I don't think it should be forgotten that ROL are the only company actually making any money at the moment out of selling RISC OS.
So it is understandable that they are attending to their existing market first, and would want to think very carefully before doing anything radical which would jepordise this. So, just to gather together my thoughts, by existing market I mean, emulation via Virtual Acorn, finishing the OS for the A9 and incremental progress for Risc PC users via the select scheme.
I have been worried that the 'open' emulators are going to take out one of ROL's income streams. I worry because they'd be forced to defend their market which could result in 'friction'.
Porting RISC OS 5 to, say, the Pandora, is a much better proposition as it does not compete directly with existing markets. It would be fantastic if Castle could be brought back into the game, as a supplier of an "out-of-the-box" Pandora, for example. I'd certainly be very interested in buying such a "user friendly" product. To me, that's a sellable proposition, and it's entirely right that CTL take a cut for the "value added". Possibly, ROL get a cut too from licensing - I don't know about that.
The most important aspect of all of this, is for all parties to respect what each other are doing, not tread of each others toes, and focus on growing the use and usefulness of RISC OS in their own areas.
There are a lot of exciting and interesting things going on in the RISC OS world at the moment and we need to keep it all growing and moving forward.
Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.
Search the archives
Today's featured article
Qercus reviewed but renewed? Forty months after taking out an annual subscription, Martin Hansen ponders whether or not to continue his Qercus sub 28 comments, latest by hzn on 3/8/07 4:15PM. Published: 27 Jul 2007