> 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?