Ok, shall I reveal the answer then? 
Do you know why developers would want to experiment with the OCM (improving it) rather than do something that makes sense with a PC or PS(1/2/3) or whatever mighty powerful console?
- this is a scene in which ppl know eachother, and prefer to operate as a group.
- in this scene you can actually mean something, as opposed to the PC/console scene where you are just one out of millions e.g. you are a nobody.
- in this scene it's easy for someone to do a lot of different things, on PC/console the qualitybar is a lot higher so one needs more dedicated people for stuff like games. Compare: I'm sure every coder (minus Edwin) can draw some gametiles that make a bit of sense. And because MSX games are not overly complex, an artist might be able to contribute some code, even if it's only in the form of an editor. Try this on PC/console and you're honed away, for you need to have 3d-skills in 3dsMax/Maya etc. and are required to have a full-blown studio for epic scores in audio format. All this makes it relativily easy for an MSX'er (as the products aren't as large-scale as on PC/console) to produce something in a small team, or even as an individual.
So, those who want to create stuff on an OCM rather than on a PC/console might want this OCM to be at least a bit more powerful than the original MSX'es. 
About OCM not being a hardware emulator :
If I write a VHDL code that mimics an Apple II behaviour and install it on OCM, I will be able to use Apple II software on OCM. My OCM running a VHDL code that mimics a different architeture and running software developed for other line of computers still will be recognized as a MSX computer? If that ever happens (Apple II VHDL on OCM) can I say that, since a OCM that runs apple II software still is a MSX, a classic Apple II computer should be considered from now on a sort of MSX as well? 
Yes, the new MSX is a device especially created for the user base that kept it alive: Emulation Fans/Developers. So the new MSX is the ultimate emulation device. if you emulate an apple on the OCMSX emulation/simulation device it is an apple emulated on a OCMSX. the apple itself did not become a MSX, but the OCMSX did become something a lot of us dreamed/hoped for. the OCM took MSX in a direction the user base took before, and i have to admit that Nishi is a great designer and visionair to let MSX evolve this way. he really looked and listened to all we did and embraced our vision. i personally can't think of any computer designer who is more suitable to design my dream system!
About OCM not being a hardware emulator :
If I write a VHDL code that mimics an Apple II behaviour and install it on OCM, I will be able to use Apple II software on OCM. My OCM running a VHDL code that mimics a different architeture and running software developed for other line of computers still will be recognized as a MSX computer? If that ever happens (Apple II VHDL on OCM) can I say that, since a OCM that runs apple II software still is a MSX, a classic Apple II computer should be considered from now on a sort of MSX as well?
Yes, the new MSX is a device especially created for the user base that kept it alive: Emulation Fans/Developers. So the new MSX is the ultimate emulation device. if you emulate an apple on the OCMSX emulation/simulation device it is an apple emulated on a OCMSX. the apple itself did not become a MSX, but the OCMSX did become something a lot of us dreamed/hoped for. the OCM took MSX in a direction the user base took before, and i have to admit that Nishi is a great designer and visionair to let MSX evolve this way. he really looked and listened to all we did and embraced our vision. i personally can't think of any computer designer who is more suitable to design my dream system!If that's the idea, giving us a VHDL device in which we can load everything we want, then I don't want to be an OCM user. That's sad, man. It's even worse than plugging in the latest videocard or cpu in your desktop PC. It would mean no identity at all. That sucks.
And about loading an Apple II. MSX Association will never do such a thing, so it's not a realistic thought. Maybe YOU or THE SCENE can load an Apple II inside the OCM. That would have nothing to do with MSX, though. I've said it before and I want to say it again: MSX needs identity and only an authority can give this device identity. And protect its identity.
To clearify, I'm not against scene VHDL alterations. In fact, they can be very cool! But there MUST be a solid OCM VHDL bases, released by MSX Association. To preserve the device its identity.
I am happy with this new OCM, so I ordered 3 of em (one for Ramones). As I've read, I have his same doubts/fears that he has posted here. In fact, it is just about compatibility. Ok, OCM can be a new standard, but then, if you say "I code this game for MSX1 and use its logo" but you are using this OCM as the main test, this game won't be working in each MSX1 computer.
Isn't it important? I think it is. As Ramones said, a similar problem happened with games in the last MSXDEV Contest, not being MSX1 compatible even if the contest was for MSX1 games. It is just because people did not test their games in a real MSX1 machine, but in MSX2 or emulators.
But of course, we can create "bad coded MSX games without following the standard" which will work with emus and OneChipMSX. Will we put just MSX1Chip logo in the stickers of our next games? 
Or "emu" compliant?
Burn your 16+ year old machines and replace them with a bunch of standard-alike compliant OCMs
There's a lot of nonsense in both directions in this thread. I guess that this is usual when we are dealing with feelings rather than facts. For me, despite all the reasons you can provide, the OCM is not a real MSX. And I think that this is the problem for most people: I does not look like an MSX, it does not provide the same feeling than a heavier, strong looking or even bulky, original MSX computer does provide.
I need all *the other things* that the Altera cannot provide. Besides the fact that I strongly suspect that 100% guaranteed compatibility is *always* a myth.
Again, this is my opinion. But here, as far as feelings are involved, do not try to rationalice it, because you won't be able to do it.
And please, do not think that I am against the OCM just for the lack of cassette support: I've seen one of the prototypes loading from tape different cassette games at one of the BCN User Meetings.
For me, OCM is not a real MSX. And I think that this is the problem for most people: I does not look like an MSX, it does not provide the same feeling than a heavier, strong looking or even bulky, original MSX computer does provide.
Well, at least for me, this is a cool aspect. I liked the idea of a small device, that I can take anywhere I want. And the transparent case makes it (again, to me at least) really beautiful. 
I need all *the other things* that the Altera cannot provide. Besides the fact that I strongly suspect that 100% guaranteed compatibility is *always* a myth.
This is my main concern. There are people always saying that, most of the things you want OCM to do, you can add yourself by changing the VHDL. And one of these things seem to be full compatibility with MSX. I don't understand why it has to be my job to do what the company that sells the OCM should provide out of the box. To me, this is the same as if Sunrise had released IDE without a BIOS and softwares like FDISK. I can imagine what the readme file would look like: "Hey, you got your IDE! Congratulations! Of course, you can't right now plug a HD and a CDROM because first you need to code a BIOS for it. But once you do it, you will be able to use whatever IDE device you want! The hardware is fully functional, so all you have to do is code the tools you need and you're done! ". Even if I find cool to learn VHDL to write my own extensions, I don't think its my job to do that. I'm a customer, I should only have to learn VHDL if I do want to add new things, not because the product has bugs/missing stuff in order to work as it should.
