Re: Castle's plans

On May 25, 11:48 am, Ray Dawson <r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ams <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But as I said at the outset now is not the time to take the backwards
step of producing yet another low-end ARM9 box - we need to be pushing
the envelope onwards and upwards.

I think the reason why the idea of a low cost, low end box may be popular
is that, although a lot of users may want to continue using RISC OS, with
the lack of up to date software, they don't want to spend a lot of money
doing so.


An interesting point, but shouldn't we have seen a massive upsurge due
to the arrival of A9Home then? Or when the even cheaper VA with
StrongARM support came out?

A9Home did, for a while, substantially undercut the Iyonix -
pricewise. Was there a massive increase in usage of RISC OS as a
result? I think not.

Some have complained about having to fork out 50 quid for a software
package (the C/C++ tools) that once cost nearly 200. Yes cost has an
impact but let's not get too carried away here.

Hence the popularity of Virtual Acorn with Existing users.

Yes, it's (relatively) cheap - but here's the nub. I suspect many of
those users were making a dignified exit from the market (VA allowed
them to step out into the big bad world of Windows (tm) but still be
able to fall back on their old reliable apps, others may well have
been won over to the "dark side" through VA). I'd also point out that
some people use "cracked" versions of VA let's face it no matter how
good the product and how worthy the price people are still going to
want something for nothing.


Given software comparable and compatible with other platforms, more users
will invest in faster more expensive hardware. Unfortunately, the software
developers need a bigger userbase before that happens.


So why does Martin Wurthner bother, Dave Ruck, Stefan Huber et al... I
mean they don't produce code aimed at legions of users of the size
that are on Windows/Linux nay even Mac OS. A big complaint some people
have is that RISC OS can't do this or that ... some of this is down to
lack of availability of documentation or license permissions to
complete the development task, too few developers, or some is down to
the current ARM processors/hardware not being fast enough.

A significant proportion of the RISC OS market bought Iyonix at great
expense, another numerically significant group bought A9 (although
cheaper than Iyo it still is expensive compared to PCs). I think you'd
find the people who complain loudest on price won't buy no matter what
the price is. So you have to address those who *are* willing to pay.
That would be those people, like myself, who want more performance and
newer hardware. For me if Castle produced an A9Home clone even for 100
quid less I'd be underwhelmed. I'd strongly suspect the people who
complain too much on price *still* wouldn't buy - the "it must run
Select" types wouldn't buy it at half the price of an A9 even if it
did more than A9.

That leaves us with *high end*. Yes you make fewer sales - but you
encourage the developers to "push the envelope" something that just
isn't going to happen on a low end box. Besides if we wait long enough
VA will substantially trounce native ARM hardware in which case the
game will be over anyway

- Windows 1 RISC OS 0


What is better for the market? A lot of users of low end hardware, or a
lot fewer users of high end? If you have the hardware, you will buy the
software and it may be cost effective to develop it. So, to a software
developer, a lot of low end users may be more encouraging.


Numbers is good, but you'll only get the numbers if (a). The price is
right (b). The performance of the machine and (c). It's ability to do
common tasks is up to it. (a) would push you towards low end - but
(b), (c) require high end. And, if you don't mind me being cynical for
a moment, I remain to be convinced that paucity of sales of RISC OS
hardware is one purely dependant on price. I think VA (sales circa
3000) and A9 (who knows) have proven that. They both get (more or
less) as cheap as you can get RISC OS and still no big growth in
sales. So I'd say at best your case is unproven at worse it's
unfounded.

You need to have people use a platform and say "Wow that's good" -
you're not going to get that on a low end ARM box. And without that
"Wow" it doesn't matter what the price is.

Cheers,

Ray D

Kind Regards


Annraoi

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RPCemu vs. VRPC
    ... How will it stop the non-existent new native RISC OS ... - I find it hard to believe that there is a single software or hardware ... talented developers who've already left the platform precisely because they ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: VirtualAcorn Registration Misery
    ... to the hardware. ... The worry of lost sales is there, ... Piracy is definitely a no-no though, more than ever in the RISC OS ... I like to think that it's encouraging the developers to ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: How can RISC OS computers most effectively survive in the future?
    ... There's no trolling here. ... RISC OS box. ... They also have fancy additional hardware ... asking developers to go 'above and beyond' in optimizing ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.misc)
  • Re: Forking Out (was Alpha channel sprites)
    ... Whilst cognitive dissonance pushes me to support RISC ... ownership doesn't align me to one fork of RISC OS over another. ... help us work towards the chance of any RISC OS developers producing products ... I look forward to the next piece of hardware being sufficiently ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.apps)
  • Re: Strong Arm Chip used in ?
    ... [RISC OS on PDAs etc] ... >> as your price per unit to break even? ... hardware" is a vast one. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.hardware)