> Is there any reason to try to "correct me" with the obvious?

Is there a reason you regard any remark as an attempt to correct you?

> THTF [...] make use of the 5121e CPU's and other components
> they obtained for this venture

You think these components are just remainders and they don't order (or have already ordered) more? Will THTF close the MPC5121e chapter as soon as the current remainders are depleted? Do you possibly have any inside contacts at THTF? To me you sound like BBRV who predicted that not one single MPC5121e based line of consumer devices will ever be successfully marketed anywhere. Due to the language barrier I don't have too much insight in the Asian market, but I can see that the Linkbook aka LimeBook doesn't do too bad in South Africa.

> Possibly utilizing ARM CPU's still in design stage, who knows?

Yes, Freescale's 4+ GHz quad-core Cortex-A9 based i.MX63 processor would be nice in 2011 ;-)

> There certainly weren't any contradictions back when the agreement to port
> MorphOS to the Efika was announced.

Yes, obviously, as that announcement was uttered a whole 11 months before the letter of intent between THTF/MTC and Genesi was signed. The contradiction regarding THTF's stance on MorphOS appeared only in April 2009 in Neko's posting here on MorphZone. Nevertheless this contradiction to what had been accepted as fact until then courtesy of statements by BBRV prompts questions, don't you think?

> Nobody could possibly know back then how the future would play out.

I'm talking about contradictory statements, done in January 2009 and April 2009 respectively, about the *past*, not about the future.

> They don't want to support the "X1000" because it's
> related to people they consider Evil

That's only one reason various members of the MorphOS Team have presented for not going to port to the X1000. Another one has been that a potential market of high three-digit to low four-digit numbers is just not encouraging enough any more, especially considering that most X1000 users wouldn't ever want to touch MorphOS anyway by principle. A third reason presented is the lack of development resources. Read it up there:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6918&forum=3&post_id=77087#77087

If it was only for the one reason you present then why didn't they port MorphOS to the Sam440? Or do they consider ACube (or individuals thereof) evil? It's no secret that the MorphOS Team would port MorphOS to the Sam440 if ACube paid for it (which ACube said they declined).

@ Andreas_Wolf

Quote:

That is incorrect.

> That is incorrect.

I remember such statement from ACube on amigaworld.net. I'll try to find it.

Quote:

I am sure it exists. But I am clarifying that this is not correct.

The discussions with ACube were very polite and constructive. They were provided with a detailed list of reasons why the development resources were focused on what the MorphOS developers considered to be more attractive target platforms. When they replied, they acknowledged that they were able to understand the reasoning.

Any mentions of payments were made in a purely hypothetical context. Since many of the listed reasons also applied to the Efika 5200B, which shares certain similarities with ACube's offerings, it seemed reasonable to clarify under what conditions the support of this platform was possible.

> I am clarifying that this is not correct.

Fair enough. I read up on what you wrote back then again:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6122&forum=11&start=19

But then, Fab wrote:

"If the team doesn't have any interest in porting it to SAM, why would they do it for free (no, a couple additional sales doesn't matter)? Besides, what you call a ridiculous price is probably comparable to what Genesi was asked for the efika port. It didn't seem so ridiculous to Genesi it seems."

And CISC wrote:

"there is no viable market for hardware like the Efika or Sam (the Mac Mini however exists in vast quantities and quite cheaply), thus we need an additional incentive to support the hardware (since to be fair, MorphOS could be a major selling-point for such specifically marketed hardware). Genesi obviously agreed and that's why the Efika is supported (it would never have been otherwise as we simply can't afford to waste development- and support-time on something that might not return the investment), if ACube doesn't that really isn't our problem"

These two statements from your colleagues seem to put your clarification into perspective somewhat.

> Any mentions of payments were made in a purely hypothetical context.
> Since many of the listed reasons also applied to the Efika 5200B, which
> shares certain similarities with ACube's offerings, it seemed reasonable
> to clarify under what conditions the support of this platform was possible.

And of what nature were these "conditions" if not some sort of payment?

@ Andreas_Wolf

Quote:

Besides the discussed financial incentives, there were a number of helpful conditions.

With regard to the Efika, certain MorphOS developers had access to the hardware before any agreement concerning a port had been reached. So, it was possible to evaluate the feasibility of a port to such an obscure and new, thus unproven platform from a technical perspective. Plus, there was at least some level of personal interest to have the hardware supported, even if it was not sufficiently high to do the required work for free. Afterall, the Efika was clearly the most cost-efficient hardware platform to run MorphOS until second-hand Macs finally became officially supported hardware platforms much later. (It still is in terms of brand new MorphOS-capable hardware. But then again, it is the only one that is currently available.)

>>> it seemed reasonable to clarify under what conditions the support
>>> of this platform was possible.

>> of what nature were these "conditions" if not some sort of payment?

> Besides the discussed financial incentives, there were a number of
> helpful conditions.

And of what nature were these "helpful conditions" which would also have had to be satisfied to port MorphOS to ACube's hardware? (It seems we're going in circles ;-)

Quote:

This is a VERY important detail. Knowing the hardware beforehand can be as important as the money involved. And from the technical point of view alone, it's the most important thing.

Quote:

I think the scenario is completely clear. So I'm curios why you insist in knowing those hypotetical details... Are you trying to get some light on something you already suspect?

> I think the scenario is completely clear.

Not to me. I claimed that the MorphOS Team would port MorphOS to ACube hardware if ACube paid for the port, which is a statement that is supported by Fab's and CISC's past insinuations (quoted above). To this ASiegel replied that it was incorrect and that it had not been only about money but also about "a number of helpful conditions" which obviously couldn't and/or wouldn't be met by ACube (else there would be a port by now). So far, only the outcome is clear to me, not the complete scenario.

> I'm curios why you insist in knowing those hypotetical details

Either have these "helpful conditions" been for real (i.e. non-hypothetical), as ASiegel suggests, or they've not been for real (i.e. hypothetical).

> Are you trying to get some light on something you already suspect?

Yes, I am. And I'll tell you: I can imagine that one of those "helpful conditions" would have been that ACube must refrain from compulsively bundling their hardware with OS4, which would be a very reasonable condition (just imagine that someone who wants a Sam440 primarily for running MorphOS and is not interested in OS4 at all would have to purchase a copy of OS4 nonetheless and thus economically benefit Hyperion).
But as I said, that's just a suspicion from my part. I hope that ASiegel will shed some light.

I've thinked about that for a while. And realize the huge relief the MorphOS Team has reached going the Mac Mini route.

@Andreas_Wolf,

Why?

Your tendency for attention to detail in the smallest degree on many topics is admirable, even when it is not particularly needed at that fine degree, but I don't see the importance or need for the MorphOS Dev. Team to reveal their reasoning for every decision they make, with regard to the direction their work on MorphOS goes.

Your assumption(s) may be correct, or they might not, but the only important piece of information regarding MorphOS being ported to any platform, be it the X1000 from A-Eon, or the SAM440, or 460 models from ACube, is the result, Yes, or No. For me the current result makes the best sense, as I don't see any point in porting to over priced, under powered, small production run products, that are mostly purchased by people that have NO interest in ever running MorphOS, and even if they did download and try it out, they would not purchase it, for the same reasons that they prefer OS4 right now.

Of course you have your reasons for wanting to know all the details (you seem to be a very detail type of person from your posting history here), and I don't care if you find the correct answers or not, so this is not a criticism about you wanting to know, more a curiosity of why you want to know.

> Why?

Easy one: because I'm curious about it :-)

> I don't see the importance or need for the MorphOS Dev. Team to reveal
> their reasoning for every decision they make

I'm fine with the fact that everybody has his very own levels of curiosity regarding certain matters.

> the only important piece of information regarding MorphOS being ported to any
> platform [...] is the result, Yes, or No.

I'm fine with you being satisfied to only know the result, but that doesn't mean that this also applies to me.

@ Andreas_Wolf

Quote:

Fab and CISC simply replied to posters who criticized the mere concept of the MorphOS Team asking to be paid to support a particular hardware platform. Any insinuations are simply misinterpretations, I am afraid.

Of course, in case you are arguing that MorphOS would be ported to pretty much any hardware as soon as someone is willing to pay X millions of dollars / Euros for it, then you are entirely correct. I have assumed that the discussion is about realistic, not fantasy scenarios, however.


Quote:

I listed several conditions that were met when the Efika port was considered (but not when ACube inquired about SAM).


Quote:

You are overthinking the issue. Compared to other MorphOS hardware, the price - performance ratio is a showstopper irregardless of whether it includes the cost of an extra OS license or not.

> Fab and CISC simply replied to posters who criticized the mere concept of the
> MorphOS Team asking to be paid to support a particular hardware platform.
> Any insinuations are simply misinterpretations, I am afraid.

I don't think so. Both quotes "What you call a ridiculous price is probably comparable to what Genesi was asked for the efika port" and "We need an additional incentive to support the hardware [...]. Genesi obviously agreed and that's why the Efika is supported (it would never have been otherwise [...]), if ACube doesn't that really isn't our problem" speak a very clear language.

> Of course, in case you are arguing that MorphOS would be ported to pretty
> much any hardware as soon as someone is willing to pay X millions of
> dollars / Euros for it, then you are entirely correct.

Let's go back and see again what claim of mine you called incorrect:

"It's no secret that the MorphOS Team would port MorphOS to the Sam440 if ACube paid for it"

As you can see I didn't mention any specific sum nor any range, which, according to what you say now, renders my claim very much correct.

> I have assumed that the discussion is about realistic, not fantasy scenarios

It was not me but your colleague Fab who, regarding a port to ACube's hardware, hinted at a sum "probably comparable to what Genesi was asked for the efika port". As far as I can tell, the MorphOS port to Efika is for real, whereas a port to ACube's hardware is fantasy.

> I listed several conditions that were met when the Efika port was considered
> (but not when ACube inquired about SAM).

Okay, so that's been a misunderstanding obviously. I had thought we were talking about alleged "negotiations" with ACube at that point of the discussion.

> the price - performance ratio is a showstopper irregardless of whether
> it includes the cost of an extra OS license or not.

You are underthinking what I wrote ;-) I was not talking about the fact that a compulsively bundled OS4 makes the package more expensive for the buyer but about the fact that this would result in avoidable income for Hyperion ;-)

> there is a possibility that the guy actually has made it up,
> that he hasn't been in contact with RS.

http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/186441.shtml

Just lol.

>>> there is a possibility that the guy actually has made it up,
>>> that he hasn't been in contact with RS.

>> http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/186441.shtml

> Just lol.

What's so funny with the MooBunny link?

Just lol was about this thread (an particularly his title).

:P

> Just lol was about this thread (an particularly his title).

Fair enough. I mistook your posting as referring to my link because threaded view mode actually presents your posting as a reply to my link.

I use "flat" view.

:P

> I use "flat" view.

Unfortunately, that doesn't change a single bit of how the forum software (erroneously) stores your postings when you click the "wrong" reply button.

What??? This forum is unable to know what I think??? Damn.

:P

BTW, sorry for the bad button click.

> sorry for the bad button click.

I don't think you're the one to blame. It was the well-known MorphZone bug I guess. Thing is, there was no way for me to see if you really lol'd at me or if your posting is a victim of said bug.

Update:

> I can imagine that one of those "helpful conditions" would have been that
> ACube must refrain from compulsively bundling their hardware with OS4,
> which would be a very reasonable condition (just imagine that someone
> who wants a Sam440 primarily for running MorphOS and is not interested
> in OS4 at all would have to purchase a copy of OS4 nonetheless and thus
> economically benefit Hyperion).

ACube hardware now also available without OS4:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&start=656

Edit: Even more ACube hardware available without OS4:

http://www.acube-systems.biz/index.php?page=news&id=102
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.a1k.org/forum/showpost.php?p=616683

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 05.04.2013 - 02:28 ]

I don't get it Andreas.
Acube has sold "industrial" models of its boards for some time now, but only in quantity.
And the reference you pointed to seems to mention the lastest "lite' bundle which still includes AOS4.1.