|
@ Sonic Reducer: Schön dass Du das mit der Phoenix so schnell erkannt hast. Dann wird dir das Nachfolgende besonders gefallen. Die Rechte an bestimmter Technik für die Phoenix lagen NIE bei MetaBox sondern bei Dave Haynie. Den konnten die nicht bezahlen, ergo keine Technik für die Phoenix. Wieso konnten die dann vom fertigen Produkt auf der Cebit sprechen. Messeblender!!!! @ Zimtochse: Schön dass Du Dich endlich outest. Der Hintergrund deiner dämlichen Ablenkungs threads mit Wetter- und Wolkenbildchen war mir längst klar. Dass Du ganz ganz ganz nah am Geschehen stehst wusste ich auch. Jetzt wo die Nerven blank liegen begibst Du Dich außerhalb dieses Ablankungs-threads und zeigst deutlich was deine Intentionen WIRKLICH sind. Auch dein Nacktbildchen Versuch war vergebens. Jeder entsprechende posting sticht Dich wie eine Tarantel. Warum wohl? Soll mal jetzt jeder selbst raten wer Du bist. Noch eine MetaBox-Lüge aufgedeckt. Schon am 18. August 2001 bestätigt Dave Haynie dass er die Rechte an bestimmten Arbeiten und Techniken an der Phoenix hat und dass er dies im EIGENEN Nahmen gemacht hat und unter einer EIGENEN Firma. MetaBox konnte ihn nicht bezahlen, deshalb dieser Weg. Wieso kann MetaBox dann behaupten MAN hätte ein FERTIGES Produkt und führt dies auf Messen vor? Hier das Schmankerl zum Sonntag: Interview de Dave Haynie du 18/08/2001 par Fabrice Mansat c-FMR : The questions of this interview were sent just a few minutes before Palm annoucement. 1)What happen to you since the Met@box ? Well, I haven`t been away from Metabox all that long. Last fall, I started to work with the Metabox Corporation (the US company) and an outside engineering company, with the intention of developing a US engineering group. This was going well, but lacked the necessary funding. I put some of my own cash into the deal, and in May, officially left Metabox AG to work for the US company fulltime, as Chief Technology Officer. However, Metabox AG didn`t meet a number of promises they`d made in regard to the US company, and as well, their flirtation with bankruptcy directly affected the US company`s ability to seek funding. In June, Metabox USA closed their door, and I was basically left without a job. How did you get involved into Merlancia Industries/MISEL? I have known Ryan C. for a while before this. Ryan was interested in reselling the Metabox "Phoenix", a set-top-box, or more properly, "convergence computer" (eg, a full fledged computer, but for plain old everyday users, centralized around media applications for your livingroom, rather than business/engineering applications for your office). 2)For how long have you been working on that project? Well, the stuff I`m initial doing for Merlancia began while I was working for Metabox Corp. They couldn`t pay me, so I kept all my work under my own name (the AG was supposed to be paying, but they didn`t). Übersetzung: Gut, das Zeug dass ich anfänglich für Merlancia machte begann während ich für MetaBox Corp. Arbeitete (hier wird von der Phoenix geredet). Die konnten mich nicht bezahlen, deshalb habe ich alle meine Arbeit unter meinem eigenen Namen gehalten (die AG sollte mich dafür bezahlen aber sie konnte nicht) Soweit zum fertigen Produkt Herr Lügenmayer! The goal, while at Metabox Corp, was to design a short-term architecture improvement to the Phoenix. In Europe, the target is clearly DVB, and the Phoenix architecture handles that just dandy. But here in the USA, the goal was advanced broadband entertainment, and I felt that we had a number of shortcomings in the Phoenix architecture. Why starting again with a PPC machine? Several reasons. PowerPC is a fairly simple replacement for the ColdFire used in the Phoenix, but with greater performance for the price. Other Merlancia projects (cooperative developments with bPlan, for example) use the PowerPC, so there`s value in maintaining the family. For a set-top box, I really can`t care all that much about the CPU, since you`ll either have proprietary/bundled applications, or you`ll have machine independent applications, like JavaTV, MHP, perhaps something like Tao/Intent provide. I don`t plan to get locked into any specific CPU in the "device" space, that`s as bad a move as any other hardware lock we`ve seen in the past. And PowerPC has it over x86, for embedded applications, in spades. 3)Isn`t that machine a resurrection of the Pios One/TransAm machine ? Not even remotely. The PIOS One was a mid-to-high end desktop media workstation. The new thing is a fairly low cost livingroom computer. Most users won`t even think "computer", they`ll think of it as a multi-featured appliance. 4)What are the major differences between the 2 machines ? Isn`t the Tsunami a simplier version of the Pios One ? Is it CHRP ? Why only 2 CPUs ? Isn`t that machine a bit limited compared to today hardware ? I wasn`t involved in all the bPlan stuff, the decisions, etc. They`re not really doing something like the PIOS One architecture. You definitely wouldn`t clone a PIOS One today, anyway. Whether there`d be any value in following that gestalt, I`d really need to think for awhile, and perhaps work up the next generation. The bPlan stuff is so close, there`s no need for me to be involved. With Merlancia building a real engineering department, with me at the top of that, I`ll most definitely be more involved with future directions. 5)What market(s) do you target ? Is it a geek machine? Some of the bPlan system applications are definitely for geeks or Amiga fans who refuse Windows. A huge company couldn`t launch such a system, but Merlancia small enough to do this. I`m also a believer in the idea that you can be profitable via one huge market, or numerous niches. We`re not building single-use systems. As for the STB stuff, it`s not a geek machine, though it`s quite likely geek/gadget freak types will want one in their TV room. This is a multi-purpose machine that does a wide variety of things. Sure, you could do that with a PC, but it wouldn`t do the video stuff as well, and the interfaces that work on the desktop aren`t what`ll work in the livingrooms of most people. Go play with a TiVo, then call that "VIC-20". We`re extending the logical evolution of that concept to "Amiga 1200" or so, metaphorically speaking. 6)Who would buy a PPC machine today ? People who want PPC-Linux. People who want AmigaOS 4.0/MorphOS/etc. People who don`t care what`s inside, but what it does. Other stuff I won`t get into now. 7)Will it ship with several OSes? What`s the best OS for that machine? Isn`t the Tsunami machine a Amiga machine ? There will be multiple OSs available. What ships is really a marketing question, not an engineering one. Best is what`s best for you, when it`s your computer. As for Amiga, what`s "an Amiga machine"? If it`s "something based on a hack of the classic 68K Amiga achitecture", then no, we`re not doing that. If it`s "something planned to be able to run new AmigaOS, and other things", then sure. 8)How can you ship it with BeOS as there`s no more BeOS PPC support from Be Inc. ? Some of the marketing information on the web site is old. We`re working on that. 9)Where could we find a real photo of the machine ? c-FMR : Not answered 10)Are the Pilot Systems ready for shipping ? Prototypes exist today. Pilot production is next, that`s being organized now. The goal was to have systems at the Koln Amiga show, but I heard that`s cancelled, or perhaps merged with another show in November. So you`ll see them then. Or before then, perhaps, if we have time for the Web site. 11)What is a realistic shipping date of the machine? I don`t know about that. The stuff I`m directly working on will ship in 2002. The bPlan stuff, certainly sooner than the STB. 12)Will it ship to any country? Logically, if it ships at all, it`s shipping to a country. Will it ship to _every_ country? I don`t know. Merlancia certainly doesn`t have representation in every country. That doesn`t mean we won`t have partners to extend beyond. 13)How many third party developpers are working on that machine? That`s an OS-dependent question, really. We`re the hardware vendor, not the OS vendor. 14)Are you in touch with Apple about licencing MacOS? No. If we did MacOS, it wouldn`t be with Apple`s help. They don`t want other people running MacOS. They can`t necessarily stop it. On the other hand, Linux is already bigger than MacOS. There`s no guarantee that MacOS is going to remain interesting enought to consider, though I have no problems with anyone putting any OS on our hardware. 15)Why should a MacOS user choose a Tsunami instead of a Apple machine? Assuming we do have MacOS, it would be, simply, because it`s a better deal than something from Apple. Or because, perhaps, you want an open system. Apple won`t allow other OSs to run on their machines, for the most part. We will. 16)Isn`t the Tsunami a bit expensive? Some of the systems are high-end, with fancy casework and other things that drive up the price. Certainly not for everyone. 17)Will the Tsunami machine ship with multiboot software? Ultimately. Things won`t necessarily happen all at once. Can we expect some kind of VMWare software to run several OSes at the same time ? Not at first, other than the obvious bits, that classic AmigaOS, AmigaDE if we support it, etc. can run in any OS environment. 1)I supposed that you`re aware that Be Inc. is looking for one or more new investors ? Palm, Inc. is acquiring them, for about $10 million in stock. 2)Do you believe such as Be people that BeOS is almost a dead OS? BeOS is technically the best OS of the last 10 years. But without some kind of support, it`s not going to evolve. A thing either evolves, or it dies, over time. We`ll have to see what Palm thinks about the Be future. In your opinion, what was wrong with Be Inc. strategy ? I could write a book. They had a few major problems. For one, they took kind of a gamble on the geek/media market, as being large enough to support them. It could have been, but the time necessary to establish their SW platform was longer than they could deal with. The huge mistake was, at the time of the BeIA annoucement, also officially dropping support for desktop BeOS. They were basically cancelling one bet, before the horses even got to the last straightaway, and put their remaining money on a longshot. See, BeOS was, I believe, on the verge of becoming very well supported for high-end DAW (digital audio workstation) work. I was ready to switch my studio computer to BeOS fulltime, buy Nuendo at nearly any price, buy new audio/MIDI hardware if mine didn`t get BeOS support. At least half of the interesting audio carc companies were supporting BeOS, with drivers. I suspect many of the software companies who weren`t yet supporting BeOS were watching intently. The "we`re dropping emphasis on the desktop", or whatever they said, doomed all this. The big boys left, practically overnight. And there was NO need to do this. Saying "we intend to support applicances" doesn`t have to be predicated on "we`re killing the desktop". In fact, they could have made a good show about how the OS modularity made them two sides of the same coin. The problem with BeIA is simple: x86 is a crappy embedded platform. Sure, you can fool a fe PClone companies into using underpowered National/Cyrix chips, or expensive laptop Celerons/Durons, but it`s not what you need to build an appliance. Look at Compaq`s various ventures. They want $800 for a thing that just plays CDs and rips MP3 to an internal hard disc. The "Phoenix" I worked on at Metabox AG can do this. And browse the web. And play games. And play full motion MPEG-2 videos. And deliver digital TV, and record shows for you when you`re not around. And all for a bit less money. And as well, there`s a certain bit of source code support you will demand in an embedded market, since your hardware may well be changing during development. I want the stuff that hooks the OS into my system to be under my control, not Be`s. If I run QNX, I get a couple of documented modules, with source code, that hook the OS to my hardware. If I run some of the other embedded OSs, I get full source code. I don`t know the BeIA deal, but Be totally screwed the pooch on this, for the desktop. I even busted their chips, at serveral DevCons, about their not having a HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer). Even Windows NT/2K/XP has a HAL. I think they had too many high-level software guys, no one thinking about the low-level stuff. You could almost get away with that on the desktop. You can`t, for embedded stuff. Thankfully, some of this is just policy. Under Palm, they could very well extend the reach of BeOS/BeIA. I would use onumy set-top-box at Merlancia, without reservation, if they fixed the CPU/source support problems. 3)Could BeIA save Be Inc and BeOS? Nope. And I told you why, above. BeIA would have been a nice adjunct to normal BeOS. It`s not a workable replacement. Is there a real market for Internet Appliances? Not the way most companies have built them. If you had to pay $200 for a web terminal, and $150 for a DTV receiver, and $200 for a DVD player, and $800 for an MP3-CD jukebox, and $150 for a home gateway, etc. and so forth, you`d be happy to spend $600 or whatever for a device that does it all, and more. There`s a kind of basic, can`t be any cheaper price for hardware, based solely on volume, casework, power supply, drives, and basically, all kinds of stuff in common with any device, regardless of whether it`s a PC or a web tablet. Then you add in the price of the motherboard and the software, and you have a product. Thing is, adding a second function to that product is likely to be software and little to no hardware. Next function, same thing. I think it of it as a non-PClone personal computer optimized for the livingroom, for home entertainment. Users don`t realize there`s a whole computer in there, any more than they realize their DVD or CD player is, in essence, a computer, just one with fixed functionality. 4)Could Merlancia Industries purchase BeOS? Nope. Too much money, and, well, Palm has it already. 5)Do you think that you could get a BeOS licence from Be Inc and continue BeOS PPC developpement on your own ? I will be interested in the kinds of things Palm plans to do with BeOS. I`m not short an OS, I have too many, but then again, there`s a bit of work I`m willing to do to get "ideal" rather than "ok", for any application. 6)Do you believe that Be Inc is of any interest to any big business company? Who could purchase Be Inc ? Sony, AOL, Apple, Samsung... Microsoft ? Palm, Inc. 7)What else would you like to tell our readers about BeOS and Be Inc ? I pretty much have. Overall, BeOS was to the mid-90s, tech-wise, what AmigaOS was to the mid-80s. As much as people still see AmigaOS doing things better, or more cleverly, in AmigaOS, compared to where Windows has gone, BeOS is demonstrating where Windows probably never will be able to go. It has the Amiga feel of "simple, clever, and functional", rather than "complex, convoluted, bloated, and weak" you too often find in Windows. As well, BeOS is extremely easy to code for. Easier than Amiga, dramatically easier than the convoluted web of APIs, subsystems, library frameworks, language interfaces, thunks, and other garbage you find in Windows. That`s why Metabox approached me, in 1988, to use BeOS in our second-generation set top box, the Metabox 500, which was, oddly enough, x86 based (it wasn`t ideal, we knew it, but it did make development very fast, adapting a PC design rather than starting from scratch). Back then, Be didn`t have clue about applicance computing. So we wound up using OS/2. They learned, but still managed to make that learning become the wrong answer. Übersetzung: Das war der Grund warum MetaBox mich kontaktierte, in 1998, um BeOS in unserer zweiten Generation der Set-Top-Boxen zu benutzen, die MetaBox500, welches, seltsam genug, x86 basiert war (das war nicht ideal, wir wussten es, aber es machte die Entwicklung sehr schnell (Anm.: Um schneller an der Börse abzocken zu können mit Blender Boxen), unter Adaption eines PC-Design (Stefan Domeyer: das haben wir schon 1997 ad-acta gelegt!) statt völlig neu zu entwickeln). Damals hatten wir keine Ahnung vom alliance computing (Domeyer: Wir haben einen technischen Vorsprung von 18 Monaten!). So endeten wir mit der Benutzung von OS/2 (Domeyer: Wir haben unsere eigene Software!). Sie (MetaBox) lernten, aber schafften es dennoch dass dieses Lernen eine falsche Antwort wurde (Domeyer: Wir sind Weltmarktführer). -- |
|
| aus der Diskussion: | MetaBox Int. AG, PIOS, Joe Card, Amiga usw.: FUNDSTÜCKE |
| Autor (Datum des Eintrages): | HannaFeinbier (08.09.02 12:55:11) |
| Beitrag: | 5 von 20 (ID:7309827) |
| Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr © wallstreetONLINE | |