Quote:

I wouldn't bother with a custom SoC. It'll cost an enormous amount of money and it'll be obsolete within a year.

Quote:

Convergence box? You mean those little Android TV boxes you can get off eBay for £25 ($35 US)?
It's a well established market, and Android pretty much owns it.

Quote:

You do know Imagination just lost their CEO because they were losing so much money?
Ironically, he was probably doing the right thing. They were big in the GPU market but have lost almost all of their sales to ARM's Mali GPUs. Diverging was probably a good idea, but when they bought MIPs, rather unfortunately MIPs lost their biggest customer (>50% sales) the same day.

Quote:

Why do you keep saying this?
The current ARM implementations targeted for the datacentre have all been based on older silicon processes thus giving Intel an advantage. Once they switch to a competitive process that will all change, Qualcomm, APM and possibly AMD, all plan to have 16nm chips this year.

MIPs have no advantage over ARM in this area, it's all down to silicon process. I don't know if anyone is even developing a MIPs server chip, never mind a competitive one.

> when they bought MIPs, rather unfortunately MIPs lost their biggest customer
> (>50% sales) the same day.

Could you elaborate please?

> Qualcomm [...] plan to have 16nm chips this year.

It's even 14 nm for Kryo.

http://www.qualcomm.com/news/snapdragon/2015/09/02/snapdragon-820-and-kryo-cpu-heterogeneous-computing-and-role-custom

>What makes you think it is going to blossom over the next ten years?
The change of owner has brought some growth. Moreover, the market needs a server processor which is power efficient and the ARM alternative is no better than x86. Finally, MIPS is also being used in cheap chinese smartphones and tablets due to the low cost, high energy efficiency and availability of the Android operating system. In other words, it has potential both in the datacenter (due to high energy efficiency) and the mobile world (due to both energy efficiency and availability of Android).

> Convergence box? You mean those little Android TV boxes you can get off eBay for £25 ($35 US)?
No, these only do basic streaming, please read my posts again. Moreover, the Roku is much more popular than GoogleTV/AndroidTV.

>>In other words there will be another popular architecture along the x86 and the ARM since ARM
>> has an adequate power efficiency in the mobility context but not the datacenter context.
> Why do you keep saying this?
> The current ARM implementations targeted for the datacentre have all been based on older
> silicon processes thus giving Intel an advantage
Well, Intel is not good, even if they get to the level of Intel, it would still be terribly bad. MIPS and PPC do have a higher power efficiency and many datacenter operators want something with a power efficiency better than what Intel (and soon: ARM) can offer.

> http://www.adapteva.com/andreas-blog/semiconductor-economics-101/
> I estimate development of a SoC as described by you would cost at least 150 million USD.
Well, the link which you supply states that the cost won't necessarly be that high. According to your link much of the cost is in paying the hardware engineers and the IP licencing cost. Sometimes it may be possible to pay a cost per unit produced for the IP licencing, this allows much lower upfront costs (but much higher total costs). For the cost of the hardware engineers, the key is to have only 3 engineers to keep costs reasonnable. This cost can be brought even lower if we find some who are former Amiga users and do it as a labour of love, similar to the way the developers of the MorphOS team are not paid the "true price".

Quote:

A have some suspenses about this:

1: Starting as a hobby project? This doesn't sound soo much well...
Many project went to the trash, because of the lack of interest/toughness anymore.
Not mention the time, what the development needs. Colud take years to have a single mainboard... I bet, it will be outdated, when it appears.

2: There should be at least two version of this machine: a portable (notebook) and a desktop. I think it is not feasible at all. At the other league, there isn't any notebook at all until today, altough they were working on it.

3: The machines should be cheap (or at least comparable priced to the another machines). Who want to pay for a similarly powered machine 4x-5x more? This is the case with A-EON computers now...

4: Also should be easily serviceable, ROHS compliant (for EU users)...

I think, a well supported Intel/ARM machine from a reliable company isn't soo huge compromise, compared to the mentioned problems.

Well, MIPS might be all good and resonable but unless you can find a sugerdaddy who is willing to pour in money into such a project this discussion is pointless. The Team has told us "show us the hardware first, then we can talk", which is reasonable since a lot of people during the years have come up with ideas they hope the Team will jump on. None of them went anyware. So it's the wrong end to start with.

First find an investor with a plan. Then you might have a case.

---

[Edit] And as to an alternative to X68/ARM in the server market we have Power8 and beyond, which at least seem to be competative and endorced by a conglomerate lead by the mighty IBM. It's way too expensive for the consumer market but not the server market. So MIPS doesn't rule supreme there either.

[ Edited by Yasu 17.03.2016 - 10:29 ]

http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/2016/03/imagination-axes-staff-refocus-on-powervr/

>> I don't know if anyone is even developing a MIPs server chip,
>> never mind a competitive one.

> the market needs a server processor which is power efficient

Where is it? Which current MIPS core is suited for that?

>> http://www.adapteva.com/andreas-blog/semiconductor-economics-101/
>> I estimate development of a SoC as described by you would cost at
>> least 150 million USD.

> it may be possible to pay a cost per unit produced for the IP licencing, this allows much
> lower upfront costs (but much higher total costs).

Due to its single CPU core, the SoC wouldn't be popular with anything other than single-core operating systems such as Amiga-like OS. I doubt IP licensors would go without fixed licensing fee in this case.

> For the cost of the hardware engineers, the key is to have only 3 engineers to
> keep costs reasonnable. This cost can be brought even lower if we find some who
> are former Amiga users and do it as a labour of love [...].

The chip you described (multi-GHz, GPU, hardware overlay, SATA, USB3, GbE, IP hardware offloading, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NOR flash, DCT/IDCT/FFT/IFFT, layer-4 protocol checksum offloading, IR decoding, GDDR3-SGRAM and RLDRAM3 controllers) would be a very complex SoC. Three or less engineers developing this SoC in their spare time would need something like a decade to get it ready for the market. In conclusion, I still think you're a dreamer.

>> This cost can be brought even lower if we find some who are former Amiga users
>> and do it as a labour of love [...].

> Colud take years to have a single mainboard...

He's not even talking about board development but about way more time-consuming chip development.

Quote:

Isn't the chip ready yet?
Isn't he told something, that the SoC is developed by the MIPS processors manufacturer/designer company (dunno their name...)

> Isn't the chip ready yet?

No, the SoC described in item 3b of rebirth.txt doesn't exist.

> Isn't he told something, that the SoC is developed by the MIPS processors
> manufacturer/designer company

No, he has not. The P6600 from Imagination Technologies is just the CPU core, not the SoC. Regarding development of the needed SoC around that core, he made several (IMHO unfeasible) proposals in comments #19, #26, #38 and #49.

@amigabeliever

I think you mean well, and you've obviously put some work in, but your arguments are a bit strange.
I had a read through rebirth.txt and here's answers to some of the points:

BTW Spell checking is usually a good idea. As is using something other than .txt, it looks really amateurish.

You use an argument about ARM server chips as a reason to use MIPS in a convergence box. These are unrelated markets so this argument doesn't make sense.


You also have quite obviously not done your market research.

You can already buy boxes that already do most of the same functions for very low prices.
It does appear that you can't get a box that does *all* the functions, but thats only a matter of time.

OS wise, Android pretty much has this market sewn up. The open source version is free, good luck competing with that.

There's no need for a special SoC. There's a whole row of Chinese chip makers who will happily sell you an incredibly cheap 64-bit multi-core chip that does everything required.

The whole argument for Fast-Mem made sense in the days when the display took a significant amount of memory bandwidth and the CPU had little or no cache. Those days have long gone. I have an iPad pro and it has a 5MP screen. Even 32-bit colour at 60FPS is only 2% of the memory bandwidth. RLDRAM might be useful for something really high end (and expensive) but that's not going to be a convergence box.

The proposed box also includes interfaces that were obsolete years ago - PCMCIA ???


As for the building processor, expecting people to work on it for free is not only ridiculous, it's illegal.
You need a big team of engineers any they don't come cheap. Then there's all the hardware and *extremely* expensive EDA software you need and a boat load of multi-million dollar licenses. Oh, and you'll need a supercomputer to simulate it.
There's a reason most companies have given up chip development, it's very, very expensive.



I can see some people would like to see a commercial use for MorphOS but it's getting increasingly difficult to find anywhere that it'd be useful. Security is very important these days and MorphOS doesn't have any I'm aware of.

Want a bigger user base? Port it to Raspberry Pi.

> There's a whole row of Chinese chip makers who will happily sell you an
> incredibly cheap 64-bit multi-core chip that does everything required.

But it's a single-core chip he wants ;-)

> most companies have given up chip development

What about that "whole row of Chinese chip makers"? :-)

Quote:
The popularity has advantages and disadvantages too. The bigest question for a satisfied Windows/Linux user is "Why should I chang to MOS?"
To tell the truth, I'm really happy with a small user base too. (Maybe, could be a slightly bigger.)
The most important thing (at last for me) is to stay on this road: There are active and talented developers who are making good work and right decisions about the OS. The progress is a bit slow, but the result is nice.

Quote:
Yep... This is a good idea.

Good luck convincing Apple to make this wonder-SOC you want. ;)

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/03/apple-acquire-imagination-powervr-gpu/

> Many project went to the trash, because of the lack of interest/toughness anymore.
> Not mention the time, what the development needs. Colud take years to have a single mainboard...
> I bet, it will be outdated, when it appears.
If we try, it may or may not work, if we don't try, it is garanteed to fail.

> 2: There should be at least two version of this machine: a portable (notebook) and a desktop.
If you read, the proposal, I am suggesting switch to another market as a tactic to reconqueer the market later.
As I have said times and times again, the MIPS suggestion **only** makes sense in the context of the previous proposal. If MorphOS is to remain in its current


> First find an investor with a plan. Then you might have a case.
I will see what I can do . I was suggesting that the team branch into hardware delvelopment in addition to software development and I wonder why they wouldn't do so, however, if the team really refuses to do so, I will try to see if I can setup something on the side for hardware.

>> the market needs a server processor which is power efficient
> Where is it? Which current MIPS core is suited for that?
The current Octeon includes 1 to 48 cores of the type i6400 (they only sell them as network server processors but they could be used for other types of servers). Now that Imagination has a 64 bit p series processor (something which was unavailable) it is only a matter of time before they make processors of with 1 to 48 cores or more of the type p6600 this will be the beginning of the return of the MIPS in the server.

> Due to its single CPU core, the SoC wouldn't be popular with anything other than single-core
> operating systems such as Amiga-like OS. I doubt IP licensors would go without fixed licensing
> fee in this case.
Most SoC are only used by a single operating system, I do not see where the difference is. Moreover, when everything is hardware accelerated, there is much less uses for several cores. Finally, as a last ressort measure, which would increase the cost per unit even more but allow a fee per unit from licensor (to lower the upfront cost), it is always possible to include 2 or more cores in the chip and destroy the extra ones before including the chips on the board for the first production run. Then once there is some money from the sale of the products, the second revision can be done truly properly.

>> For the cost of the hardware engineers, the key is to have only 3 engineers to
>> keep costs reasonnable. This cost can be brought even lower if we find some who
>> are former Amiga users and do it as a labour of love [...].
> The chip you described (multi-GHz, GPU, hardware overlay, SATA, USB3, GbE, IP hardware
> offloading, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NOR flash, DCT/IDCT/FFT/IFFT, layer-4 protocol checksum
> offloading, IR decoding, GDDR3-SGRAM and RLDRAM3 controllers) would be a very complex
> SoC. Three or less engineers developing this SoC in their spare time would need something
> like a decade to get it ready for the market.
Well, the work they would need to do would be integration, all the mentionned units should be licenced, not created from scratch, preexisting solutions are available. Only the hardware overlay needs to be adapted to our specific case, even the, it should only be adapted, not created.

> In conclusion, I still think you're a dreamer.
All worthwile projects started as a dream.

> Good luck convincing Apple to make this wonder-SOC you want. ;)
If you read carefully, Apple has NOT bought Imagination Technologies.

> BTW Spell checking is usually a good idea.
Sorry about that, I should have re-read the file for grammar and spelling an extra time or two.

> You use an argument about ARM server chips as a reason to use
> MIPS in a convergence box. These are unrelated markets so this
> argument doesn't make sense.
Maybe I wasn't clear but what I want to say with the ARM server question is that there **will** be a third architecture alongside the ARM/x86 duo. The processor market will not remain x86/ARM only. The fact that the MIPS platform is growing, being used in cheap smartphones and tablets, makes it a likely candidate. It will allow what people had hoped about the ARM, to use it in both mobile devices as well as, with many more cores, in servers, being cheap and power efficient, precisely what companies wanted to do with the ARM but which didn't supply the hoped power efficiency.

> You also have quite obviously not done your market research.
I disagree, see the next point.

> You can already buy boxes that already do most of the same
> functions for very low prices.
It only does a few of the functions at the time. None of the current devices, for example, allows to play games on par with a current generation tablet (except game consoles which have their own serious limitations). You only can have from 2 to 4 functions from my list at the time.

> you can't get a box that does *all* the functions, but thats only a matter of time.
You are literally proving my point, this is where the market is headed. While the competition will add one function at the time, we can provide a full convergence box with all functions at launch.

> OS wise, Android pretty much has this market sewn up.
I wonder what makes you say this, the most popular device is the Roku, followed by the AppleTV.
> The open source version is free, good luck competing with that.
If you read my file again you will see that I have a way to stand against that, even though I wonder if GoogleTV/AndroidTV would be real competition as the platform is considered bad (contrarely to the smartphone and tablet version, the TV version is considered bad). Please read again the first paragraph of section 4d.

> There's no need for a special SoC. There's a whole row of
> Chinese chip makers who will happily sell you an incredibly
> cheap 64-bit multi-core chip that does everything required.
Well, if we cannot put up an adequate team to make a SoC, licencing an existing SoC as a starting point can be a sort of solution; as an absolute last resort, using an existing SoC, destroying the unnecessary sub-units and adding the missing functionnality as external circuits can be workable.

> The whole argument for Fast-Mem made sense in the days when
> the display took a significant amount of memory bandwidth and
> the CPU had little or no cache. Those days have long gone.
A modern GPU has an extremely high bandwith requirement, the GDDR memory wasn't invented for nothing. Using it as a GPGPU/DSP only worsens the problem.
> RLDRAM might be useful for something really high end (and
> expensive) but that's not going to be a convergence box.
The CPU only needs a small bandwidth but is sensitive to latency. Think of the RLDRAM3 Fastmem as an external cache.

> The proposed box also includes interfaces that were obsolete
> years ago - PCMCIA ???
It is still used quite often, for example, CAM modules use PCMCIA.

> As for the building processor, expecting people to work on it
> for free is not only ridiculous, it's illegal.
The same thing goes for software, yet people in the Amiga world do it as a labour of love and only get paid a little bit here and there, nowhere near the true price.

> You need a big team of engineers
I would go with only 3 engineers.

> Then there's all the hardware and *extremely* expensive EDA software
Or you can try to get away with some basic VHDL tools.

> you need and a boat load of multi-million dollar licenses.
Or you can negociate an cost per unit produced to reduce upfront costs (but it increases total cost).

> Oh, and you'll need a supercomputer to simulate it.
Or you can bake some test chips as an alternative.

@thread
When you try something, you may or may not succeed, when you don't try it, you're garanteed not to succeed.
The worse which can happen is to fail which will be no worse than not having tried. Keep this in mind.

@Amigabeliever

who will pay for the 3 engineers?

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. Just throwing some ideas is not enough as long as you do not pay it yourself. Make a detailed business plan, go to some investors collecting money. 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 like most in the community. It would be easier on Aros, I think ports are mostly done by one person in 3 months and it is already supporting different platforms like AMD64 and ARM. On MorphOS or AmigaOS you are dependent on convincing others, good luck with it.

[ Editiert durch OlafSch 24.03.2016 - 09:54 ]

First:

Quote:

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?

Second: if MIPS is growing as you claim, why is Imagine doing so poorly?

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.

Forth:

Quote:

That only applies when you have something to show. Like my writer dad said: you can have a whole novel finished in your head. You still have to write it down in order for it to count. 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".

[ Edited by Yasu 24.03.2016 - 11:38 ]

Quote:

Yeah, and I want hardware being as widely available as possible, and staying so after the production has finished. I don't have any interest to end up the situation where for example OS4 is now, where new machines are available on small batches who knows when and no used machines market at all.

Not to talk about all the risks ending up with buggy hardware like it has happened for example with Pegasos1 and early AmigaOnes. There's absolutely no point hanging in custom OS tied hardware solutions in this age and these resources, and the pace HW is moving forward. It was a totally different case with a big company like Commodore at those times when you really could be innovative and different on hw design... but those times are long gone.

Support for Macs has been the best move ever with MorphOS. You can get machines from your own country, even from your own city, and there will be replacement machines available for a long time. Just no point to waste resources to HW development which will obsolete itself in commercial sense very quickly, even before the SW support is finished. It's just better to go with as common as possible machines which are suitable for our needs.

Quote:
Agree with that...

Quote:

That's a common phrase. In fact "just trying" isn't enough if you want to succeed. You must know your goals and draw different scenarios and pursue the most probable for a success.
If the aim is to get a sustainalble market for MorphOS buiding an own hardware is probably not the way to go. The risk and investement is too high.
Better bring MorphOS to the common devices (read normal computerrs or ARM gadgets). You save the cost of a hardware development, production and distribution/sales.

If the aim is to enter the mass market offering a complete package is one way to approach teh market. Bit it includes high risks (mostly financia risks). Even for trying to enter the mass market I would rather pursue a software only solution.

And i guess there are different goals for MorphOS. Some want to make it mainstream others are pretty satisfied with a sustainable niche market. I guess most of the team belong to the latter. They do MorphOS not primarily for the money but mostly for the love of it. I like that approach very much. And if you don't want to conquer the mass market you are much more free.
If - by chance - MorphSo would get a bigger market share though, I think only few would refuse that. But getting a serious piece of the market is not the primary goal. It's of course also a given that current user base is too small. An increase by the factor of about 10 or so would be quite a success and enable a vivid and kind of sustainable niche.
Eventually it's up the developers to define their goal. But I guess high sales numbers are not their biggest driving force.

Quote:

No, this is extremely unlikely, there is nothing suggesting a realistic outcome like the one you describe.


Quote:

Yes, give it enough time, and everything will most likely boil down to these architectures (32-bit/64-bit).


Quote:

Are you on drugs? Or have you simply lost your connection to reality?


Quote:

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.

Quote:

It's not about having it, it's about using it. This whole topic is yet another useless topic. None of MorphOS developers even hesitated to post any reply on it and I don't blame them.

Quote:

You are of course absolutely right. I think the guy has the heart in the right place, but yes, it simply will not happen.

Even if he does find an investor with a plan (which he most probably won't) I doubt the Team would find MIPS to be interesting enough for all that work. Unless he pays them well which is even less likely.

No, let's just end the discussion here and give the guy some points for good intentions.

The Teams stated intention to port MorphOS to one desktop and one laptop which you can find off the shelf simply makes more sense anyway.

Quote:

Hurray! MIPS For The Future! Unfortunately there does not seem to be any device (17" Laptop with full keyboard / numeric keypad) or any other device Morph wants to port MorphOS to. Who can create such a device?

> 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.