As I understand Acorn's approach to the desktop market, they do not expect to be a large player, nor even a "viable" player. They produce products that they sell into the "enthusiast" market so that they can demonstrate to potential clients that Acorn possess the know-how to design products that don't just work in the lab, but work in the field under myriad conditions and widely varying applications.
In this context, Phoebe is an advertising expense. Unlike most advertising, this one has the potential of indirect payback ("how did you hear of our company?") and direct payback ("workstation division made a profit of so-and-so pounds last year"). In fact, Acorn almost never advertise in the publications supporting the enthusiast community nor in specialist journals...
In this context, Acorn had no choice; they had to make a new desktop computer. The RISC PC architecture was not designed to exploit the performance offered by the StrongARM. Remember in 1994 when Acorn presented the roadmap of processor upgrades for the RISC PC, complete with model numbers and prices? The sudden appearance of the StrongARM in 1996 changed things completely. Acorn's technology demonstrator advertisement - the RISC PC - could now only be perceived as a very bad mis-match of system design and processor performance.
There was no way to withdraw the advertisement - too many people had purchased the RISC PC! So, Acorn had to invest the time and energy to create a new computer that would, in their own statement of purpose for the Phoebe project, "Harness full potential of StrongARM" and "Update I/O to modern standard" - and in so doing, showcase Acorn's expertise in creating well-designed systems. This need not cost a lot of money to develop - look at Chaltech's CAT or the NetWinder from Corel.
In reviewing Acorn's recent history, it seems that every 2 or 3 years, Acorn attempt to "re-invent" themselves. These attempts consistently fail, but Acorn continue doing it.
It is indeed sad.
In 1987-1989, Acorn arguably had better processors than Intel, better operating systems than Microsoft, and better PCs than IBM. Hiding behind the excuse of, "We lack the money to advertise!" they have managed to squander this world-leading position. Now, Intel processors are much faster, Microsoft OS's are the world standard and the global desktop computer market is dominated by the Wintel juggernaut. And Acorn, after an apparently serious attempt to succeed in the 1991-1994 timeframe with rapid introduction of new, compatible computing platforms (at least in Britain), are now shrinking and floundering and, yes, re-inventing themselves.
While Acorn may want people to believe they are a contract design center, their last Annual Report indicates that the Workstation Division is the portion of the company carrying the day for Acorn.
Acorn have tried hard, along with other companies, to create a "Network Computer" - but no one is buying into this concept. It is another solution desperately seeking a mass-market problem. Who reading this has an interactive TV, or even wants one? OnLine Media tried to promote this market and eventually failed. Frankly, the mass-market consumer appliance is a rainbow whose end is difficult to find - and you can bet that if it can be found by hooking up a microprocessor to a TV, the likes of Microsoft and Intel are most likely to locate it! Just look at Microsoft's recent investment in Thomson...
Putting RISC OS into a cellphone won't work - the cellphone industry just united behind EPOC from Psion, forcing Psion to relinquish it and create Symbian, much as Apple forced Acorn to relinquish their processsor and create ARM Ltd.
Cirrus, VLSI and others make a variety of ASICs with ARM cores - Acorn is too late for this one, with too little to show.
JAVA and JIT compilers might have a niche - but what will they run on? Desktop machines are the place to prove Acorn can make them, not a research lab with no exposure. On the other hand, even if they can make a good JIT compiler, who will buy it?
Perhaps if Acorn's focus weren't on creating solutions looking for problems in the guise of a consumer appliance that would sell in the tens or hundreds of millions, and instead were on the many smaller markets that they could serve well which have problems seeking solutions, they would succeed brilliantly...
Survival of the Fittest - An Alternative way to Survive
Disagree? Then reply!