> who will pay for the 3 engineers?
First of all, there are former Amiga users who are in electronics and could do this, finding the money to pay them would be no easier and no harder than for other team members. If some people are willing to be on the team and work on software as a labor of love while only hoping to making a little bit of money here and there during the work on the software, there is no reason it would be different for the work on the hardware.

Moreover, even if finding such hardware developpers ends up being impossible, it is possible to find some investors.

> if you want to get money from someone you must offer a detailed
> business plan (6 months work) with all details like what are your
> potential customers and markets, ideas how market develop and why,
> what are competitors and why your product is better and so on.
I am willing to do all of this, part of your points are already addressed (potential customers and markets, part of why the product is better) in the file and parts I still need to write (how to develop, what are competitors, part of why the product is better, budget, etc.).

> go to some investors collecting money
I would be willing to do this if needed, even though I would look around to see if there is another Amiga user willing to do it as I am not the best person for this (saying that I am socially inept to a pathological degree would be an undertatement). I would definitively do it as best as I can if no one else volunteers.

> Before ask MorphOS team if they would be willing at all to
> invest time in it and what they would ask for it, otherwise
> it is a pure theoretical discussion.
This doesn't make sense. If the team refuses the idea upfront, an investor which likes the concept would refuse to invest because it could not work without the involvement of the team. Moreover, if I prepare a business plan, I cannot go to them on my own an hope to get them on board. Investors deal with existing registered companies, not with a guy who hopes to get work done by a company of which he is not part. Unless the involved registered company, in this case, the MorphOS team, is open to the idea, I cannot talk on behalf of the said company to an investor. The sames holds true for any other person, who willing to take care of finding investors, which I may find.

There is no point in me doing a business plan as suggested earlier if the MorphOS team decides that, no matter what, they would never follow it.

> There is a very very simple reason for this.
> They barely have time to work on the software.
> Where are they gonna find time to work on hardware as well?
I never said the same people have to do it. They could get some hardware people on the team. If not, the MorphOS team can partner with another Amiga company which does hardware, such as, for example, Acube.

> Second: if MIPS is growing as you claim, why is Imagine doing so poorly?
Imagination bought a sinking boat, it takes a bit of time to get it back afloat. When they bought it was about the time of the release of the Microaptiv, Interaptiv and Proaptiv to the market, it was a platform created by their predecessor, they had to start from there, they had to build from there, creating the Warrior platform (released 2014 to market) which was the first of their own. Due to limited funds, they had to start by switching only one of the designs to 64 bit at the time, they chose to start by the midrange, it gave us the i6400; now with the release of the p6600, they are truly entering the game again, having both a 64 bit midrange and a 64 bit highend. This is the true beginning. What happened before was only the preparation to give good results in the future, not bring money immediately, which would have been impossible given the state of MIPS Technologies when they bought it. This doesn't have stopped them from having signed over 20 new licensees during the last few years.

> third: why would I want to run MorphOS - a desktop OS - on a
> set top box? I want a computer that I can expand and do desktop
> stuff with, not just watch Netflix.
I address this in section 2c of the file please read this section again.

> All you have is an idea you want others to make a reality.
> You have no plan and no money.
> So it really doesn't count as "trying".
I never said I tried. The stuff I wrote is a suggestion that we all try togather, rather than giving up before trying. I am willing to participate but I cannot do it alone. I was saying this because the team doesn't seam to want to try.

> Better bring MorphOS to the common devices (read normal computerrs or ARM gadgets)
This might be true if potential users were all that dumb. The sad truth is the regular user only cares about compatibility and whan the marketing pushes on them. In the golden age of the Amiga, the PC was more popular while inferior to many other alternatives, including the Amiga. People buy solutions from the company with the best marketing, not the company with the best products. In the current state of things, pursuing the desktop market up-front would not work. It is better to pursue an under-served market (convergence box) and using it as a backdoor to enter the desktop market again (through the upgrade kit).

> No, this is extremely unlikely, there is nothing suggesting a realistic outcome like the one you describe.
On the contrary it is extremely likely for the following reason: power efficiency. X86 and ARM are and will remain approximatively on par on this metric in the server world. There is a market for something more power efficient. An 14nm process p6600 or i6400 will beat the power efficiency of a 14nm process ARM or X86 processor at server clockspeeds anytime. At mobile clockspeed, it will beat the x86 efficiency while being similar or slightly better than the ARM.

While the MIPS seams the most likely candidate, if it doesn't work, another power-efficient architecture will take the spot. It may be the Power8 and successors, it may be something totally unexpected, but there **will** be a power efficient processor architecture coming as a third platform.

> When you drive off a cliff, you may or you may not survive.
> But there is no need to try it in order to understand why
> it would be a bad idea. That's why we have brains.
Your comparison doesn't make sense. When you drive off a cliff you have a lot to potentially lose (perhaps life) and nothing to gain. If doing this convergence box project, there is a lot to (potentially) gain, but nothing to lose. At worst, it won't work and the situation will be no worse than before starting. At best, it will work and an Amiga-like will gain market share again.

If some issues arise: too high cost of SoC developpement (which is uncertain as the money might be found), it can be worked around, in the said example it may be possible to use the closest existing p6600-SoC to the specs and to add the missing functionality with existing side chips. The same holds true for other issues, the project needs to adapt to the circumstances.
However, however, however, if everyone starts by taking for granted that solutions cannot be found, issues cannot be overcome and the project cannot succeed.