Here's the plan!
Peter Bondar
plan.....please note this is the
abreviated version with some little pieces missing for good reasons, of
course nothing
contained in here uses any information I have previously had access to.
General assumptions.
Why would Acorn abandon a product business on the verge of launching a new
product which would
recuperate the r+d?
1) worried about making too much money
2) didn't want to embarrass Bill Gates
3) hands full with lots of other 'issues'
Why would any business taking this over succeed?
1) it deserves to
2) lots of people ranting and raving guarantee it
3) its got a well thought out plan, well executed, adequately resourced.
Why would Acorn cooperate with any product 'buy out'?
1) acorn anoraks seem like a bunch of nice guys
2) these people seem desperate
3) the plan makes life easier for acorn to go with it rather than ignore it.
For those who ticked the right answers here is the 20000ft perspective.
1) Get all interested parties to meet collectively/sequentially
2) Create a 'holding company' mandated to negotiate a deal with Acorn.
This holding
company is short tern financed by 'share pledges' (money for future shares)
3) Parties who contribute resources to the holding company receive share
pledges.
4) Procur Phoebe production (how/who/where is largely irrelevant apart from
the fact
that it has to be done, not trivial)
5) Launch Phoebe, start product enhancement/maintenance plan.
6) Start on long term business plan, what,where,when.
7) Get long term funding/create public company/turn share pledged into
shares.
8) Recruit/organise engineering/marketing teams.
9) Sail off into sunset happy ever after!
And here's how to screw it up.
1) Acorn receives inputs from several disparate groups ,mostly nieve,all
unaware of the politics
that drive decisions within Acorn.
2) Interfactional feuding causes the collective energy to be negated.
3) People confuse short term issues with long term, its important to get all
the details together in one hit.
4) People think a product business is a part time hobby shop run alongside
a few other interests.
Risks
1) Acorn says @~*& off
2) Acorn already pissed off with amateurish/unrealistic approaches.
3) Insuffcient short term credit is raised to finance manufacture.
4) Long term business plan cannot be made viable.
5) Lack of suitably skilled resources to make it happen.
6) Everybody falls out with each other due to conflicting short/long term
interests.
Well thats it, comments anyone? not that anyone every says anything on this
newsgroup-:)
By the way thanks for all the comments and e mails from everyone, I've been
inundated
with replies, my apologies to everyone who I have not personally not replied
to.
Please send more thoughts to the group or to me at pbo...@avnet.co.uk
peter
--
Peter Bondar
"so many toys, so little time"
John Cartmell
Peter Bondar <pbo...@avnet.co.uk> wrote:
[how to screw up a recovery plan:]
> 1) Acorn receives inputs from several disparate groups, mostly naive, all
> unaware of the politics that drive decisions within Acorn.
someone needs to be aware of the particular politics that produced an odd
and fatal announcement...
it's still not clear what decision was made and when
it's still not clear the reasoning behind the announcement
Note
If Acorn still intend pre-Phoebe machines to be sold then why cancel AW?
If the Board decided (officially or unofficially) to cancel 3 weeks ago
then why launch the 500ukp offer?
You're right - the input to Acorn has to be aware of Acorn politics; but
are you ( or anyone else likely to be working 'with us' ) aware of those
particular politics?
--
John Cartmell - Manchester UK
using a RiscPC & StrongARM - still the best way to understand technology
Alistair Markham
> plan....
As long as Baldrick didn't think it up...
>
> Why would Acorn abandon a product business on the verge of launching a new
> product which would
> recuperate the r+d?
>
> 1) worried about making too much money
> 2) didn't want to embarrass Bill Gates
> 3) hands full with lots of other 'issues'
Oh definitely 2) I think. He's been quaking in his boots for well over a
decade now ;)
I think this is the best plan put forward so far and outlines a plausible
method for getting a company up and running to effect a Phoebe rescue
package. We'll probably only get one shot at this and as you say, nieve
schemes and infighting will not get us very far.
Some points:
You say that the actual procuring of Phoebe is irrelevant. I understand what
you mean, but the predicted cost of doing this is surely important? Also IIR
there is still about a month of work oustanding to finish the project. If
so, this needs to be taken into account too.
Again I agree that any company set up needs to be a fully fledged entity,
not some fly-by-night hobby shop. This means getting people with the
relevant expertise/experience to finish off the project and deal with
business side of things. I guess this might mean you Peter(!), plus perhaps
a handful of the people who have been laid off? "Oh yes, I can build a
computer - it can't be that difficult" types aren't going to be of much
use.[1]
So, how are we going to make it worth Acorn's while to help/cooperate? Well
for starters, hanging back on the slagging-off that has been going on
recently might be a good thing. IMHO I don't think newsgroups make much
difference to these sorts of things, but it couldn't hurt. :) Anyway back to
wooing Acorn; I think the key here is to make sure that Phoebe/Phoenix
production could in no way be seen to compete with Acorn's line of work
(whatever that currently is) & to make them some loot to boot.
The bottom line is, as always, money. How much cash is this going to cost to
get up and running? And also how long? If the Phoebe's production were to be
delayed by a few months or so, can the spec be upgraded? In particular will
there be some faster SA's by then (that work)?
Finally does anyone have a realistic estimate of the market size? There's
been plenty of input on the newsgroups etc. but it occured to me that most
Acorn enthusiasts may already be on the net, ie. we might be it (a few
hundred of us) :( So how many copies do Acorn User/AW sell each month, how
many people are ACTIVE members of the Clan etc.? Also perhaps someone could
set up a counter on the Web, to gauge the number who were interested in
buying a Phoebe. Just how many of us were waiting to see what it was like
before actually buying?
hope this is constructive + thanks to Peter for 'leading the way',
Ali
[1] This is NOT a snub to any of the people who've suggested other schemes -
especially the ARM Linux box crowd. As I've said elsewhere I think this is a
difficult project; but if you're up to it, fair enough! :)
--
Ali Markham
Email: alima...@argonet.co.uk
Rob Hemmings
<pbo...@avnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> OK boys and girls, here as Black Adder might say is a cunning
> plan
<snip>
I think the realistic nature of this plan shows exactly why Peter Bondar's
involvement is so important. I agree fully with the proposals. In
particular I think it is absolutely right to stress the politics. I work at
a fairly senior level in a small company and have previously worked for some
very large organisations. In all cases internal politics have often had far
more effect on the business then pure logic - they are to be ignored at our
peril.
I hope all those working on ways forward have read this and will get
together to produce a single coherent approach that allows for both the long
and short term - I think anything else is doomed to failure.
Any rescue is going to need cooperation from Acorn so although we may all
feel like throwing custard pies at them (or worse) that would simply be
"cutting off our noses to spite our faces".
As a back up option to producing the Risc PC II, can I suggest that the
possibility of also releasing Risc OS 4 for existing machines be explored.
If the Risc PC II can be revived then great and releasing Risc OS 4 on its
own could damage sales. However, if it proves impossible to raise enough
money for Risc OS II then Risc OS 4 (only) would be a much lower cost to
produce and still give a boost to existing Risc OS users while a longer term
solution is being worked on.
One question though - for people like me who could probably found a small
amount of money (perhaps a few thousand) is it better to sit tight and just
buy a new machine when it appears or is it better to put the money into
share pledges. If we all put all our spare cash into the latter then we may
find there is nobody left with any money to actually buy anything!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Hemmings Southport
Tel: +44 (0)1704 573210 ro...@argonet.co.uk
Keith Parker
wrote:
> OK boys and girls, here as Black Adder might say is a cunning
> little pieces missing for good reasons, of course nothing
> contained in here uses any information I have previously had access to.
OK! ;-)
> General assumptions.
> Why would Acorn abandon a product business on the verge of launching a new
> product which would recuperate the r+d?
> 1) worried about making too much money
No way - I've never worked for a company 'afraid to make money'.
> 2) didn't want to embarrass Bill Gates
How?
> 3) hands full with lots of other 'issues'
Probably :-)
> Why would any business taking this over succeed?
> 1) it deserves to
Worthy but not in the 'real world'.
> 2) lots of people ranting and raving guarantee it
If only :-)
> 3) its got a well thought out plan, well executed, adequately resourced.
Right on ;-)
> Why would Acorn cooperate with any product 'buy out'?
> 1) acorn anoraks seem like a bunch of nice guys
True but false
> 2) these people seem desperate
So what?
> 3) the plan makes life easier for acorn to go with it rather than ignore
> it.
In their current state, anything that makes their life easier and
(possibily) generates more cash, must be the way to go!
> For those who ticked the right answers here is the 20000ft perspective.
> 1) Get all interested parties to meet collectively/sequentially
YES!
> 2) Create a 'holding company' mandated to negotiate a deal with Acorn.
YES! YES!!
> This holding company is short tern financed by 'share pledges' (money for >
future shares)
> 3) Parties who contribute resources to the holding company receive share
> pledges.
Go on - its getting better ;-)
> 4) Procur Phoebe production (how/who/where is largely irrelevant apart
> from the fact that it has to be done, not trivial)
Well, I guess Acorn had a line clued up already so its not impossible :-)
> 5) Launch Phoebe, start product enhancement/maintenance plan.
YES!!!
> 6) Start on long term business plan, what,where,when.
Vital, IMHO!
> 7) Get long term funding/create public company/turn share pledged into
> shares.
OK!
> 8) Recruit/organise engineering/marketing teams.
Marketing - now there's a clever thought :-)
> 9) Sail off into sunset happy ever after!
After growing old and having fun?
> And here's how to screw it up.
I like realism :-)
> 1) Acorn receives inputs from several disparate groups ,mostly nieve,all
> unaware of the politics that drive decisions within Acorn.
100% certain of ffffing up (if you excuse the 'french') ;-)
> 2) Interfactional feuding causes the collective energy to be negated.
That is why the Head Honcho of the grouping needs to be well respected and knowledgable
- Peter Bondar springs to mind, as does Chris Cox, and a few others :-)
> 3) People confuse short term issues with long term, its important to get
> all the details together in one hit.
Essential.
> 4) People think a product business is a part time hobby shop run alongside
> a few other interests.
A project like this that has to run fairly quickly and smoothly needs a lot of
people who believe in the concept and don't think about 9 'til 5 !
> Risks
> 1) Acorn says @~*& off
Unlikely - cash (or the promise of it) with no outgoings must be attractive!
> 2) Acorn already pissed off with amateurish/unrealistic approaches.
Possibily but I hope that anyone who wants Phoebe et al to arise from the ashes
has taken a large intake of breath and a large scotch!
> 3) Insuffcient short term credit is raised to finance manufacture.
Possibily!
> 4) Long term business plan cannot be made viable.
In that case the short term plan would have been wrong as well. Any plan needs
to be realistic or else ;-)
> 5) Lack of suitably skilled resources to make it happen.
In this community of developers and users - unlikely IMHO.
> 6) Everybody falls out with each other due to conflicting short/long term
> interests.
Not if the right person is sitting on the throne!
> Well thats it, comments anyone? not that anyone every says anything on
> this newsgroup-:)
No - just my ramblings from the other side of the 'pond!
> By the way thanks for all the comments and e mails from everyone, I've
> been inundated with replies, my apologies to everyone who I have not
> personally not replied to.
Good to hear from you again!
> Please send more thoughts to the group or to me at pbo...@avnet.co.uk
More thoughts e-mailed as well!
(posted on behalf of Keith who is in the States coz his wife is very ill)
--
kei...@argonet.co.uk
Supporting British RISC technology :-)
Jim Lesurf
Peter Bondar <pbo...@avnet.co.uk> wrote:
> OK boys and girls, here as Black Adder might say is a cunning
> plan.
> 1) Get all interested parties to meet collectively/sequentially
> 2) Create a 'holding company' mandated to negotiate a deal with Acorn.
[snip the etc.]
Yes. Obviously the optimal way forward. Vital that everyone gets together
and sings from the same songsheet.
You will already have received offers of financial/practical support. If
any of the other would-be-rescuers haven't contacted you yet, save time
and phone 'em. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
MMWaves http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/MMWave/Index.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
TechWriter http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/TechWrite/Tips1.html
Dutton CDs http://www.duttonlabs.demon.co.uk/index.html
Dave Cooper
>
>
>
If infact Acorn is /cash rich/ at the moment ie. Arm shareholding rather
than /cash poor/ surely its likely they could be taken over - maybe even by
Arm itself?
Any plan would have to consider how such an event would complicate any
deals.
Regards and Good Luck, Dave C.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ ______________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / StrongArm Risc Pc (586 PcCard) Clan & MAUG.
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | / ArgoRing.AcornRing.Interests-Comp.Sat.AV.SF
___________________________/ Classical music & Wine. d...@argonet.co.uk
Homepage (inc.free photos) http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/dac/index.html
Andy Carter
[snip]
> Why would Acorn abandon a product business on the verge of launching a
> new product which would recuperate the r+d?
> 1) worried about making too much money
> 2) didn't want to embarrass Bill Gates
> 3) hands full with lots of other 'issues'
I'd guess they wouldn't (or couldn't) risk the additional capital
investment necessary for the production runs, and maybe were more worried
about the returns on this investment in the short term.
> Why would any business taking this over succeed?
> 1) it deserves to
Well, we know that :-)
> 2) lots of people ranting and raving guarantee it
> 3) its got a well thought out plan, well executed, adequately resourced.
All points in number 3 are extremely relevant, but that they're all
difficult in practice.
> Why would Acorn cooperate with any product 'buy out'?
> 1) acorn anoraks seem like a bunch of nice guys
> 2) these people seem desperate
> 3) the plan makes life easier for acorn to go with it rather than ignore
> it.
Acorn /may/ have some loyalty to their heritage... but they may be able to
make some money out of it, which is probably the important bit for them.
> For those who ticked the right answers here is the 20000ft perspective.
> 1) Get all interested parties to meet collectively/sequentially
Who with? Acorn - not a good idea IMO.
Each other? Maybe, but might be better under the guidance ofan overall
co-ordinator, someone who knows something of the inner workings and has a
bit of clout :-)
> 2) Create a 'holding company' mandated to negotiate a deal with Acorn.
> This holding company is short tern financed by 'share pledges' (money
> for future shares)
> 3) Parties who contribute resources to the holding company receive share
> pledges.
This sounds a difficult bit to me, with potentially so many small
shareholders, but it's been done before with co-operatives.
> 4) Procur Phoebe production (how/who/where is largely irrelevant apart
> from the fact that it has to be done, not trivial)
I guess the original production runs were booked in advance - and now
these slots have been missed, there may be further delays in re-booking
> 5) Launch Phoebe, start product enhancement/maintenance plan.
Can't wait :-)
> 6) Start on long term business plan, what,where,when.
We have to break out of the limited niche market we have now and increase
the user base.
We're never going to be a threat to MS, but maybe a close link with
someone like Eidos is the answer. I don't understand the full implications
of this ATM though, but they seem to have a high profile in two areas.
> 7) Get long term funding/create public company/turn share pledged into
> shares.
> 8) Recruit/organise engineering/marketing teams.
I guess there are a few out there looking for jobs after last week, who
know the product better than most.
> 9) Sail off into sunset happy ever after!
> And here's how to screw it up.
> 1) Acorn receives inputs from several disparate groups ,mostly nieve,all
> unaware of the politics that drive decisions within Acorn.
This seems to be the case ATM, but it's early days yet and it's been a
weekend. I feel it's most important for all of them to get together, find
a common policy and stick to it.
WRT politics within Acorn, we all know someone who has experience in that
field :-)
> 2) Interfactional feuding causes the collective energy to be negated.
Always a danger, this has to be catered for/negated in the initial set-up.
> 3) People confuse short term issues with long term, its important to get
> all the details together in one hit.
This should be part of the business plan surely, but it may be complicated
by the initial co-operative type sharesholings and different peoples ideas.
> 4) People think a product business is a part time hobby shop run
> alongside a few other interests.
> Risks
> 1) Acorn says @~*& off
> 2) Acorn already pissed off with amateurish/unrealistic approaches.
Maybe they are, but they seem to be short of cash ATM (but what if there's
something to this ARM Holdings rumour?).
> 3) Insuffcient short term credit is raised to finance manufacture.
We'll have to see on that one. Someone around here is collecting data on
pledges ATM.
> 4) Long term business plan cannot be made viable.
Sadly, if it's not it's not. End of story I guess.
> 5) Lack of suitably skilled resources to make it happen.
Is this likely if we act quickly? Particularly on the tech side.
> 6) Everybody falls out with each other due to conflicting short/long term
> interests.
> Well thats it, comments anyone? not that anyone every says anything on
> this newsgroup-:)
There are my rambles.
> By the way thanks for all the comments and e mails from everyone,
Good :-)
Andy
--
fr...@argonet.co.uk - http://www.argonet.co.uk/homepages/fruit/
for accessing Argo using PAP/CHAP authorisation
All contributions to my 'phone bill welcome.
Ernst Dinkla
<URL:mailto:rhem...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> One question though - for people like me who could probably found a small
> amount of money (perhaps a few thousand) is it better to sit tight and just
> buy a new machine when it appears or is it better to put the money into
> share pledges. If we all put all our spare cash into the latter then we may
> find there is nobody left with any money to actually buy anything!
Make the share pledge a bit more complicated;
a Give me shares in the new company
b Supply me the first machine that is produced
All with the logics and/or, both depending on prices and the
amount you pay.
For the company it has the advantage that the potential shareholders
that have doubts about the future at the actual start of the company
will at least contribute to the first sales.
Ernst
--
Ernst Dinkla Serigrafie,Zeefdruk edi...@inter.nl.net
All views expressed are my own and may have no relation whatsoever
to the views of Acorn, Intel, Oracle, IBM, ARM, Sun, Compaq, Micro-
Paul Clark
> General assumptions.
>
> Why would Acorn abandon a product business on the verge of launching a new
> product which would
> recuperate the r+d?
>
> 1) worried about making too much money
> 2) didn't want to embarrass Bill Gates
> 3) hands full with lots of other 'issues'
0) Major investment required for product release, volume buying of
components, tooling, marketing, stocking, combined with a disappearing
market, leading to a projected return-on-investment which shareholders,
already stung by the market's valuation of Acorn at close to nil (if you
remove ARM shares), wouldn't stand for. (pauses for breath)
In other words - cutting their losses.
If people want to put their money into a 'hobby business' which has no
chance of ever being really viable (the way some people have 'hobby
farms'), that's fine, but looked at objectively (which is hard, I
admit), there's no business case for it.
Apart from all that, how can you develop and support a product when most
of the techies that know it remain at Acorn consultancy?
As you say:
>Risks
>3) Insuffcient short term credit is raised to finance manufacture.
>4) Long term business plan cannot be made viable.
>5) Lack of suitably skilled resources to make it happen.
I don't like being the nay-sayer, but I'm pretty concerned about someone
who 'the Clan' seem to regard as a leader getting people's hopes up on
the basis of a surprising sloppy analysis of what the problems were. I
don't want to see people who have already lost out losing more due to
(understandable) emotion.
Paul
--
Paul Clark mailto:p...@sysmag.com $ whois pc52
Systems Magic Ltd. http://www.sysmag.com
Mike Clark
<URL:mailto:d...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <6u3pm2$4uq$1...@supernews.com>, "Peter Bondar"
> <pbo...@avnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Why would Acorn cooperate with any product 'buy out'?
>>
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
> If infact Acorn is /cash rich/ at the moment ie. Arm shareholding rather
> than /cash poor/ surely its likely they could be taken over - maybe even by
> Arm itself?
>
> Any plan would have to consider how such an event would complicate any
> deals.
>
> Regards and Good Luck, Dave C.
>
of a takeover is a serious one to consider. Many of Acorns shareholders are
now big corperate investors who are not necessarily interested in the
product being produced merely the return on their investment. Acorns
holding in ARM is a big asset which might attract a buyout of the company.
The prospect of ARM taking over Acorn is a tricky one, I am led to believe,
because it would effectively be ARM buying shares in itself. Not impossible
but it would be goverend by some complex legalaties.
I have had some experience of commercial decisions in my own field, ie the
transfer of good ideas from the academic research laboratory to the
Biotechnology / Pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately sometimes commercial
decisions dictate that a new drug is not marketed, not because it hasn't
any therapeutic effect, but because the company can't make a big enough
profit on sales! The bigger the company the bigger the profit they require
in order to continue with a project. ie substantial capital investments
usually require substantial returns! I'm sure these issues are pertinent at
the momment with regard to Phoebe. It's not just a case of whether the
project to resurrect Phoebe could break even but also are there substantial
rewards in the long term for any prospective investors?
I do believe and hope that a solution can be found to continue development
of the Phoebe project but only if it has a longer term goal of providing a
continued pathway of new product development.
Mike Clark, <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark, C.U. Department of Pathology
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "a mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" <http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
Mike Clark
> OK boys and girls, here as Black Adder might say is a cunning
> abreviated version with some little pieces missing for good reasons, of
> course nothing
> contained in here uses any information I have previously had access to.
>
>
> Why would Acorn abandon a product business on the verge of launching a new
> product which would recuperate the r+d?
>
> 3) hands full with lots of other 'issues'
>
>
> 3) its got a well thought out plan, well executed, adequately resourced.
>
>
> 3) the plan makes life easier for acorn to go with it rather than ignore
> it.
>
>
> --
> Peter Bondar
> "so many toys, so little time"
>
prospect to break even on it's own investment is likely to distract the
company from projects which could have the potential to make lots and lots
of money. In a commercial world no one can blame them for chasing the
bigger bucks!
Is there a market for another company to step in and occupy the niche
vacated by the bigger company? Smaller companies are often happier with
smaller returns on their investments than are some of the bigger players!
Now in order negotiate rights to intellectual knowhow from Acorn it is
obviously important that they don't see any negative aspects for the
future. ie thay don't want to help out a future competitor in their own
markets do they?
I guess if another company could produce the new Phoebe it could still act
as a development and demonstration platform for other technologies that
Acorn might still be interesting to persue. They therefore might like
to cross license technology in return for future rights in the technologies
developed by the new company.
Mike Clark, <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // || ,_ o M.R. Clark, PhD. Division of Immunology
<\__,\\ // __o || / /\, Cambridge University, Dept. Pathology
"> || _`\<,_ // \\ \> | Tennis Court Rd., Cambridge CB2 1QP
` || (_)/ (_) // \\ \_ Tel.+44 1223 333705 Fax.+44 1223 333875
J W B Greenwood
> > unaware of the politics that drive decisions within Acorn.
>
> and fatal announcement...
>
> it's still not clear what decision was made and when
> it's still not clear the reasoning behind the announcement
>
> Note
> If Acorn still intend pre-Phoebe machines to be sold then why cancel AW?
> If the Board decided (officially or unofficially) to cancel 3 weeks ago
> then why launch the 500ukp offer?
>
> You're right - the input to Acorn has to be aware of Acorn politics; but
> are you ( or anyone else likely to be working 'with us' ) aware of those
> particular politics?
>
I have, for the last 8 years, been sitting on some shares in a company which
is developing some leading edge technology. It has now gone into
liquidation. This has been brought about by adverse reports in trade papers
connected with this product. The company assets will now go for a song to
the people who engineered the downfall of the company. With this experience
I would like to know exactly why the new venture was discontinued.
Some party in the wings waiting to scoop the pool ?
--
Mike Clark
[snip]
> For those who ticked the right answers here is the 20000ft perspective.
>
> 1) Get all interested parties to meet collectively/sequentially
> This holding company is short tern financed by 'share pledges' (money for
> future shares)
> 3) Parties who contribute resources to the holding company receive share
> pledges.
> from the fact that it has to be done, not trivial)
> shares.
> happy ever after!
>
Ok a user of Acorn computers perspective. Why should I and others be
interested in the long term survival of the my favourite computer?
1) I don't want to support Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? This is one of the
most stupid arguments that I have seen discussed on these news groups for
keeping Acorn workstations going.
2) Acorn computers offer me greater productivity for a given effort. Yes!
This is a good argument, essentially why I have stuck with Acorn when I
actually have PCs, Macs and UNIX boxes readily available to me.
3) Value for money. This has to take into account idea number 2 above and
also costs over the lifetime of the machine. Acorns have traditionally been
quite expensive to purchase but generally cheaper over time because of
their longevity. However from a company point of view longevity of a
product can mean fewer sales! It's in INTEL's interest to get everybody to
throw out the old processor and replace it with a new one as often as
possible!
4) Data, data and preservation of my data! In the long term I would like to
think that effort I have put in today is not wasted in the future. I'd hate
to have to recreate things again just becuase I adopted a new computer. The
most valuable part of my computer to me is my data! I'd like to think that
there was the prospect that my data would still be usable by me on whatever
future computers are available to me. I migrated from a BBC to a BBC/Torch
to a Master, to an Archimedes, to an A5000 + A4, to a RiscPC600 and then to
a StrogARM but most of my data has been readily portable from machine to
machine in a useable form.
The bottom line!
As a future customer I would stay loyal to and continue to buy new
computers from a company which provided solutions to 4, 3, and 2 above with
4 being the most important!
Mike Clark, <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
R.Harding
<URL:mailto:p...@sysmag.com> wrote:
> Peter Bondar wrote:
> > Here's the plan
>
> If people want to put their money into a 'hobby business' which has no
> chance of ever being really viable (the way some people have 'hobby
> farms'), that's fine, but looked at objectively (which is hard, I
> admit), there's no business case for it.
>
> someone who 'the Clan' seem to regard as a leader getting people's
> hopes up on the basis of a surprising sloppy analysis of what the
> losing more due to (understandable) emotion.
I am delighted that Peter is getting my hopes up. Very few people could
possibly hope to gather the goodwill and support from across the whole
Acorn community that Peter can and it is this goodwill and support that
will be essential. I do however welcome Pauls words of caution and feel
a sympathy for them. We'd best aproach this from a "'cus we want to"
perspective than from a "'cus we want to thrash Bill Gates" one.
Perhaps some of the Acorn community would contribute software to a
'bundle' that could be sold to raise money. Say :
Ant Internet suite (early version)
Impression Style
Datapower 1
Photodesk2
DrawWorks 2
TableMate (one of the good versions)
Apollonious (brilliant and undervalued IMHO)
FontFX
ArcFax
SparkFS
Impact
ImageFS2
Twain and scanner support files
Sleuth2
ImageOutliner
ESPSynth
ResultZ or Pipedream or both
Look System File recovery suite
Keystroke
Full version of Killer
TextEase
MovieFS
(this list is just an example please don't get sidetracked by it)
This bundle would sell for (say) £250 and would include membership to
the 'New Clan'. People could then make a financial commitment without
worrying that their money was following a lost cause. Sell 1000 of
these and there would be enough of a low level following to at least pay
someone's wages and office costs for a year.
This would provide the short term revenue needed to get the new venture
started. The long term goals can be researched and set once there is a
structure in place within which to work.
Without a survival plan there will be little market for any of these
titles anymore. By donating the software the companies will help to
keep themselves in business and may attract 'full' customers wanting the
latest version and manuals and support.
Personally I am prepared to support Peter in what ever way I can. I can
program a little, I've got some 'spares' he is welcome to have (gratis).
I will gladly donate some time (though this is what I've least of) and
will pledge money (as much as I can aford to loose).
How about that for another 'hair brained' rescue idea ?
- I'm glad that there are people like Peter about with enough
common sense to ignore me !
Bob
--
Bob Harding
............ on a wing and a prayer
Ted Lepley
>
> I think the realistic nature of this plan shows exactly why Peter
> Bondar's involvement is so important. I agree fully with the proposals.
> In particular I think it is absolutely right to stress the politics.
> I work at a fairly senior level in a small company and have previously
> worked for some very large organisations. In all cases internal
> politics have often had far more effect on the business then pure
> logic - they are to be ignored at our peril.
> all feel like throwing custard pies at them (or worse) that would
In view of PB's fairly recent (assumed) disagreement with the Board of
Acorn, the above references to 'internal politics' and essential
'cooperation by Acorn' would seem to preclude PB from first choice to
handle the negotiations.
His involvement subsequently in whatever role may be appropriate is a
different matter.
Ted.
--
ZFC S+ ted...@argonet.co.uk
Clan member East London. UK
Using Voyager V.2.0
Mon,21 Sep 1998.23:26:45
Fred Bambrough
"Peter Bondar" <pbo...@avnet.co.uk> wrote:
> OK boys and girls, here as Black Adder might say is a cunning
> plan.....
I think you left out the initial stage, Peter. The theme of your message
is co-ordination. Therefore the first step is to have a co-ordinator to
get the ball rolling and act as focus otherwise all this is just talk. As
you say, what is required is one concerted effort not dissipation.
Sorry for being blunt but it's time to stop being coy. I think the
question everyone's asking is, are you volunteering?
--
Fred
Mailto:fr...@ypical.demon.co.uk
PGP key available
Stephen Mansfield
> In article <6u3pm2$4uq$1...@supernews.com>,
> Peter Bondar <pbo...@avnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [how to screw up a recovery plan:]
> > 1) Acorn receives inputs from several disparate groups, mostly naive, all
> > unaware of the politics that drive decisions within Acorn.
>
> someone needs to be aware of the particular politics that produced an odd
> and fatal announcement...
>
> it's still not clear what decision was made and when
> it's still not clear the reasoning behind the announcement
>
Perhaps this quote from Xemplar's recent announcementon their website gives us
a clue:
"Xemplar has always recognised that the RISC PC2 was not an
appropriate product for the school market and welcomes Acorn's
ongoing commitment to the desktop products that schools
actually use - RiscPCs and A7000."
Thus leaving the RiscPCII with a 'smaller' market than the previous
Acorn Desktop machines.
> <snip>
> I
Regards,
Stephen.
Julian Flood
a high-tech car. They give me the speil. Ok, I say, how do I know you can
really do this high-tech stuff? They take me outside and show me an Elise. I
am convinced. Now let's say I want to build a high-tech computer product.
Ok, I say, how do I know you can cut the mustard? They scratch their heads.
I am not convinced. Without a cutting edge product then Acorn are wasting
their time - I speak as someone who bought shares years ago because I saw
that ARM was the future - I was considerably miffed when they sold it on.
However, I was even more cheesed off by the way they faffed around with
the new portable. For years I've been hearing how ARM was a low power/high
performance processor ideally suited to portable applications, but portable
computer came there none. Phoebe was the wrong product at the wrong time - I
don't really need, and cannot justify, a new desktop computer, but maybe
someone will now take the chipset with Riscos and knock out a rock bottom
B&W portable for less than £500 - shouldn't take long, a graduate student
ran one up in a year, and I'm not after extreme performance, just steady,
reliable, clean computing, the Tandy 100 for the millenium. Riscos on the
move, what a lovely thought.
Acorn management could not, as someone wrote nearby, sell icecream to
Bedouin. They have had no discernable marketing stategy for the last ten
years, muddle, change and make-do have ruled. They seem to have the belief
that change produces solutions, so change it is at every opportunity.
Consultants? I wouldn't hire them to mow the lawn.
The future? Give me an A5.
--
Julian Flood
jul...@argonet.co.uk
Life: much too important to be taken seriously.
Stephen Burke
> The bottom line is, as always, money. How much cash is this going to cost to
> get up and running? And also how long? If the Phoebe's production were to be
> delayed by a few months or so, can the spec be upgraded? In particular will
> there be some faster SA's by then (that work)?
If it's delayed, how many people will have bought a PC or a Mac before the
launch? It will be difficult for a new company to make any definite promises
for several months, so there's bound to be wastage, and the likely sales
weren't that high to start with.
> Finally does anyone have a realistic estimate of the market size? There's
A discussion a while back suggested that Clan numbers go up to around 5000.
Given that some Clan members will no longer be active and some users won't be
Clan members that suggests some thousands of people. Bear in mind that Xemplar
may not want to sell a new machine to schools, and in any case schools may well
not consider buying it, so don't bank on any educational sales. If enthusiasts
have 1k per year on average to spend on computers that gives you a total market
turnover of a few million per year, hardware and software (which also seems
fairly consistent with Acorn's turnover). That may sound a lot, but it isn't;
you might cover salaries for a couple of dozen full-time employees. Doing a
low-cost production run of the Phoebe design (maybe motherboard only) is one
thing, but paying for any further development is something else.
> been plenty of input on the newsgroups etc. but it occured to me that most
> Acorn enthusiasts may already be on the net, ie. we might be it (a few
> hundred of us) :( So how many copies do Acorn User/AW sell each month, how
Someone said that the aborted production run for the Phoebe would have been
2000 units, which sounds about right. Acorn also reckoned 1000 was the minimum
for a portable, and didn't think they'd get it. A few thousand, not a few
hundred, but still not a lot, and some of those will leave now Acorn has pulled
out. I see a list of Phoebe supporters posted to this newsgroup - with about 30
names on it ... I also see people charging off in a large number of different
directions. If a new machine has to wait for a consensus in csa.* it could be a
long wait :)
--
e----><----p | Stephen Burke | E-mail: (anti-junk mail version)
H H 1 | Gruppe FH1T (Lancaster) | stephen.burke@
H H 11 | DESY, Notkestrasse 85 | desy.de
HHHHH 1 | 22603 Hamburg, Germany | All junk mail deleted on sight!
H H 1 | "It is also a good rule not to put too much confidence in
H H 11111 | experimental results until they have been confirmed by theory"
Dave Wisnia
Stephen Mansfield <srm...@nortel.ca> wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
> <snip>
> I
Regards,
Stephen.
Don't forget that Exemplar thought the Strong Arm Risc PC not fit for
the education market either!!
They're not much good at marketing either!
--
Dave Wisnia
Enjoying the fruits of British Genius
John Rees
> Peter Bondar <pbo...@avnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [how to screw up a recovery plan:]
> > 1) Acorn receives inputs from several disparate groups,
within
> > Acorn.
If there is going to be any sort of "rescue plan", it has to
be well
co-ordinated from day one. Someone should arrange a meeting of
everyone
interested in keeping RISC OS alive. This meeting will have to have
an
agenda, and who ever chairs it will have to stick to it, otherwise the
meeting will be so much hot air an a waste of time. Then a group to
meet
with Acorn should be elected. Whilst I am in favour of enthusiasts
having
an input, this whole thing should be done as professionally as
possible.
There is a mailing list, detailed at http://www.cybervillage.co.
uk/acorn/hotnet/acor/acorn_77.stm . This seems to be one of the best
ways forward.
--
John Campbell Rees
<jw...@argonet.co.uk> http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jwcr/index.htm
"Just like swatting flies with a laser cannon. The aims a bit
tricky, but it sure takes care of the flies" - Lord Miles Vorkosigan
from "Komarr" by Lois McMaster Bujold
Dave Mullard
> abreviated version with some little pieces missing for good reasons, of
> course nothing
> contained in here uses any information I have previously had access to.
> General assumptions.
> Why would Acorn abandon a product business on the verge of launching a new
> product which would
> recuperate the r+d?
> 1) worried about making too much money
> 2) didn't want to embarrass Bill Gates
> 3) hands full with lots of other 'issues'
IMHO none of these. The groups operating loss for the first six months was
5.6 million and most shareholders are institutions who only have shares
for Acorn's ARM holding. Acorn have promised to try and return the value
of their ARM holding to the shareholders, avoiding tax if possible which
is the problem. Acorn have already sold some ARM shares to stay afloat and
the shareholders don't like that. What they want is an Acorn which doesn't
lose money. They don't care about a future and not much about getting
Acorn into profit. So what do they do? They cut the one thing that is
going to involve the most immediate capital outlay I.E. Phoebe.
Add to that the low volume of advanced orders which had turned it into a
risky venture anyway.
--
Dave Mullard <dmul...@argonet.co.uk>