Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2007 21:29 UTC
Zeta A lot of things have happened in the past few days concerning Zeta, BeOS, and Haiku. In order to create some order in the chaos, Eugenia and I have created a rough timeline of what happened the past 6-7 years. Read on for the timeline and some more thoughts on the matter. Update: Magnusoft ceases distribution of Zeta. Update II: Access answered the questions posed in the article.
Thread beginning with comment 227938
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tonestone57
Member since:
2005-12-31

Starting afresh with Haiku looks like the better option, and Magnussoft could find some way of commercialising it if they were interested and up to the job.

Well, if Access & Magnussoft worked out a licensing agreement then Zeta would no longer be illegal *and* both these companies could benefit financially (earn profit). I'm sure Magnussoft took a loss in the development of Zeta (so parted ways with Bernd) & Access lost out on licensing fees for all Zeta versions. Might as well get something out of it. (I doubt Bernd would challenge Access, since he isn't providing proof of his right to make & distribute Zeta).

Also, whatever happened to individual choice? Shouldn't each person decide for themselves if they want to buy Zeta or not. I'm happy you've made up your mind Vibe, but everybody has to decide for themselves what they prefer to do.

And, it is doubtful that Magnussoft could make updates to Zeta. Why? Because Bernd would have the source code to Zeta/BeOS. You think he'd give this to Magnussoft? Magnussoft would only have the binaries, so they could only create new applications / programs & update most libraries (which come from open source), but wouldn't be able to "fix" the OS itself (get rid of bugs, make OS improvements, etc). I *feel* very certain that Bernd (& his developers) have the source code & *not* Magnussoft, but can't say for sure. And even *if* Magnussoft had the source, they wouldn't develop it without the consent of Access, because they follow the legal system.

PS Instead of 10-20% of profit, they should just rework the agreement with taking out Bernd & replacing it with Access (Maybe Bernd was getting 50% of profit? or less, because Magnussoft paid for the development costs?). I'm sure they could figure something out.

Edited 2007-04-05 22:32

Reply Parent Score: 1

mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

because Magnussoft paid for the development costs?

Last I heard from remaining devs the fact remains to be asserted if they actually paid what they told they would.

This whole story is getting really insane.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucky13 Member since:
2007-04-01

Well, if Access & Magnussoft worked out a licensing agreement then Zeta would no longer be illegal *and* both these companies could benefit financially (earn profit).

You're wrongly equating sales with profit. While the former is required for the latter, the latter is only derived when the former exceeds the costs of doing business.

Apparently, both Magnussoft and Access don't share your delusions that the world is just dying for Zeta. Magnussoft's decision, remember, was based on very poor sales. Why would you expect that to change because Bernd is out of the picture? Neither Palm nor Access saw any promise in BeOS' future on the desktop. What evidence do you have to show them that they've made a terrible miscalculation?

Everything that's happened has proven them right.

And, it is doubtful that Magnussoft could make updates to Zeta. Why?

Because it costs time and money they can't recover from the sale of Zeta. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

@ lucky13
I'm fine with you expressing your opinion *and* not agreeing with my posts.

But, modding my posts down because you don't *agree* with my statements seems rather childish of you.

Still, I'll respond to you.
Magnussoft's decision, remember, was based on very poor sales.

Magnussoft stopped funding development costs on March 16, but said their distribution of Zeta would continue till end of 2007.

Profit is not possible by paying for development, but only by selling Zeta 1.21 & 1.5. I did *not* tell Access to continue development of Zeta. I merely stated that Zeta 1.21 & 1.5 are finished already (development costs have been paid by Magnussoft for these) and 1.21 & 1.5 should continue to be sold.

If Zeta is found illegal, then Access takes ownership of Zeta 1.21 & 1.5 (finished products) and by allowing Magnussoft to continue selling these, they will make sales / revenue and realize profits from these sales.

I *never* stated continuing *development* (or paying for development) of Zeta, but only to continue selling the current finished versions.

If you take into consideration development costs, then yes Zeta is unprofitable. But, Zeta has *other* distributors too, (who only sell Zeta), don't you think they make money? If Magnussoft had been only a distributor, then they would have made profits instead of incurring losses. Anyone paying for the development of Zeta bear the bulk of the costs.

Magnussoft *paid* development costs already, so they took the loss themselves. The only profit to be realized is with the sale of the OS. It allows Magnussoft to make back *some* of the money they've lost (maybe even come out of it with a small profit in the end).

Access would not pay for *any* development costs *and* an agreement would be only to get a percentage of the profits obtained from the sale of Zeta OSes (ie: 1.5, 1.21, 1.2, 1.1, 1.0) from the time Access becomes the new owner of Zeta (or maybe from when David made the allegation that Zeta was illegal & this was proven).

Seriously, do you even read or understand my posts? Or do you jump to conclusions right away?

>>And, it is doubtful that Magnussoft could make updates to Zeta. Why?

Because it costs time and money they can't recover from the sale of Zeta


Yes, that is another good reason why not to develop Zeta any further.

Reply Parent Score: 1