TrevorDick,
Quote:

Nice to see you here Trevor, I think you are wise to "trawl all the Amiga forums" less often. With all the crap and negativity that is spewed out in them (not much of that happens here of course), plus the fighting and sometimes downright hatred expressed, I am trying to wean myself off visiting so often myself. I think it will help me control my blood pressure without needing to resort to medications.

I hope that you will soon be able to run MorphOS3.0, along with the rest of us who are anxiously waiting for it's release.

I was fairly certain that the statement by a supposed beta-tester was incorrect, regarding you recouping all of your investment into the X1000 project already, and found it very strange that anyone would claim to know any financial information about A-Eon, other than yourself.

I know it may be a while (if ever) before you see this comment, but just want you to know that myself and many other people are looking forward to seeing what you and A-Eon will come up with next, and I personally hope that many X1000 computers sell over the next several months. More X1000 owners and users means more chances that good things will be written to run on them and a higher chance that people will invent some interesting ways to make use of the Xena/Xorro interface.

[ Edited by amigadave 09.04.2012 - 14:46 ]

> Having also read the (bad) google translation of the other thread
> I think there may be some misunderstanding?

If there is, it must be on said X1000 betatester's side.

> I will make Zero return on the sale of these systems. However, the
> good news is that these systems will not cost me any money either :-)
> I can also confirm that I have not provided any financial information
> to any third parties.

So said X1000 betatester made his public claim up out of thin air. Thanks for the clarification.

Update:

>> "IIRC, Ben Hermanns is no longer a partner of A-Eon, since they
>> reformed in the UK and closed the Belgium based company."
>> http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35093&forum=32#651254

> And indeed, A-Eon's October 1st press release has been the last one
> where the company calls itself a CVBA. Starting with the one from
> October 12th, all 8 subsequent press releases have missed the "CVBA" bit.

Now the website also reflects this change and reads:

"A-EON Technology Limited"

http://www.a-eon.com
http://www.a-eon.biz
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/a-eon.com
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/a-eon.biz

"Date of Incorporation: 04/04/2012"
http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/216321.shtml

As for the maintenance statement, maybe this refers to the March 2010 announcement of a more professional website:

"we will have a more traditional corporate website at the A-EON address when we are ready to go fully public."
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30985&forum=42#544604

I mean, the "small web presence with information summaries, updates, media, features and so on" has been online for long enough now ;-)

I think it's interesting that they bother with a new public web page, when their strategy is to remove information about their product from the consumers eye, just like the Eyetech/AmigaWorld.net scheme with locked down information and hidden forums back when they tried to shift the previous "AmigaOne"...

> Trevor [...] has a good business pedigree, so I wouldn't be surprised
> if he manages to pull it off: even if his own personal interest in the
> Amiga blinded him with optimism (and I don't believe this to be the
> case), I would be surprised if that would be enough to convince his
> business partner (Anthony Moorley) to invest. There must be a sound
> business plan in place.

Some suspect that now that AmigaKit's Matthew Leaman has become part of (the British reincarnation of) A-Eon (which btw is not surprising since it was more or less announced), Anthony Moorley may have followed Ben Hermans' example and bailed out:

http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbmessage.pl/amiga/216323.shtml

Surprisingly informative for a Moo posting.

> Surprisingly informative for a Moo posting.

There was a time when the very first address for encountering insightful research and whistle-blowing regarding all things Amiga was the Moo. Dig for old Moo threads and you'll see what I mean. Unfortunately, that seems to be a thing of the past, except for some rare exceptional occassions.

That's a shame as I admire the idea of a forum without moderator intervention.
Its admirable that MorphZone posters rarely need anyone to rein in their rants.

Quote:

No, it's just the usual crap.

Read the post it links to. The Moo poster did a rather selective quote that wrote about it. He completely ignored the rest.

@minator wrote:

"No, it's just the usual crap"

Thanks for that. Yes it was more or less announced in the past.

The new website should be up and running soon.

TrevorD

Hmm... but this Leaman replaced Hermans and Moorley, right? I just want make those rumours clear.

> The new website should be up and running soon.

Also on http://www.a-eontechnology.com? ;-)

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/a-eontechnology.com

itix,
Quote:

I don't think Trevor wants to discuss this.

@jim

And you are his spkes person to tell us this?

Power.org Newsletter

IBM – Game Console
 
Wii U Processor is based on Power7. The Wii U is Nintendo's sixth home console and the first Nintendo console to produce 1080p high-definition graphics, and features a new controller with an embedded touchscreen later this year. The Wii U CPU is designed by IBM. It is described by IBM as an all-new, Power-based microprocessor and shares some characteristics with IBM's POWER7 processor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_U

takemehomegrandma,
Quote:

spkes person?
No, I've just seen way too many people asking this question (and none getting an answer).
Why do you think its any of your business?

> Wii U Processor is based on Power7. [...] It is described by IBM
> as an all-new, Power-based microprocessor and shares some
> characteristics with IBM's POWER7 processor.

To my mind, the second sentence reads like some kind of relativization of the former. So let's see what "based on" really means in technical detail and if what it shares with POWER7 are significantly more characteristics than just a large eDRAM cache.
On the other hand, there's an interesting tweet by IBM from June 2011 which seems to confirm that the Wii U actually uses the very same POWER7 *chip* (not just the same core) as IBM's Watson computer, which would mean an eight-core POWER7 chip. I find that very hard to believe.

I fail to see why it's important to know who's in and who's out in A-eon ... in every business people go and people come, same goes for business plans ... they can change without further notice ..

Oepabakkes,
Quote:

Exactly my point.
Trevor's business relationships and information about specific activities occurring within his business are entirely his own personal concern.
Why would anyone assume he's obligated to answer questions about these matters?

@Oepabakkes

A couple of reasons:

Warranty is one of the most frequently used arguments for getting "new" hardware. But no warranty is stronger than the financial abilities behind the entity issuing it. The corporate structure, ownership situation, and financial situation is essential info needed for anyone to assess the credibility of any warranty promises and future repair services, and it's important to learn of any changes of any of these parameters (and also why they occurred)!

The habit of selling the A1X1K by pre-orders and (at least in the past) pre-payments, long lead times after that, etc, signals weak (or complete absence of) financial muscles to begin with, partners suddenly bailing out should make you rise your eyebrow (at the very least) as it could mean some problem occurred, and anyone familiar with the Amiga Inc vs. Hyperion conflict should know about possible implications of (more or less selective) IP and contract transfers between different corporate entities that everyone just assumed would be one and the same company, especially so when owners shift in the process.

Normally, a consumer won't really have to care about things like this, because most companies selling consumer goods (especially consumer electronics) are big, solid companies with established and proven routines for these things. If you buy a Pioneer Blu-ray player, or a Panasonic TV, you can safely assume you will manage to get help if it breaks down. But with basement based hobby companies that aren't really making any money at all, things are different.

The ones behind the previous AmigaOne's also promised warranties and future service/repairs. But then one day, Alan Redhouse suddenly made a rage-quit post over at AmigaWorld.net, blaming everyone and their dogs for the failure, and then simply left the scene. Left behind were all AmigaOne owners with their utterly worthless promises of "warranty" and and future repair service. AFAIK, some third party guy with a soldering iron offered repairs of AmigaOne's after that, but the problem with the A1X1K is that the central part of the board (the SoC-like CPU) was never really up for public business, it's "dead" since 2007, and access to any hidden stash of produced chips is limited or simply not there. If a system breaks in 2014, will there be anyone there to honor the warranty? If the system breaks in 2018, how will you get it repaired? It's $3,000+ a piece of investments we are talking about here! That is why these things are interesting!

Also, they are now collecting interest applications/pre-orders for another production run of AmigaOne's while actively trying to hide important info about its features (like its true performance) from potential customers. Who are the ones responsible for this? We need names and faces. Why? Because we saw this back when the previous A1's were marketed. In that case, all the true info about problems, specifications, etc were carefully hidden away from public eye, while massive *propaganda* were spread that the AmigaOne would be good quality (which it's not, it's crap quality for a consumer product, it was a Articia S development board), good performance (while being much cheaper, the Pegasos2 easily beat the A1 in most areas, even at the same CPU speed), that the Articia S worked flawlessly (which it didn't, it had major and fundamental flaws, not a single chip worked as advertised), etc, outright lies and deceit in order to sell AmigaOne systems. Immoral? Definitely. Fraud? Possibly.

Bottom line: All in all, we shouldn't just stand by and let history repeat itself. This kind of information needs to be open, and allowed for public discussion. Period.

@Jim

Trevor is reading this site and even posting in this thread, I'm sure he is perfectly able to speak his mind without the need of any self-proclaimed spokes persons telling us what he is or is not interested in.

This behavior — users taking on a self-proclaimed role of telling other users what info "the Friedens", Hyperion, etc are interested (or not interested) in sharing — is something common on AmigaWorld.net, but let's keep it there. It's pointless and it only disturbs the discussions.

Rather curious that on a forum about an OS that doesn't run on an X1000 people are interest in that machines warranty.

I can understand the concerns tough ... but people who bought or are willing to buy an X1000 already do understand and know these concerns I think. Also warranty is how long ... 2 years ? Why bother what happens in 2018 ? Any repairs needed then will not be under warranty unless you bought your machine in 2016.

Anyway, if all efforts like trevor's are going to be questioned like this, people might as well stop trying to make new Amiga's. There will always be concerns unless it's 100% off the shelve hardware... but does it really have to be like the Spanish inquisition ?

BTW, here is some more data on A1X1K's performance.


@Oepabakkes
Quote:

Point is, this project was madness from the beginning and should simply never have happened. A sub-2005 level computer for 2012+ market costing $3,000+ shouldn't even have gotten to the drawing table!

It's one thing if it costs a little more than customary for (say desktop) computers, maybe offering a little less, and the OS not supporting quite everything out of the box, that's something you could buy, given the fact that it's for an obscure Amiga market. For example, my Pegasos 2 was a little bit more expensive and offered a bit less than the x86 computer I bought the same year. But it's the *scale* of the differencies, both in price and performance, the *magnitude*, that makes this completely *insane*!

Note to the future: If the results will be anything similar to the A1X1K — don't do it!

> the central part of the board (the SoC-like CPU) [...],
> it's "dead" since 2007

I guess you mean 2008 here, as that's the year Apple acquired it.

> A sub-2005 level computer for 2012+ market costing $3,000+
> shouldn't even have gotten to the drawing table!

Let's not forget that when it went to the drawing table no later than 2009, it was still planned for 2010 market and probably for a lower price than $3,000 as well (as a longer development process means more expensive development in total) ;-) However, the one thing of those three aspects they could have known beforehand for sure is the PA6T's performance level, as they could have benchmarked it on a PA6T eval board running Linux in the Varisys lab. But then, maybe they did and were satisfied with the results :-)