault. If this was truely their intentions, they wouldn't even had licensed it to Hyperion to begin with, now would they? As for your attempts to yet again blame Amiga Inc. for their partner's failures to deliver, your assumptions for who Hyperion's contractors would be "siding" with and your assumptions about the yet to be resolved Kent affair, you're proving nothing. You're free to believe whatever you want, like ACK would be given a license because the are not likely to deliver (a really amazing theory, if you ask me), or whatever. Just atleast try to keep a track of what we know as a matter of fact and what we don't.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

Hi @Helge

I'm pretty much sick and tired of Amiga Inc. If i happen to meet Bill McEwen and Co one day, i will tell them what i feel and think...

I have been aware of the bad management since the delivery of the new AmigaOne in 2003. How do I keep the Amiga and get new corporate managers?

_________________

@Snuffy

You speak like Amiga Inc. delivered the AmigaOne. In any case, I find it even difficult to blame Eyetech. They really went out on a limb to make the AmigaOS4 project possible (yes, AmigaOS4 probably wouldn't have come to be without them) and it cost them their business. They paid the ultimate price for a commercial venture and no matter what you want to blame them for, they are obviously not going to bother you with their attempts to deliver products anymore.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@samface

Quote:

samface wrote: @fairlanefastback Sorry, your conspiracy theories doesn't support your claim that Amiga Inc. would only want to put the AmigaOS IP in an IP vault. If this was truely their intentions, they wouldn't even had licensed it to Hyperion to begin with, now would they? As for your attempts to yet again blame Amiga Inc. for their partner's failures to deliver, your assumptions for who Hyperion's contractors would be "siding" with and your assumptions about the yet to be resolved Kent affair, you're proving nothing. You're free to believe whatever you want, like ACK would be given a license because the are not likely to deliver (a really amazing theory, if you ask me), or whatever. Just atleast try to keep a track of what we know as a matter of fact and what we don't.

Licensing to Hyperion was many years ago. Intentions and situations change over time. And that licensing was done by Amiga Washington, not Amiga Delaware besides. Thats not quite the zinger you were going for. Oh well.

Whenever you collect some facts on how it could be rationally thought that the April 2007 announcement of Summer 2007 complete-to-market new Amigas through the choice of ACK as a vendor could actually occur you let us know, alrighty? Cool. I'm all for the miracle occuring.

That said I think your plea to not have a community campaign to throw Amiga out of the community is well noted already. You should also keep an open mind that wanting that dosen't mean other companies should not be on the same list.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

Quote:

This has been our plan since the beginning and there were numerous communications and plans to expand beyond the AmigaOne hardware and it is still my prayer that we can make that happen.

Odd then, that they for so long completely ignored so many 3rd party attempts to contact Amiga Inc. requesting information on exactly this topic to Amiga's own defined technologylicensing@amiga.com email address...


Quote:

Amiga has always been interested in the operating system, and this includes OS 4, and beyond. Our plans have always been to produce, create, develop, market, enhance, sell and support the operating system.

Bolton's description of Amiga Inc.'s attitude toward AmigaOS and the community was quite contradictory to this, and he worked there too. http://www.amiga.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=37468&forum=22

Quote:

When I got there in 2000, Bill McEwen told us all that 'Classic is dead. There's no money there at all in that market.' ... But sadly, Bill and Fleecy didn't want people confusing Amiga OS as we knew it with the new Digital Environment that Fleecy envisioned, so we didn't use it.

Considering the many years of neglect that Amiga Inc. has been so generous in dishing out, I believe Bolton's statements more than these from McEwen.

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@Snuffy

Quote:

I have been aware of the bad management since the delivery of the new AmigaOne in 2003.

Realize that Amiga Inc. are now in their lawsuit with Hyperion claiming that what we know as the AmigaOne is not a licensed product for that name. Amiga didn't make it, they allowed it to be made. Sortof. Until the recent lawsuit.

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@billt

You can add at least 4 of the 5 from this list to your own list:
Post #2
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=23813&forum=2

I offer no opinion as to the "why", just that they all tried.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: Licensing to Hyperion was many years ago. Intentions and situations change over time. And that licensing was done by Amiga Washington, not Amiga Delaware besides. Thats not quite the zinger you were going for. Oh well.

Sigh... what has the above got to do with anything we're discussing here? Don't answer that.

Quote:

Whenever you collect some facts on how it could be rationally thought that the April 2007 announcement of Summer 2007 complete-to-market new Amigas through the choice of ACK as a vendor could actually occur you let us know, alrighty? Cool. I'm all for the miracle occuring.

Wether ACK will be able to deliver is irrelevant. What we're discussing is wether Amiga Inc. has the intention of putting the AmigaOS IP in an IP vault or not. Regardless if ACK will ever deliver or whatever ACK's credibility of delivering may be, why would Amiga Inc. make such agreements if the plan is to put the AmigaOS IP in the IP vault?

It doesn't make sense that they would do it because ACK would not be likely to deliver, why would they have to pretend to have other plans for the AmigaOS than they really have to begin with? From their point of view, it's their IP and they should be able to do as they please with it, now shouldn't they?

Quote:

That said I think your plea to not have a community campaign to throw Amiga out of the community is well noted already. You should also keep an open mind that wanting that dosen't mean other companies should not be on the same list.

I suggest you read post #81 again.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@samface

Quote:

Wether ACK will be able to deliver is irrelevant. What we're discussing is wether Amiga Inc. has the intention of putting the AmigaOS IP in an IP vault or not. Regardless if ACK will ever deliver or whatever ACK's credibility of delivering may be, why would Amiga Inc. make such agreements if the plan is to put the AmigaOS IP in the IP vault?

Amiga's beliefs about the ability to deliver certainly would be tied to how serious or not such an announcement is on their part. If they partner with a one man firm working part time, while he still works on PowerVixxen, and AmigaOne repairs, and his full time job, well thats not a very serious stab at getting machines out, especially if its an April announcment that machines will be out before Sept. approx.

Now if they partnered with someone who tangibly makes products, an Elbox, a b-Plan, an Acube, etc. And with a realistic timeframe, well then it can be taken somewhat seriously, if not fully seriously.

So its not irrelevant, not by a longshot.

Quote:

Sigh... what has the above got to do with anything we're discussing here? Don't answer that.

Well then don't bring it up if you don't want to talk about it. ;)

Quote:

It doesn't make sense that they would do it because ACK would not be likely to deliver, why would they have to pretend to have other plans for the AmigaOS than they really have to begin with? From their point of view, it's their IP and they should be able to do as they please with it, now shouldn't they?

So why do it with ACK "because ACK would not be likely to deliver"? Since you don't have all the info you are guessing as much as anyone else. Its certainly to their benefit to show intentions of usage of the trademarks since one of them is in dispute currently in court. Sure they can do what they want. We can also do what we want and shun them. What of it?

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 30-Jul-2007 at 06:47 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@billt

Quote:

billt wrote: Quote: This has been our plan since the beginning and there were numerous communications and plans to expand beyond the AmigaOne hardware and it is still my prayer that we can make that happen. Odd then, that they for so long completely ignored so many 3rd party attempts to contact Amiga Inc. requesting information on exactly this topic to Amiga's own defined technologylicensing@amiga.com email address... Quote: Amiga has always been interested in the operating system, and this includes OS 4, and beyond. Our plans have always been to produce, create, develop, market, enhance, sell and support the operating system. Bolton's description of Amiga Inc.'s attitude toward AmigaOS and the community was quite contradictory to this, and he worked there too. http://www.amiga.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=37468&forum=22 Quote: When I got there in 2000, Bill McEwen told us all that 'Classic is dead. There's no money there at all in that market.' ... But sadly, Bill and Fleecy didn't want people confusing Amiga OS as we knew it with the new Digital Environment that Fleecy envisioned, so we didn't use it. Considering the many years of neglect that Amiga Inc. has been so generous in dishing out, I believe Bolton's statements more than these from McEwen.

Amen to that.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200