x=usr(1536)

Quoted for truth, and emphasis in the quote above is mine. I don't want to take either my response to JBerel's statement or request to The Historian below out of any of the context that JBerel provided, but I do feel at this point that "Atari can go pound sand" is fairly reflective of my own feelings on the Ataribox topic. Note that JBerel's comments are in addition to ones I've already made regarding Atari's approach to launching this device, and does not negate anything I may have said previously in that regard. The Historian: I forget the exact title you have in the employment capacity that led you here, but I seem to recall that it was something along the lines of 'Community Liaison' for the company behind the Ataribox. Given that your employer appears to be engaging in activity at this point that's pretty much guaranteed to burn any remaining shred of goodwill (or credibility) with this community, could you let us know if this means that your employer has decided that we're not the community they want the support of for their upcoming product(s)? Knowing this in advance would save us a great deal of time and effort in how we decide to direct both our statements of dissatisfaction as well as our purchasing resources. Thank you.

Yes. Amelia Earhart and D.B. Cooper have signed on for celebrity endorsements.

Just like Linux on the Desktop! Oh, wait.

Fixed it for you

While I am in agreement with you on all of the above, there is a corollary to this that I feel needs to be mentioned: The cost to wrap a frontend around an existing emulator (or even just re-skin a themeable frontend) is considerably less than developing emulators from scratch. If I were Atariboxcorp, Inc. (or, really, anyone else looking to build and market a hardware device in a similar space), this is the route I'd be taking - dump development money into UI and UX as well as content delivery, and use as much in the way of off-the-shelf software as possible. In theory, this should reduce development costs by speeding development times: focus can be placed into a single large project (off-the-shelf app integration with the UI) with many subprojects (making the UI function with those apps) which are overall guided by a focus on consistent UX. The development burden of having to write multiple pieces of software has, in effect, been reduced to a single integration project. That's not say that projects like this aren't complex, but rather that for a small company attempting to compete in a fairly ferocious part of the market this approach would have some definite benefits. Having said that, though, money, talent, and time are still necessary for any project of this sort to be carried through to completion. We know that Atariboxcorp, Inc. doesn't have any money; if it did, it wouldn't be crowdfunding its platform. As for talent, well... You get what you pay for (and can afford).

Related to this: IMHO, we've hit (or are at least coming close to) the end of the Set-Top Box model as the one to follow for streaming content delivery. Most of the streaming services should be built into hardware that is directly attached to the display itself and integrated tightly with the display's controls, similar in concept (though not necessarily execution) to the intent behind the CableCARD. What we're really talking about (and this applies to the Ataribox as well) is User Interface and User Experience (UX) as the value propositions; those are what made the iPod and iPhone dominate their respective markets. Let the display handle the TV-like functions associated with streaming content delivery, and have the console specialise in the gaming and other functions that wouldn't traditionally be a part of the display's functionality. In effect, this is more or less the MSX approach - agree on a standard, implement your streaming apps under that standard, and abstract out the hardware part of those functions from the user. Granted, this would mean getting 50,000,000 TV and display manufacturers to agree on that standard and stick to it, itself something that is unlikely to happen unless it's driven by the content providers since it's ultimately in their best interests to have only one platform to have to develop for across multiple device manufacturers' hardware. This could be done as a pluggable hardware module that basically just piggybacks off of the TV for power, network connectivity, and A/V output. Give it its own onboard storage and processing space for streaming apps, let it describe to the display what its capabilities are, and the display can handle the interactivity within apps. The user gets a more coherent interface and experience across apps, and external devices such as game consoles and Blu-Ray players can still be traditionally-connected to an HDMI input. In volume, the modules would cost pennies. And while I'm dreaming, I'd also like a pony and a Maserati, and someone to train the pony to drive the Maserati. That said, specialisation and focus are Good Things. We won't know more until the Ataribox leaves the realm of vapourware, but from what has been announced so far it's sounding less and less like it has a real sense of what it is that it's trying to be. It should pick one thing and do it exceptionally well, not replicate chunks of the functionality of three other boxes plus computers and displays I already own.

Point taken, but that also applies to the existing consoles out there. And from a development standpoint, it makes sense to get your title(s) onto as many platforms as possible, provided that there's suitable financial return in doing so. One of the problems with an open platform is how to make money on software delivery. Piracy will be rampant unless you can control the delivery and subsequent movement of that software. With an open system, DRM or closed-ecosystem app stores will cause a revolt amongst the part of the userbase who expect it to be open, which defeats a) the purpose of having an open system and b) any desire on the developers' behalf to develop for the system. And since consoles live and die by the games available for them, that's a huge issue. Sure, and that's fine. But remember that there are market considerations driving this as well. The end of the market that you (and I) fall into is at the thinner end of the wedge, and for the product to succeed it needs to have as broad an appeal as possible. What's interesting is that virtually every reason you bring up is one that I have consistently heard over the last 20 years as to why people don't want PCs on their TV. And, for the most part, I agree with those reasons. But remember that any device acting as a general-purpose computer is going to have a lot of the same tradeoffs - it's just inescapable. Which makes sense. Now allow me to pretend to be the manufacturer of the device for a moment. Here's what I see on the horizon: No way to attract developers because we've got a platform that anyone can easily copy software on. A metric f***ton of warranty claims and support calls when the end-user nukes the filesystem because someone thought it would be hysterical to have them type 'sudo rm -rf /' into an xterm. The need to build an infrastructure to handle updating these devices so that they don't become a security nightmare for end users, the company, or the Internet at large. Good luck handling that in a consistent manner when your end users are altering your system. A feature (open design) that only a very small percentage of customers actually care about, but that brings the above disadvantages with it. How will the market perceive my device? Will they see it as a low-power PC, gaming console, or something else altogether? Can I actually carve out an identity for it? There are others, but those are the ones that I feel are key. Bear in mind that we're talking about a potential installed userbase in the millions; these are not small considerations. Nah, just ssh into it as the 'pi' user and issue a 'sudo reboot' - or, if you want to shut it down, do a 'sudo shutdown && sudo poweroff'. Can't help you on the power switch part, though, but there are plenty of projects out there to start you off on building your own, or buy one pre-made if you prefer plug & play. Easy! I am being slightly facetious with that example, but it does represent the reality of using a low-cost, low-power, single-board computer intended for experimentation. At the last count, there were a total of 8 RasPis floating around here and I completely understand the point that you're making because these are things that are valid concerns for a RasPi aimed at consumer use - but the RasPi isn't aimed at a potential Ataribox buyer. For you or I running small projects off of them, they're great, but in a $300 device that's primarily a gaming machine the expectation is that it will be good at gaming. As soon as feature creep starts setting in and it moves away from having a clearly-defined mission, expect it to be something that becomes not particularly good at much of what it does. Focus is a good thing. Understood, but I'm not sure that Ataribox, Inc. (or whatever their name is) has even made it far enough into development that post-sales support is even a consideration for them at this point.

Apologies for the double post - not quite sure what happened. Fixed it now.

I remember that very well: it was firmware 3.21 that nuked that capability, and I was one of the not-very-many PS3 users actively using it. More: Except that, historically, demand for a 'completely open platform' (which is itself a very ill-defined term) has been miniscule, and a good chunk of the people clamouring for it are capable of building it for themselves using off-the-shelf hardware and software. In a sense, projects like RetroPie are already doing this, and there's no reason why their software stacks couldn't be moved from ARM on a RasPi to x86/x64 on Intel. Just rebuild and repackage install images for the platform of choice and go to town. Coming back to the example of the PS3 losing Linux support: the majority of the outcry surrounding that debacle came from the fact that people had bought the PS3 with the ability to run Linux being an advertised feature of the console - hell, it was mentioned right on the box. Even if someone wasn't using the feature, they had still paid for it, and Sony's removal of it constituted an uncompensated removal of a part of the system that customers - in good faith - had purchased and expected to remain functional. The other side of the coin was that Sony attempted to cop out of the removal by saying that you could just keep your older firmware and still run Linux - but you'd lose the ability to use the Playstation Network, possibly playback of Blu-Ray movies, and a couple of other things I've forgotten. In short, Sony behaved in a very heavy-handed and overreaching manner towards their customers, and they got their wrist smacked for it. As all of the above relates to a 'completely open platform': the PS3 never was such a thing. It was capable of running Linux, sure, but it was doing so in a way that isolated Linux from the juicier parts of the hardware, namely the RSX GPU. And once people started figuring out that it might be possible to access the RSX from Linux, bam, Sony dropped Firmware 3.21 and cut all of that off by simply yanking the Other OS option out of the device. Why do I mention this? Because the PS3 is not a poster child for open platforms just because it could run Linux. Not by a long shot. Neither is the TV I'm using as a second monitor, or any of the other sealed-box devices that I have around here that are Linux-based. But there is one thing to consider about open platforms as relates to the Ataribox: If it ends up being a completely open platform (in the senses of unrestricted user access to both the hardware and software), its potential value proposition is going down the toilet by having it that openness turn it into Just Another Single-Board Computer. Granted, it'll be JASBC in an Atari case, but who cares? Nice aesthetics don't change the fact that that's all it is, or that people still don't want to use a PC by way of their TV. I'm all for open systems and platforms where appropriate, but this is a case where it doesn't bring anything to the table you can't get elsewhere and for less spend.

You mean like Atari c.1982? I'm only half-serious with that comment, but bear in mind that they were the 800-lb. gorilla at the time, same as Sony and Microsoft are now. Another video game crash and we could see the tables turn, much as it did for Atari courtesy of poor decisions involving the Famicom / NES and 7800. Inexpensive, sure. Cheap, no. There needs to be substance (and not just physically) to an inexpensive device, or it risks becoming cheap - and nobody wants cheap crap except perhaps to see how long it takes for it break. Absolutely agreed that there is a place for another console in the market - but all of the use cases you're outlining are ones where an existing console can do exactly those things in software. Those particular situations don't require additional hardware, and the expense of buying Yet Another Platform to run software that could just as easily be implemented on the PlaySwitchBox already sitting next to the TV makes the purchase difficult to justify. But spend a few bucks and a few minutes downloading from the appropriate platform store and you've improved distribution and penetration.

1) It runs Linux? So does nearly every other low-powered device on the market, and anyone whose name isn't Richard M. Stallman probably doesn't care. To almost the entire market likely to buy this device, it's just that - a device. An appliance. A thing that plays games. And it does it using off-the-shelf software that can also run on a Raspberry Pi Zero for $5 (power supply and storage not included). 2) It plays media files? Big deal. When even the cheapest of TVs or Blu-Ray players at Wal-Mart can do that and for less money than the Ataribox, the Ataribox had better have some pretty damn impressive games in its library (and that includes new titles) to justify the expense above and beyond those devices, because that's functionality that's been built into nearly everything made in the last five or six years that's likely to be used for displaying its picture. 3) 'We'll release in the Spring' coupled with 'here's our Indiegogo tin cup to make that happen' are pretty much mutually-exclusive. Agreed re: earlier points regarding crowdfunding being a good way to slip release dates indefinitely without anyone thinking there's anything odd about that, and it really does provide a convenient out for if it all goes sideways. It's also a great way to reduce the company's risks associated with development and marketing, making those piddly little issues the customer's problem, not the company's. 4) Asking your potential customers to fund development of the exact same thing you want them to later buy is pretty ballsy, and the 'this is our way of making sure you can be a part of the magic of Ataribox, too!' approach to this is just insulting. Want people to be part of the magic? Offer stock in exchange for contributions. Have stockholder meetings. Make the board answerable to the shareholders. But don't act like you're doing everyone on the crowdfunding side a favour by sprinkling them with magic Ataribox pixie dust when you're really just taking their money twice. 5) Given the number of Flashback consoles, downloadable and retail retrogaming titles, and 20-odd years' worth of free and open-source emulators out there, the Ataribox is going to need a software library that makes it more than just another way to play Centipede on your OLED TV. That means new - and compelling - titles. Remember the Jaguar? 'Compelling' didn't describe much of its library, and I say that as someone who owns one (and really rather likes it, strangely enough). I'd like to see the Ataribox succeed, but based on how its introduction to market has been handled so far it seems to be destined for consignment to the failure category of 'nice idea, piss-poor execution'. Perhaps its real value will be as an object lesson to others in what not to do if they're thinking of walking the same path.

With respect to that, Apple has essentially two types of hardware customers: - People who camp out in front of the Apple store for a week so that they can be the first to have the latest iPhone / iPad / iWhatever as soon as it goes on sale - People who use Apple's computers in a professional capacity I'm in the latter camp, and it's a much smaller one than the crack-addled mess that is the consumer electronics side of things. Apple was very clever in reinventing themselves as something other than a computer company. But that's the problem: the traditional Apple customer, who needs a laptop or desktop machine, is a much smaller part of their business plan than the person buying music on iTunes - or the iPhone addict. That customer is almost a footnote in their business plan these days, close to being a token nod to the fact that they were once a company that just made computers. As this relates to the Ataribox: from what we've seen so far, this is a device that appears to be being pitched largely on nostalgia to a type of buyer who will clamour to be amongst the first to own it. The problem is that while it's generally known in advance what an iPhone will do (because we've had a decade to become familiar with it and the smartphone market is essentially stagnant in terms of actual innovation right now), the lack of any real information surrounding the Ataribox (or the plans for it of the company behind it) makes it all hype and no substance at this time. The thing about selling into this market is that, historically speaking, you'll see an initial sales rush, then... Crickets, or pretty close, once everyone who wanted one has one. My prediction is that if it does actually make it to market it'll follow the pattern established by other devices of this type: Christmas-ish release, strong sales, sudden tapering-off of sales, small trickle of sales over the remainder of its lifetime, EOL. Granted, the same can be said for almost any consumer electronics device - and my prediction may even be wrong. But the only way I see that prediction being wrong is if it there is a killer software library offering something that you can't get on the Big Three platforms. Software is what sustains their hardware over the long term, and Atari will need to follow a similar pattern not to compete with them (which would be an unrealistic expectation at this time), but just to carve out its own niche. However, my faith in Atari's ability to deliver that software library is severely diminished when I see them going begging on Kickstarter just to get the hardware platform finished. Coming back to Apple for a moment: there's nothing wrong with using commodity hardware. I'm typing this on an x64 Macbook Pro; sitting on my desk are a couple of Raspberry Pis and other devices all assembled from off-the-shelf components from other manufacturers. All of these devices have been specifically designed by their manufacturers to make the most appropriate use of those components for the intended application of the device - opening up the laptop won't reveal, say, an MSI motherboard that can be bought at the local Fry's Electronics - but even that MSI motherboard will itself contain commodity components, because reinventing the wheel when it comes to USB controllers and such other devices is stupid when they can be bought cheaply and in quantity. Where this relates to the Ataribox is that it doesn't matter if it's built from commodity components. Realistically, for the vast majority of the end-user gaming world (and consumer electronics in general), the hardware in the device is totally irrelevant: it's mostly just fodder for endless ill-informed YouTube videos talking about why Console A is better than Console B because Console A has more Gigabeeyotches than Console B. The end user typically doesn't have a clue as to how any of this actually works, or understand that just because it's x64 on the inside comparisons with the Packard-Bell sitting on their desk are totally irrelevant because the hardware designs are fundamentally different due to the intended applications of the devices. Those commodity components are going to make the Ataribox (assuming it makes it to market) more affordable and, possibly, more accessible to developers. These are things that it needs in order to gain market share; sustaining that market share is going to be the bigger concern over the long term. What hardware platform they choose to do this on is really not important, with the caveat that using something esoteric makes it harder to attract developer talent. x64 has a lot to recommend itself in this regard, and theoretically makes it possible for someone to write software for the device without having to resort to traditionally-expensive hardware devkits (though much of that will also depend on the underlying OS platform). This appears to have turned into more of a rant than I expected it to, especially for a device that doesn't yet exist. For that, I'll give Atari full credit for at least getting people talking about it, even if there's no clear direction for the Ataribox yet. And as much as I'd like to see it succeed, looking at it realistically it currently appears to fall into the category of a nice idea with piss-poor execution from the start. Then again, who knows - maybe the hype will bring substance. But I'm not going to hold my breath on that happening; at this time there are too many up-front historical parallels with other devices that failed to make it to market to give it much more notice than to say, "that's nice, call me when they're on the shelves."

In this context (and I'll ignore others since circumstances may not be 100% comparable between what's going on with the Ataribox and other crowdfunded projects), the big problem is this: A company such as Atari should be able to attract suitable amounts of private investment and/or venture capital in order to develop a product without having to shove a tin cup in the direction of the general public. And, no, Atari's not a giant in the sense of Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo. But I've lived through the small-company hardware and software investment and development cycle on more than one occasion, and I can say that there is money out there to help bring products to market if investors have faith in both the proposed product(s) and the ability of the company to execute on bringing that product to market. If any of the above looks shaky, the purse strings generally stay shut. Ten years ago that meant either looking for other funding sources, selling the concept to someone else, or just closing down development altogether. Today, however, it's possible to ask random strangers for change, and if you get enough of it you might be able to come up with... Something. Maybe. There are definitely successful crowdfunding cases out there, and I've even invested in a few of them. But this is not one where the approach is exactly inspiring confidence in Atari's ability to bring a marketable platform to fruition.

Atari VR: Vapourware Revisited.

They still need a name for this device. 'Atari Dilligaf' has a nice ring to it.

Also, expect a system-on-a-chip architecture built into a 1010 tape drive. Software delivery will be via broadcast television; just record the left audio channel of your local Atari station to cassette and enjoy the finest that modern gaming has to offer.

Ah, OK. I think I see what you're proposing - something similar to a Famiclone in terms of price point and intended market, but with Atari branding. Note that I'm not saying it would be a Famiclone, just similar in concept. Is that fairly close? For China, at least internally, that might work. But I agree with you that in the rest of the world it would basically be of no more interest than the flea-market Famiclones that crop up on this side of the water. However, I feel that it would have limited market appeal, even in China. The Atari name doesn't really carry any nostalgia or recognition there (except, perhaps, for a few people in Hong Kong), and the Chinese market is steadily (slowly, I'll admit, but steadily) moving away from wanting lower-end devices. Branding and perceived prestige through owning certain brands of items are increasingly important to Chinese consumers, so Atari would be facing an uphill battle to establish themselves in that niche.

FIFY

Strangely enough, so was mine. I think it was c.1990, with Minix from (IIRC) a Page6 PD disk. Might have been an ST Format cover disk, but it was definitely Minix on the ST.

Not really. The problem is that nobody knows when the Chinese government may have a change of heart. Might never happen; might happen next Tuesday. From the standpoint of a company selling gaming hardware (and possibly software) in China, that makes developing a long-term strategy for the platform next to impossible because three minutes after launch you might not be able to put it on sale. And I wish them the best of luck. But I'm fairly certain that they've already developed an exit strategy if the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China decides that Nintendo may no longer operate in China due to historical unpleasantness in Manchuria or similar. There's a solid chance it may be needed.

That's only good for as long as the Chinese government decides to allow it. One legislative change and it's back to throwing people into the happy fun death van for playing Halo or whatever wasn't in favor that week. Doesn't make economic sense. Given the vagaries of selling into the Chinese economy from outside of it, development (and marketing / sales) would be best conducted entirely within China itself. Cuts down on the nonrecoverable costs associated with mass piracy of both the hardware and software.

From what I recall regarding Android and licensing: the userspace components are provided under a different FOSS license (Apache 2.0) to certain other components (mostly to do with the Linux-based parts of the core OS) which are GPLv2. There are also licenses that cover both commercial and non-commercial contributions to the codebase and ownership thereof. Android's only a free platform to develop for depending on the type of development taking place. With modern broadband, delivery of most older titles could be literally instantaneous (or near enough as doesn't matter) into an emulation VM, or other architecture perhaps along pluggable lines a la retroarch. Stick a Netflix-alike or similar UI onto it, license game IP from multiple holders, and basically do exactly what you're proposing for back-catalogue titles. Ship with, say, the 2600 back catalogue thrown in for free, then pay for pluggable upgrades to allow running other emulated architectures. That would be unique, but given how things like this have worked out so far on existing platforms I'm dubious as to whether or not it would be enough to sustain a dedicated hardware platform. Thinking about it, though, UI could be the killer app (no pun intended) that makes this acceptable to the mass market. Hell, it worked for the iPhone and iPod - they weren't the first to do what they did, but they got the look and feel right, and that's where their success was really derived from. That said, I believe that the emulation station idea was somewhat mooted earlier in either this thread or one of the others. Not that that couldn't have changed, though.

I realise that we're playing what-if here, but the mention of Netflix and similar streaming services brings the following scenario to mind: Atari announces the Ataribox. It slices, dices, mashes, dashes, and... Has Netflix. And Amazon Video. And Pandora. And <insert other video / audio streaming services here>. When I can look at my desk and see four devices (laptop, TV, phone, and tablet) in just that one location that all support each of those services, none of those services are a value-add for the Ataribox. Granted, those are my circumstances and others' may (and almost certainly will) vary. But in an era where even a $149 TV can do all of these things, that's really not enough to sustain a standalone device in the marketplace. Software is what sells hardware. The Ataribox needs software, and it needs to be software that can't be found elsewhere. It also needs launch titles that compel purchase of the hardware in order to drive software (physical or downloadable) sales. Angry Birds on one more platform isn't going to cut it. As I have said elsewhere, I'm really hoping that this isn't a repeat of past mistakes. I'd like to see this succeed. But to succeed in the modern marketplace, the Ataribox is going to need to have one hell of an ace up its sleeve to even make a splash let alone a wave.

It was very much the flaming wreckage ploughing a several-mile-long furrow in the landscape that I had in mind when I wrote that. The takeoff went OK, but that landing was a real bitch.

I've managed to avoid those disappointments over the years by sticking with Windowmaker. Makes it easier to not care about KDE/Gnome usability issues because I'm in a window manager so obtuse it's almost openly-hostile. (No, the sarcasm wasn't lost on me ) What we're seeing in the Windows 10 world is a rather polarizing division between how Windows is approached in Enterprise environments vs. how it's approached in consumer ones. TL;DR, expect editions below Pro to continue being treated more and more like appliances by Microsoft; Pro on up will let you regain some of that control, but really only in Active Directory environments. As for the upgrade path from Windows 10 S to 'regular' Windows 10... I can see that being offered as an option, at least on some ARM and most x86/x64 platforms. Of course, I can also see where that may be something that is either allowed or disallowed by a hardware lock or fuse, so may be a per-manufacturer, per-device possibility. Returning to the Ataribox for a moment: I really don't care what it runs, and I'm going to hazard a guess that the vast majority of potential purchasers don't either. But (and this one we've learned from history many, many times) without a comprehensive set of launch titles on hand and committed developers actively expanding that library, it's going to have one giant hurdle to overcome before it even gets to market. It's not clear if even that basic consideration is taken care of. There also needs to be a compelling reason to buy it - unless it offers something the others don't, I'm going to vote with my wallet and buy something else. Streaming video apps and Twitter-on-your-TV aren't compelling when nearly every $49 Blu-Ray player does that. But an x64 box with an Atari logo on it isn't compelling either when it's just repeating that sort of functionality. That's not to mention the capital and operating might that's going to be needed to make any sort of suitable run at Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony. I'm not talking about market domination: I'm talking about just being *noticed* in the marketplace enough to even build momentum. It doesn't sound like those considerations are in place, but I will admit that I am in no way privy to any information that supports or denies that assertion. We'll see what it is when we see it, and hopefully it's not a repeat of the Tramiel / JTS era.