So the best technical solution (ROOL) has insurmountable commercial problems and the proven commercial route (VA) has insurmountable technical problems. Shame the hatchet can't be buried and the new hardware exploited for profit.
I can't leave these deeply innacurate comments without addressing them:
Firstly there are no "insurmountable technical problems" related to VirtualRPC. The product was designed for a purpose. That purpose was to allow users to run RISC OS on non ARM hardware. This is what it does. It allows the user to run the operating system they want, on the hardware that's available to them. For example using a VirtualRPC is the only way to run RISC OS on a laptop. Business users may be required, as policy, to have a particular PC (or Mac) and not allowed to use any non prescribed hardware. A VirtualRPC allows them to run RISC OS, where other "real" RISC OS hardware would not be allowed.
When developing the products we had a very clear vision of what was needed. The resulting products fit that clear vision.
I think what you meant to say was that a VirtualAcorn product was not suitable for your "concept". This is hardly suprising as the products were developed for a different purpose. There are no " insurmountable technical problems" with a horse, unless you want it to be a row of semi detatched houses.
Moving on to the "insurmountable commercial problems" quote. I am not sure what "insurmountable" problems exisit. If one wants to distribute a product containing RISC OS then a licence fee needs to be paid. It really is very simple.
The final comment of yours that "Shame the hatchet can't be buried..." makes no sense at all. There is no "hatchet" between VirtualAcorn and RISCOS Open. Their product(s) are simply not suitable for our product(s). Read my earlier comments as I have explained why at some depth.