@ takemehomegrandma

Quote:

You have been repeating this for quite some time. However, running a successful business is in most cases not at all about "beating" your competition but rather finding your niche.


Quote:

In simple terms, developing a piece of software as a business requires you to generate sufficient revenue to cover all costs and preferably still have enough left to build up cash reserves for weak periods or emergency expenses.

That is all you have to do.

Let us assume that you focus your expenses on what is really important. No private jets. No first-class flights from the US to Europe and back. No fancy sports cars. No expensive offices. No redundant lawsuits.

How many sales do you need in order to turn your hobby into a profession? 100 million units? 1 million units? 100.000 units?

You can do with a lot less, actually. For the sake of this discussion, let us assume your software product is an operating system that includes a suite of every-day applications and runs on fairly common hardware. If you manage to sell a mere 2.000 units per year at $100 each, you generate 200.000 USD in revenue. At an admittedly modest average income of 3.000 USD per month, this is sufficient to pay 5 full-time developers or 10 part-time developers at half the salary or a combination of these. At the end, you would still have $20.000 left to pay other expenses or to save up.

Now, there is no need to pick apart small details of my example which is obviously very simple and abstract .The point I am trying to make is that you can in fact run a sustainable business with comparably small sales volumes as long as you can keep them at a constant level thanks to continuous product innovation.


Quote:

What we do know for a fact right now is that there are at the very least hundreds of people in the world who are willing to spend half a thousand dollars and more in order to buy custom hardware and a keyfile for the single purpose of being able to run MorphOS and compatible applications.

Would it be possible to raise sales numbers if the supported desktop hardware was more widely available, possibly cheaper and overall had a better price-performance ratio? Well, nobody can say for sure.

However, this - purely hypothetical - scenario sure sounds considerably more realistic than any vague dreams about large OEM deals for low-performance hardware (with cut-throat pricing, thus tiny margins for system software), embedded usage, and so on.

While having grand visions can be sometimes fruitful, ignoring your existing custumer base is almost always stupid.

Quote:

Hopefully the Mac mini will soon provide us with a case study whether a more widely avaiable hardware with better price/performance ratio will yield to more sales or not.

Not bene: Yes, the Mac mini is also quite niche and not new, but at least I guess we (or to be more precise: the MorphOS-Team) will get an idea how market demand for MorphOS for easily availabile and not overpriced hardwrare will be.

Quote:

Indeed. But how would you define a plausible niche for MorphOS on the commercial x86 desktop market?

takemehomegrandma:
Which Netbooks are most likely to survive
and thrive? Standardized x86-based or
customized ARM-based?

I know what I think.. At least the x86-based
can run Windows and Ubuntu, which makes
it even more appealing to many users.

Quote:

You mean "standardized" x86-based or "standardized" ARM-based (and I don't see any real standards as of yet BTW)? And I am not *only* talking about netbooks BTW, ARM is being used in many other types of devices as well where MorphOS could make a difference. Much of the ARM market is far out of reach for the x86, but maybe that will change further down the road. I agree about the Windows part though; the Windows trade mark and familiar GUI alone is a great competitive advantage...

Takemehomegrandma:
The Atom-devices are based on a Netbook-standard
set by Intel. Via is trying to get their out.

You could use any of the millions of x86 Netbooks
produced each month.

Could you please give a few examples of other uses
than Netbook where MorphOS and ARM would fit?

No, the ARM is not enough for high-def media players..

Quote:

The i.MX515 ARM-devices are based on a "Netbook-standard" (let's call it "reference design" instead, for that is what it is) already set by Freescale.

Millions of ARM netbooks will be produced, I see no reason to doubt that. The 2009 holiday shopping season is the target, and I guess we will see after that, like towards spring 2010. AFAIK, the Atom netbooks doesn't compare in cost/profit margins, power consumption, etc (but obviously has the power of Windows). And one other thing, the "netbook boom" has yet to come (if it ever does, many predicted the boom to take place a year ago already, but the *boom* hasn't really happened yet).

Other devices would be LCD/Plasma TV's (720p is, and will be, the DTV HDTV standard of importance), PVR's, STB's, handheld devices (PDA's, phones, etc), In Shop Displays, Info Kiosks, On train/in flight entertainment, or a fuckload of other consumer electronics devices where ARM is used. I mean, give me a TV with a HDD, USB, Ethernet (and optionally WiFi and Bluetooth) and *MorphOS* and I would die with excitement. Think of the possibilities compared to the locked down to a bare minimum "OS's" in these devices now. And I look at all these kind of devices and I ask - Where is the x86?

I actually agree with Matt above, and further suggest that there is a strong motivation for a migration to ARM, as PowerPC is fading into a dead end and ARM is ascendent.

The irony of course being that this is the first time I'd turned on my G3 in months to say this. And of course Neko is going to turn around, insult me, and we get back to our usual routine.

@ironfist

Actually, you're wrong on a few levels.

1) VIA is in the process of releasing their second-generation netbook reference. VIA's cloudbook reference is one of the oldest netbook platforms out there, pre-dating the Atom based designs.

2) ARMs are used in high-def media setups already, so you are misplaced there. Please refer to the Marvell and TI offerings, and the upcoming nVidia designs, off the top of my head. I believe others are working on it as well.

3) Commodity development boards are already available. I've purchased a Beagleboard myself for some IO experimentation. When you can get a 1Ghz ARM platform for $100, the times, they are a changing.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 06.07.2011 - 19:53 ]

Quote:
I don't think anyone is suggesting being tied to a Genesi product, for-se, but that migration from the PowerPC to ARM platform would bring far more benefits than drawbacks. Genesi does not come close to offering even a fraction of the ARM systems on the market. You have development boards from Marvell, Samsung, Freescale, TI, all available to work from. Look at the Beagleboard sometime, an embedded joy for $150.

My concern with PPC remains the lack of vendors for key components, and the reliability of them. While the CherryPal looks good, agreed (and I might buy one myself anyways) what happens beyond that? The PPC based Macs are aging, the PPC amigas even moreso. There is not a huge development pool of vendors to supply us with the necessary hardware, and those that do often times lack the leveredge to make full use of what they have. ARM does not have any of these problems, and the only real problem comes one of perception and upper scalability, only coming in speeds of up to 2Ghz. But, considering we're limited to G3 and G4 era PPC's anyways, there is no loss there.

> ARM does not have any of these problems, and the only real problem
> comes one of perception and upper scalability, only coming in
> speeds of up to 2Ghz.

ARM up to 2 GHz? Where? I see Marvell currently at 1.2 GHz and Qualcomm (not released yet) at 1.5 GHz. (*)

> considering we're limited to G3 and G4 era PPC's anyways, there is
> no loss there.

G4 currently scales up to 1.7 GHz (MPC7448).


Edit:
(*) Also Intel are currently at 1.2 GHz regarding their ARM processors.

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf on 2009/3/23 4:10 ]

Quote:
Just looking at the roadmap. The fastest ones I've seen in person have been Marvell's 1.2Ghz dual core model (78200). But, consider for a moment, the prototyping kit for the 1Ghz Marvell is $99, and think of the options from there.

2Ghz ARMs will be shipping in the next year and a half, while G4's have stalled, same speed now as they were years ago. I just am tired of the dead ends, the bickering, the halted starts. When we are looking at the 7448, a chip now 4 years old, and that is the best we can come up with, we are in trouble.

Quote:

I understand that MOS should not be tied to a dead end CPU and please don't take what I am about to say in the wrong way or context, but one of the things I would hope the MorphOS community would try to avoid is the short life cycle that is perpetuated in the Windows world where you are expected to upgrade your computer every 1-1/2 to 2 years, or less, just because there is a faster CPU available, not because you need it to do what you normally use your computer for. With the increased efficiency of MorphOS we will always be able to do more with less computer resources, just as the Amiga did for years, and as such I would hope that our life cycle would be greater. Maybe 3 to 5 years between having to upgrade machines.

Just a rambling thought, for what it is worth.

[ Edited by amigadave on 2009/3/19 18:08 ]

Quote:
I will agree here. Products are rushed, for little gain in too many cases. Part of me is fustrated because PowerPC is a dead end, with the only two producers already migrating their focus away from it into other ventures. And where will that leave us in 5 years, in 10 years? When will we realize that none of these big companies care about our needs? I have been a strong proponent for siezing control, not just of our OS, as MorphOS has done by freeing us from the Amiga, Inc foolishness, but of the rest of the system. While initially we use someone elses ARM technology, the vision should be for our own license, so if and when we have vendor issues, we go to another fab without much interruption. Take control of our product, and we take control of our market. Vertical integration to protect us from the outside forces, and to deliver the value that I know we can.

> PowerPC is a dead end, with the only two producers already migrating
> their focus away from it into other ventures.

That's not true, for none of the "only two producers" IBM (Cell, upcoming PPC476 and PPC A2), Freescale (e200, e300, e500 (esp. upcoming QorIQ)) and AMCC (PPC460, hopefully upcoming Titan (not cancelled yet)).

There is a certain cool factor with a netbook, but I really don't see a positive outcome in uprooting the small community we have in forcing a complete change in direction. It might be something to consider on a long term road map.

If MorphOS were available and running on Mac Minis right now, I'd purchase one (and a new license) just for the speed boost. (My Peg 1 works well for most tasks, but there are occasions where I wish it were faster.)

I think a good move (short term) would be to assemble a team of people together to promote a mac mini friendly MorphOS realease by spreading the "good word" on Mac sites and generate possible interest in the people who have not switched to faster machines. That could possibly increase our user base and also possibly increase our pool of developers. (When such a release happens.)

If an architecture move didn't include losing what we do have for software right now it wouldn't be such a big deal. Starting from scratch with what little resources we have to rebuild it just seems like a bad idea.

Quote:

This is one of the best things I've heard lately. MorphOS is already an independent product, self contained, call it what you like. Our hardware dependency is a shame, and it should be avoided.
What should MorphOS Team do? Build a hardware team (yea, easy!). And, if that route is taken, imagine what would be easier: Building a PowerPC based computer, with all the provider problems we all know, or go the ARM route, with a much broader base of suppliers, and best of all, licencing schemes: We could even have our "own" CPU. And, as "Downix" says, if we had problems with our CPU supplier, we could switch no another one with little drama.
Of course, the CPU is only part of the computer, but the key here is that building your own ARM based computer is indeed a possibility.
And I like PowerPC a lot. But also realize that:

1.- There are clever indeed chips out there that are not PowerPC.
2.- Huge power from x86 doesn't make sense in MorphOS.
3.- ARM has very big momentum now.
4.- It's about time to give freescale the answer they deserve: Quit.
5.- Control of our destiny. Also in hardware, as in software, the Team already has.

By the way, "Downix", are you Nathaniel Downes, formerly related to Genesi? Your first words about Matt Sealey are interesting...

I have written this before, but I will repeat it again. What we need more than new hardware, or a switch to a different CPU/platform is more users and developers and applications in this tiny community of MorphOS users. I think the quickest route to that goal is to take advantage of as many PPC Mac models as the team can quickly get MorphOS3.x working on. Then hopefully there will be more users and more new programmers creating content and applications for MorphOS and if the team will accept new members to develop MorphOS itself, then maybe they will be able to find those extra coders to help port MorphOS to a different architecture faster. This will also make it more cost effective to sell any new hardware that may eventually get created for MorphOS as a bigger user base means more potential buyers will want to upgrade to the new hardware.

Maybe I am wrong about the size of the MorphOS user base, but it seems to be very small to me. I am trying to learn more programming so I can contribute by helping others work on new programs, porting existing programs from other OSes, or creating new programs myself.

Quote:

For which market? There is virtually none, not even if multiplied by 10 or 50. At least none that would justify or sustain production of your own silicon. There is much, much momentum inside the processor market. Powerful processors are mostly driven today by Intel, Intel and again Intel. *They* dominate the market and they will continue to do so. So, *if* breaking with a big endian processor and leaving the niche under this nice stone called ppc, then it seems wise to me to go the most popular way. the way with the most benefit.
x86 based computers are everywhere and will continue to be everywhere (at least for a long, long time). You don't get yourself in some weird dependency. Support x86 and you will never ever (next 50 years at least) again have a hardware shortage.
ARM will dominate the mobile phone other 32 bit emebedded market, but I don't want MorphOS neitehr on my mobile nor on my navigation device or the dishwasher (well, that one probably conatins a 8051, but I guess it is clear what is meant).
Anyway, one step after another. First lets get the Mac Mini port, and then we will see what comes next. But I doubt neither x86 nor ARM will be a good option for MorphOS. Both architectures will yield to a binary incompatible fork from MorphOS PPC. If ARM would fully support big endian mode, I'd have voted for ARM. But since it is de facto little endian I don't see much benefit in ARM over x86.
But, okay, if breaking with binary compatibility anyway and do the required changes in MorphOS it would be wise to change the OS to maximum portability anyway. Then it could easily support ARM and x86. but this would be some kind of different OS (because it would be stupid then not to take teh oppartunity to change some annoying internals of MorphOS which are still in there for legacy reasons). Then you could straightly turn to Anubis (which I think is an interesting attempt with a good approach).

Quote:
The one and only.

Quote:
ARM does support Big Endian, so I am quite perplexed by your comments there. Only the XScale model does not. That eliminates 1 series out of dozens. And nobody is proposing that we get silicon, at least, not at this time. But having the option, should it present itself, would be a worthly long term goal.

But porting to the PPC MacMini, you realize that you are insisting on focusing all effort on a machine that was discontinued over 3 years ago? The existing models are aging, and will be that much older when we are ready for it. That is my concern. I would note, I own a PPC Mac myself that would likely be able to run MorphOS with a MacMini port, so I would directly benefit from the effort, and I'm the one saying it is not the wisest investment in time and energy at this stage in the game. Our market is too small to gamble and waste energy on dead ends.

> It's about time to give freescale the answer they deserve: Quit.

You mean refusing to support Freescale's ARM (i.MX)?

> "Downix", are you Nathaniel Downes, formerly related to Genesi?

http://www.amiga.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=24205&forum=21#forumpost308291
http://www.amiga.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=24205&forum=21#forumpost308434

;-)

@ downix

Indeed, now I am quite confused. I read somewhere that ARM's big endian mode would basically just be the possibility to load big endian data correctly (i.e. e.g. word order is correct), but addresses themselves, representation of internal states and counters would be in little endian schem. Now I read the "programmer's model for Big_Endian ARM" from arm.com and from that document I understand it that way again, I originally thought it would be.
ARM >= ARM6 can be operated in true big endian mode. But as said, I *am* confused now.
My take on it is as follows:
What would happen if a 68k app running on a hypthetical MorphOS ARM with transparent 68k emulation would try to access, say, 0x00000004? Would it get a pointer to exec base or would it get elsewhere? If it gets some other than the exec base pointer, then I guess a 68k (or ppc) emulation is in some serious trouble. If it works, fine, then there is no endianness problem. But I was not able to disentangle this problem myself. I cannot predict the behaviour of ARM from the docs I read (I definitely don't claim to have fully understood what I read!!).
If you or someone else can enlighten me in this case, that would be appreciated very much.

> I think i got it now. ARM chips are able to load and process big
> endian data, while addressing und such stuff are always little endian.

Don't jump to conclusions about ARM's endianess(es) ;-) I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between just "endianess" and "true endianess".
Given the existence of a (non-official) big-endian ARM (ARMeb) port of Debian there must be true bi-endian ARMs able to operate in true big-endian mode.

Hint: Don't believe everything Neko is telling. He is not only wrong about ARM generally being non-true big-endian but also about Power Architecture generally being non-true little-endian.