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 228213
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tonestone57
Member since:
2005-12-31

Maybe you should read it again, because I did & came to same conclusion:
"The archived sales figures of Zeta were far below Magnussoft's expectations. Continuation of financing the project is economically no longer viable. For the time being, Magnussoft discontinued funding of the Zeta development team on March, 16th 2007. The exclusive distribution agreement will remain unaffected. The existing contract is valid until the end of 2007."

I'll do my best to respond & keep it short.
#1 *development* of Zeta is *NOT* profitable!
#2 *distribution* (sale) of Zeta *IS* profitable! (my other posts refer to this for Access / Magnussoft)
#3 Magnussoft paid *development costs* for 1.21 & 1.5, and are also a Zeta distributor / seller.
#4 March 16, 2007, Magnussoft *NO* longer involved in Zeta development. (Cut their losses) (this & yT going bankrupt proves #1 above).
#5 March 16, Magnussoft *retains* distribution rights (main distributor of Zeta) till end of 2007. (to benefit from profits made off the Zeta sales, otherwise if losses come from selling Zeta, then they would have stopped selling Zeta altogether, proves #2 above).
#6 There are 5 other distributors / sellers
http://www.zeta-os.com/cms/custom/reseller/list.php
Do, you think they are not making profits???? Or maybe they just like making losses? (This proves #2 above).

It is impossible to know the exact profit margins, because I'm not a licensed reseller myself, but I seriously doubt resellers are selling Zeta for a loss!

Magnussoft was involved in *developer / distributor* relationship *and* on March 16 they switched solely to a *distributor* role (I think you are not understanding this or #2 above). Continuing to fund development would have meant further losses to Magnussoft.

Bernd/yT & Be Inc both failed with Zeta/BeOS, because they could not get a strong enough userbase & make the profits required to survive (to offset the development costs - where *most* of the expense comes from).

Edited 2007-04-06 18:20

Reply Parent Score: 1

Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

http://www.zeta-os.com/cms/custom/reseller/list.php

It looks like they're still selling Zeta, and one of them is selling BeOS 4.5. Since when was that still up for grabs? Also, there's some trademark issues with one site claiming Zeta is BeOS R6.

Reply Parent Score: 1

tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

Well, if Zeta is illegal, then Access would hold Bernd responsible for it, and doubtful that Resellers could be held accountable for selling it. (maybe they'll stop selling Zeta, or maybe not).

Magnussoft *probably* stopped, because they were also involved in the development side. That shows a closer relationship to Bernd & they paid to make Zeta 1.21 & 1.5. This makes them look more guilty, plus they are the *main* distributor / reseller for Zeta.

Going into Terminal in Zeta 1.2 & typing in "uname -a" gives:
BeOS ZETA 6.2 ..., etc.

I believe Zeta 1.0 gave output of: BeOS ZETA 6.0

Bernd/yT used BeOS term to let users know it was based off BeOS & 6.x to let them know it was newer/better than BeOS R5 (5.0) and Dano (5.1)

Edited 2007-04-06 20:43

Reply Parent Score: 1

lucky13 Member since:
2007-04-01

#1 *development* of Zeta is *NOT* profitable!

No bleep, Sherlock.

#2 *distribution* (sale) of Zeta *IS* profitable!

No, it isn't:
sales figures of Zeta were far below Magnussoft's expectations. Continuation of financing the project is economically no longer viable.

If it were profitable at all, they wouldn't have cut off Bernd in the first place and they would've also wanted an extension of distribution rights beyond this year. They cut Bernd off because they weren't going to make money. They didn't care to extend their contractual rights to distribute Zeta because it's not going to make any money. Ever.

#3-4

Wholly irrelevant and wholly unsupported by the facts.

...Magnussoft *retains* distribution rights (main distributor of Zeta) till end of 2007. (to benefit from profits made off the Zeta sales, otherwise if losses come from selling Zeta, then they would have stopped selling Zeta altogether...

Retaining those rights doesn't mean it was or is "profitable," nor does it prove it. Quite the contrary.

Note that they didn't bother negotiating for rights beyond that time, which, if it were indeed profitable, would be in their interests. All they did by retaining their contractual rights is guarantee that Bernd wouldn't immediately take Zeta to a THIRD distributor within the course of one year and who would then receive income contractually due Magnussoft. That's not a matter of "profit," it's a matter of containing their losses.

You haven't held a job in the real world yet, have you.

#6 There are 5 other distributors / sellers

Not for much longer, if they haven't ceased yet.

Do, you think they are not making profits???? Or maybe they just like making losses?

Again, you seem to have very little understanding of how businesses operate.

Magnussoft hasn't profited from Zeta, and any income they've received from the anemic sales of Zeta probably don't even offset their "investments" in Bernd's development much less the costs of distribution.

The fact that they'd retain their rights for the remainder of the contract doesn't tell you anything about profitability -- it only tells you that they didn't want someone else receiving revenue off their expenses. The other fact -- THAT THEY CUT BERND OFF ALTOGETHER -- tells you what future they saw in Zeta.

None.

Now explain that, Einstein.

Finally...
http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/2007/04/06/beating-a-dead-os-again/

Reply Parent Score: 0

Rafael Member since:
2007-04-06

I would really challenge what MS is writing...

Edited 2007-04-06 20:33

Reply Parent Score: 1

tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

I'm glad someone else agreed with me ( modded down your posts ) though I would have preferred if that person would have posted a reply to you, because you certainly do not understand what I'm saying. (or even if he/she would have modded me up instead).

"Sales figures of Zeta were far below Magnussoft's expectations. Continuation of financing the project is economically no longer viable."

This relates to #1 & #2; Magnussoft gets out of #1.

Profitability
A) Reseller (distribution only)
B) Overall (development + distribution)

I'm saying that "A" is profitable (and I realize that "B" is not profitable; ie: take losses). "A" makes profits (is what I've been saying), but Magnussoft took a loss because involved in "B" till March 16 and then switched over to "A" (which makes profits) to *reduce* the loss they took on "B" (mainly from development costs)

Some of your responses confuse "A", what I'm talking about, with "B", what you want to talk about. My posts have dealt with "A" mostly.

Retaining those rights doesn't mean it was or is "profitable," nor does it prove it.

Ok, so then according to you, my #6 means nothing & those other 5 vendors are taking losses too - maybe they are just idiots then? Um, I don't think so.

Magnussoft is *only* a Reseller of Zeta now.
For existing Zeta customers with 1.0 to 1.2, to get 1.5 you need to spend $10Eur for 1.21 + $29Eur for 1.5 = $39 Euro. (+ shipping). And you think *Resellers* are taking a loss on selling Zeta? What it costs more than this? (<- this does **not** include development costs, I'm only looking at distribution / reseller side).

I agree with points below and am not arguing them:
X) Magnussoft took a big loss on the *development* side (that is why they dropped development funding, but kept distribution rights. I'm sure they can make *some* money back selling Zeta).
Y) Zeta *overall* (development + distribution) is not profitable & so has no future, because it is a commercial product. Haiku is the only future hope now.

My arguement was: distribution side makes money, & resellers only focused on reselling Zeta make profits.
Magnussoft will make profits, **on the distribution side**, selling Zeta, to be used against the loss incurred from the development side. *Overall effect (adding both together), profits from distribution side + losses from development side = smaller net loss to Magnussoft.*

I'm sorry, I can't make my point any clearer than that. If you still think I'm wrong or don't get it, then believe what you like & I'll let others decide for themselves.

Edited 2007-04-06 21:26

Reply Parent Score: 1

El-Al Member since:
2006-04-17

"No, it isn't:
sales figures of Zeta were far below Magnussoft's expectations. Continuation of financing the project is economically no longer viable. "

Do you, or did you work for Magnussoft? Do you know _for sure_ the above statement to be fact, or are you just quoting their public statement on this issue?

What authority do you have to repeat their statements in _bold_ letters? ;o)

Ever cross your mind that this could be the most _convenient_ statement Magnussoft could make without having to admit in a public way that they(MS) had been taken for a ride over the code legality issue by Korz?

If I were releasing statement on behalf of Magnussoft, I know what I would rather have the general public believe...the last thing I would want is to admit that my company had been stupid enough to be duped.

And no, I'm not trying to defend weak sales of Zeta they are IMO, dismal. Consider though, that this weakness might just be a way for them to drop the whole damned mess that is Zeta.

Reply Parent Score: 1