Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:16 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Palm. It's that big clunky part of your hand that doesn't get any of the attention - the fingers, the thumb especially, get all the glory. Just think, however, what your hands would be like if you didn't have palms, and your fingers just grew straight out of your wrist. Doesn't look so hot now, does it? Well, Palm is supposedly about to go under, if you were to believe the reports. Update: Palm has just announced that the Pre Plus and Pixi Plus will become available on AT&T in the coming months.
Order by: Score:
Not Yet
by zizban on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:19 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

Palm has been teetering on the brink for years, yet is still here.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not Yet
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 16:32 UTC in reply to "Not Yet"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Palm has been teetering on the brink for years, yet is still here.


It certainly would be a shame to see them go under now, when they have a compelling product for the first time in nearly a decade.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by Mr.Manatane
by Mr.Manatane on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:40 UTC
Mr.Manatane
Member since:
2010-03-19

Now that Google is indirectly involved in a massive patent lawsuit with Android competitor Apple, Palm is looking like a very attractive acquisition. Not only would it give Google access to the webOS and its features (which could possibly be integrated into Android), but the search giant would also gain access to a whole bunch of former Apple engineers, as well as an enormous patent portfolio Palm has accumulated by being an innovator in both the PDA and smartphone space.

In other words, it wouldn't only benefit Google's own products, but it would also be another provocation towards Apple.


Great theory, but you forgot the other possibility: Apple buys Palm and all the patents go to Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by Mr.Manatane"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Great theory, but you forgot the other possibility: Apple buys Palm and all the patents go to Apple.


Apple buys back a company full of disgruntled ex-Apple employees?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by umccullough on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"Great theory, but you forgot the other possibility: Apple buys Palm and all the patents go to Apple.


Apple buys back a company full of disgruntled ex-Apple employees?
"

If Apple did this, it would probably be just for the patents... and then they'd bury the rest of the company I suspect (or split it up and sell it off).

In Google's case, they'd own a company that can start building/selling phones directly with relatively good tech. The patents are a large bonus.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In Google's case, they'd own a company that can start building/selling phones directly with relatively good tech. The patents are a large bonus.


Exactly.

WebOS' ideas and technologies could be integrated into Android, and Google could develop the Nexus One II (euh) in-house. And get a boatload of incredibly valuable patents.

Makes a lot of sense.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by milatchi on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
milatchi Member since:
2005-08-29

"In Google's case, they'd own a company that can start building/selling phones directly with relatively good tech.
WebOS' ideas and technologies could be integrated into Android, and Google could develop the Nexus One II (euh) in-house. "

Yeah, but Google doesn't want to support smartphone hardware, or pretty much anything for that matter, hardware-wise at least. We've already seen that with complaints and support for the Nexus One being bounced back-and-forth between Google and HTC.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by Laurence on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Apple buys back a company full of disgruntled ex-Apple employees?


Excuse my ignorance, but what's this about Palm being staffed by disgruntled Apple employees?

(My knowledge of Palm is fairly light)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Rubinstein himself left Apple after falling-outs with Steve Jobs (presumably over the development direction of the iPhone), and several other people left Apple for Palm as well. Considering His Steveness' capability to carry grudges, I don't think it's likely Apple will buy Palm.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by tyrione on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 19:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Rubinstein himself left Apple after falling-outs with Steve Jobs (presumably over the development direction of the iPhone), and several other people left Apple for Palm as well. Considering His Steveness' capability to carry grudges, I don't think it's likely Apple will buy Palm.


No. Jon made tens of millions in stock options at Apple and your assumptions are all wrong. He left to find an opportunity to run another company again.

Most of those "disgruntled" engineers were all fat on stock options that matured and wanted to work in a start up and see if they could hit it big again in another IPO. That's Silicon Valley.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by puenktchen on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

Tevanian joins a long list of former Apple employees who've jumped to Palm, either directly or indirectly. At the top of the list is Palm Chairman and CEO Jon Rubinstein. Other notables include Senior VP Mike Bell and, of course, board member Fred Anderson.

http://www.cio.de/news/cio_worldnews/2220456/

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by jabbotts on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"buys back a company full of ex-Apple employees"

NeXT

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

NeXT came with Jobs. Totally different ballpark.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by jabbotts on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Mr Jobs is a pretty big "ex-Apple" employee though. The one-liner has outlived it's humor value though. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by tyrione on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

NeXT came with Jobs. Totally different ballpark.


NeXT didn't come with Steve Jobs.

I know. I was there.

Steve was asked [as CEO of PIXAR] if he was willing to come on as an advisor. The deal was done. Tevanian and several others making the deal asked Steve to take on this role.

They hoped it would mature into something long term and it did.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by MamiyaOtaru on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

NeXT ... I was there.

Tyrione post

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by tylerdurden on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Huh? Jobs came with NeXT if anything.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by Kroc on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by Mr.Manatane"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Palm practically started the PDA gig, their asests are no doubt valuable, but who’d want to buy a company that’s haemorrhaging cash, and that has competing products that you’d have to uphold. If Google or Apple bought Plam, they’d discontinue Palm’s products because they don’t fit with what else the purchaser is doing in that space (which would raise an eyebrow in the EU); and then the developers would just walk out of Palm anyway.

The difficulty is that if someone buys palm, they have to have a use for WebOS—Google or Apple don’t fit that bill.

If they do go under, their best hope is to house up in a holdings company and licence the patent portfolio to others to pay for the liquidation.

Don’t Palm own the rights to BeOS these days? (Or has BeOS begun to earn it’s own complicated history like that of Commodore / Amiga and RISC OS?)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by kragil on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

BeOS is rotting in Access cellar AFAIK.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

BeOS is rotting in Access cellar AFAIK.


Yup.

Reply Score: 1

Earl Colby pottinger Member since:
2005-07-06

Which is a very good thing. Access has already given Haiku it's blessing including releasing certain docs into the open domain.

Amiga is a mess because ownership of it's IP was bouncing all over the place, with no clear control over the rights to said IP.

What Amiga development that has occurred has been delayed 10-15 years compared to where it could have been without that infighting.

Reply Score: 2

The only logical possibility...
by mlankton on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
mlankton Member since:
2009-06-11

.... other than an unlikely Hail Mary that saves the marque is Nokia swallowing Palm for webOS. This would have the potential to save both Nokia and webOS. Before you start talking about Symbian and whatever Moblin-linux-thing that Maemo turned into, just stop right there. Neither is going to interest people in an iPhone/Android world.

Nokia could give webOS the shot it deserves. The only other possibility is Blackberry, but a RIM takeover would surprise me almost as much as Palm rising from the ashes would.

Whatever happens, I hope webOS can hang in there. It is so much nicer than Android. It would be a real shame if it died.

Reply Score: 2

ariarinen Member since:
2009-02-07

.... other than an unlikely Hail Mary that saves the marque is Nokia swallowing Palm for webOS. This would have the potential to save both Nokia and webOS. Before you start talking about Symbian and whatever Moblin-linux-thing that Maemo turned into, just stop right there. Neither is going to interest people in an iPhone/Android world.

Nokia could give webOS the shot it deserves. The only other possibility is Blackberry, but a RIM takeover would surprise me almost as much as Palm rising from the ashes would.
Well Nokia or Motorola might be the most likely buyers. WebOS could work well on some mid-range devices, and then MeeGo would be on tablets and high-end smartphones.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by cycoj on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

Palm practically started the PDA gig, their asests are no doubt valuable, but who’d want to buy a company that’s haemorrhaging cash, and that has competing products that you’d have to uphold. If Google or Apple bought Plam, they’d discontinue Palm’s products because they don’t fit with what else the purchaser is doing in that space (which would raise an eyebrow in the EU);


Why would it raise an eyebrow in the EU?


and then the developers would just walk out of Palm anyway.

The difficulty is that if someone buys palm, they have to have a use for WebOS—Google or Apple don’t fit that bill.

If they do go under, their best hope is to house up in a holdings company and licence the patent portfolio to others to pay for the liquidation.


You mean a patent troll who'll be suing people over trivial software patents?

Actually I think if either Apple or Google will try to acquire Palm it will come to a bidding war between those two companies. We've seen that recently with some online advertisement companies which Apple looked into and Google bought at much more than they were worth in order to prevent Apple from buying. If Apple or Google would try to buy Palm the other will become mighty uncomfortable. With the current animosity between those two it'll be ugly.



Don’t Palm own the rights to BeOS these days? (Or has BeOS begun to earn it’s own complicated history like that of Commodore / Amiga and RISC OS?)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by kragil on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by Mr.Manatane"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Yeah, more likely. Google is not a hardware company and just buying Palm for some SW patents seems silly. (But all patents are utterly silly in the greater scheme of things.)

Apple has even more cash than Google, but I don't think they really will buy them unless Palm gets really cheap. Apple wants to buy someone, but I guess they want to buy an internet company or Adobe or something and not Palm.

IMHO Palm will go bankrupt and then the real fight for the good parts will start.

Edit: a -> an .. Thoms recent post made me a spelling nazi.

Edited 2010-03-22 14:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by Laurence on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Yeah, more likely. Google is not a hardware company and just buying Palm for some SW patents seems silly. (But all patents are utterly silly in the greater scheme of things.)

Apple has even more cash than Google, but I don't think they really will buy them unless Palm gets really cheap. Apple wants to buy someone, but I guess they want to buy an internet company or Adobe or something and not Palm.

IMHO Palm will go bankrupt and then the real fight for the good parts will start.


What about HTC?
Or maybe Motorola or Nokia?
Heck, even Samsung arguably has incentive

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by kragil on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Or MS. Microsoft already is a hardware company, but I think they still think selling software licenses has a great future.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Mr.Manatane
by Laurence on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Mr.Manatane"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Or MS. Microsoft already is a hardware company, but I think they still think selling software licenses has a great future.

I can't see it personally.
MS is already out-playing Palm so I can't really see them having any interest in the company

I could be wrong, but MS tend to only buy their way out of trouble rather than buy out companies in trouble.

Reply Score: 3

Duh!
by bryanv on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 14:45 UTC
bryanv
Member since:
2005-08-26

Palm has been slowly, painfully dying since before they acquired Be, Inc.

Yes, it's been that long.

Remember when their CTO said that a mobile OS didn't need an MMU?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/07/08/palm_mulled_linux_for_nextg...

Edited 2010-03-22 14:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

What's the deal...
by Tuishimi on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 15:34 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...with phones that cost over $500? If you want to buy these things outright without a contract that's how much they cost. My netbook cost $300. People complained that the iPad cost $500 or whatever and yet these phones cost the same.

For twice the price of the Google Nexus One I built my Mac Pro clone with all grade A components.

Yeah, I know, not portable.

Reply Score: 6

RE: What's the deal...
by skingers6894 on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 00:08 UTC in reply to "What's the deal..."
skingers6894 Member since:
2005-08-10

...with phones that cost over $500? If you want to buy these things outright without a contract that's how much they cost. My netbook cost $300. People complained that the iPad cost $500 or whatever and yet these phones cost the same.

For twice the price of the Google Nexus One I built my Mac Pro clone with all grade A components.

Yeah, I know, not portable.


Yes, not portable. When you can build a Mac Pro clone that can fit in your pocket and make cell phone calls, I'm in!

Apparently miniaturisation cost money, who knew?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What's the deal...
by Tuishimi on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 00:51 UTC in reply to "RE: What's the deal..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

LOL! Yeah yeah. ;) And you COULD make a mac pro clone portable with a little ingenuity, and a strong back.

Reply Score: 2

they will be fine
by poundsmack on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 16:05 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

there is a lot of stuff they are working on right now that will start showing up within the next 2-3 months. They are far from being out of the game, they just hit a snag that they were well aware was a possible outcome of having Sprint as a launch partner. I am very confident that they will turn things around, though this does allow for a great opportunity to buy Palm shares (stock) at a real low point ;)

Reply Score: 2

Ethics Issue.
by theTSF on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 16:26 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

One of their big mistakes was their "iTunes" compatibility...

Lets use an unlicensed hack to got the phone to work with iTunes. Yes Apple will never fix it. Our customers won't mind having iTunes break every version until we stop. Then try to make Apple the Bad Guy for not allowing a competing company to access one of their key Benefits, in the process letting other people know about the problems with iTunes compatibility.

Reply Score: 2

Palm is not dying, they are dead...
by tylerdurden on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 16:29 UTC
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

... for all intents and purposes.

Palm's value proposition against android, iPhone, and Windows phone... is not differentiated enough as to provide an unique reason to exist. And that is something very very very hard to overcome, esp. when you are a company in life support. Going against players which are orders of magnitude and are flushed with cash, with a similar product is simply suicidal.

There is nothing that Palm's products offers that is not matched by its competing platforms. Other than multitasking, which is an answer to a question that the market did not really ask.

Palm's operational costs are higher too: since they have to develop both their HW and SW with a smaller user base to finance it. Palm has to cope with a smaller revenue due to smaller market penetration, coupled with smaller margins, while having higher operational costs. Not a good position to be in at all. Thus, It is not a mater of if, but when will palm close.

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Palm's value proposition against android, iPhone, and Windows phone... is not differentiated enough as to provide an unique reason to exist. And that is something very very very hard to overcome, esp. when you are a company in life support. Going against players which are orders of magnitude and are flushed with cash, with a similar product is simply suicidal.

There is nothing that Palm's products offers that is not matched by its competing platforms. Other than multitasking, which is an answer to a question that the market did not really ask.


What about openness? (no app catalogue lock in, the device is user hackable, etc)
What about the lower barrier for app development? (Javascript as opposed to ObjectC)
What about the fact that unlike Android and WM/WP, Palm control the whole process - hardware to software?

Let's also not forget the power of negative branding:
* Many people are pushed away from Apple because they're heavy handed control borders on despotism
* Many people are turned away from Microsoft because WM has an appalling UI and MS have a bad public image
* and many people are scared of Google because of privacy concerns

Palm could have / should have played up to the fact that they're just as experienced in the mobile market as the big boys (HTC, Apple, MS, etc) while still being a small enough that they're not branded with the same "evil brush" as the industry giants.

So Palm and webOS did / does have a lot going for it despite they're obvious shortcomings.

Reply Score: 4

JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Openness: funny, oddly enough, that's precisely why Apple's iPhone platform is doing so well: it isn't too open for the majority of customers. This is also, apparently, not a show-stopper for professional (or would-be professional) developers. based on the number of readily available apps that everyone can find, if they have the patience to sort through the mountains of stuff, admittedly most of it of limited functionality, but hey, it's the customers that decide that thing. Sure, Apple gets 30% of gross for their part in the transaction, but have you seriously looked at what it takes to run your own purchase site? Have you looked at what other online stores charge? What about the PR needed to direct people to your intended site?

Second: seriously, Objective-C (only someone that's not a serious legit developer would call it ObjectC) is not nearly the "Barrier to entry" you think it is: the language itself isn't all that hard to learn, unless you can't learn other C-based (and, admittedly, a bit of SmallTalkish syntax) languages (of which JavaScript is a scripting castrated language with ducktyping) where for Objective-C, for the native frameworks, sure, you need to learn the native GUI frameworks, but how is this really any different than the frameworks in JavaScript you need to learn to do WebOS apps? Not only that, but unlike JavaScript which is interpreted, Objective-C is compiled and runs at native speeds: sure, it may not be as fast as old ANSI C or C++, but it blows JavaScript out of the water for speed. Oh, and you can also fully use C/C++ libraries that are well-tested and FAST with little trouble: what can you do that is comparable in JavaScript? Now, to cover the other angle of Microsoft in the similar vein, you can also move those C/C++ libs you can use for the iPhone between the WM 6.x and before and reuse most of that, while you need to reinvent things if you want to use JavaScript and WebOS, and if you're talking about the upcoming Windows Mobile 7 (or whatever Microsoft renames things to, as they're good at that!) that uses C#, which... Mono C# is available for the iPhone, and people right now are developing and selling iPhone apps that use it, so, there will be a huge amount of cross-pollination of code possible between those platforms, leaving JavaScript... a red-headed bastard son stepchild mutation of indeterminate value for aiming at, all coupled with the factor that unless Palm manages to make many more connections with carriers, makes it an expensive proposition to develop for anyone that does it for profit.

Now, you can point at all the negative publicity Microsoft has and Apple has, but really: what percentage of the non-tech geek crowd gives a rat's rear on average? Very few people make any solid efforts to do serious research before they buy a phone: they go to their nearby store, find one that somehow looks attractive to them, perhaps has the checklist of features on it they want, they maybe check the sound quality, and usually purchase something with less than an hour's thought into it: this is a large portion of the market, where they also often choose purely on price. Sure, a number actually research things out that aren't truly technogeek people: often they'll go for the prettier system that they can understand readily, and doesn't cost a fortune. Really, us techheads are the minority of the market, and both Apple and Microsoft know that. Now, despite all the negative publicity both Apple and Microsoft get amongst tech people, most non-tech people know little or nothing of all that, and Microsoft has logically decided, based on the iPhone's success, to borrow the same proven concepts: a simple-to-use-and-find AppStore with a simple-to-use GUI on a system that purposely doesn't (at least now) throw in the complication of having (or being able to) manage multiple third-party applications. Sure, a lot of tech people won't care for that, but, again, they're a small portion of the buying public: they aren't vitally important for sales.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sure, a lot of tech people won't care for that, but, again, they're a small portion of the buying public: they aren't vitally important for sales.


While you're surely right on that, you might want to remember who Apple owes it to that they're doing so well now. Hint: it wasn't the average public.

Geeks stuck with Apple through the dark ages. Geeks promoted the "new" Apple (by lack of a better term) to non-geeks. If geeks start to discourage their social circle from buying Apple gear, then the effect may very well turn around.

Not saying that that's happening - just pointing out that just because geeks are a small group, that doesn't mean they aren't influential.

Edited 2010-03-22 21:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Sure, a lot of tech people won't care for that, but, again, they're a small portion of the buying public: they aren't vitally important for sales.

While you're surely right on that, you might want to remember who Apple owes it to that they're doing so well now. Hint: it wasn't the average public.

Geeks stuck with Apple through the dark ages. Geeks promoted the "new" Apple (by lack of a better term) to non-geeks. If geeks start to discourage their social circle from buying Apple gear, then the effect may very well turn around.

Not saying that that's happening - just pointing out that just because geeks are a small group, that doesn't mean they aren't influential.


Very true.
I remember the outcry from Apples customers when Apple announced the iPod.

Apple fans were claiming that Apple had lost sight of technology and were trying to flog gimmicks.

Funny how much can change in only 10 years

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Geels are a very small market. And so are their recommendations.

There is no reason to ponder "what ifs" the reality is that palm is not getting much traction. So there is no point in wonder what influence geeks have. Since the Palm was touted as the more "geek approved" phone vs. the iPhone for example. Yet the iPhone sales are yet to be hurt by Palm, while Palm is struggling to capture significant market share.

More common sense, and less pies in the sky .

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

As someone pointed out: Android took 2 years before Apple took notice. webOS hasn't been out that long.

I think people are being a little quick to dismiss Palm. The show isn't over yet.

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Palm doesn't have the cash reserves that google does. Also android is not Google's only product, or its main product/platform for that matter.

So using google's example is counter productive since it is a false analogy. For Palm does not have cash reserves, and thus can not afford to wait. And WebOS phones are palm's main product.

Also android had quite the momentum from the get go. Pretending that android sat for a couple of years without anyone noticing it, is a rather disingenuous claim to make.

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Palm doesn't have the cash reserves that google does. Also android is not Google's only product, or its main product/platform for that matter.

So using google's example is counter productive since it is a false analogy. For Palm does not have cash reserves, and thus can not afford to wait. And WebOS phones are palm's main product.

Also android had quite the momentum from the get go. Pretending that android sat for a couple of years without anyone noticing it, is a rather disingenuous claim to make.


I don't recall Android having that much more momentum than webOS does. But maybe I'm wrong.

You do make some good points though ;)

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Openness: funny, oddly enough, that's precisely why Apple's iPhone platform is doing so well: it isn't too open for the majority of customers.

Nope. The iPhone is doing so well because it appears to be an open platform (ie it's sold as having all of the stuff people want).
The fact that it's actually closed or open in the true sense is completely irrelevant for most people


This is also, apparently, not a show-stopper for professional (or would-be professional) developers.

Tell that to the number professional developers that have had their previously approved apps pulled, updates randomly rejected and even whole new apps rejected based on double standards.

There's plenty of disgruntled iPhone developers making a lot of noise about how Apple's closed ecosystem is a deal breaker for them.

However I don't really want to get into a detailed discussion about the iPhone as it inevitably ends up a religious war rather than a civilised conversation (plus this topic is about Palm and webOS, NOT Apple/iPhone)


Second: seriously, Objective-C (only someone that's not a serious legit developer would call it ObjectC)

Thank you for the correction but please don't be an asshole about it. Mistakes happen - even from "serious legit developers"

Objective-C is not nearly the "Barrier to entry" you think it is:

All I said was Javascript is a lower barrier to entry - which it is.
I'm not trying to argue anything more than that.

Not only that, but unlike JavaScript which is interpreted, Objective-C is compiled and runs at native speeds: sure, it may not be as fast as old ANSI C or C++, but it blows JavaScript out of the water for speed

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Javascript is compiled on webOS (much like it is on some desktop browsers). So while it isn't C++ fast, it's still a huge step up from interpreted execution

Now, you can point at all the negative publicity Microsoft has and Apple has, but really: what percentage of the non-tech geek crowd gives a rat's rear on average?

Hence my point that Palm could have promoted the "underdog" act more.
I guess a bit like how the "I'm a Mac" commercials were promoting all the negative aspects of Windows that most of the "non-tech geek crowd" wouldn't have given a rat's arse about otherwise.


The rest of your post is pretty much just echoing comments I've made in the past - which leads me to believe that you've read my comments expecting it to be some kind of pro-Palm fanboy BS and then formed a disproportionate retort.

Reply Score: 3

JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Don't worry, I won't go and call you an asshole or anything like it: your responses paint whatever picture quite appropriately, and it isn't exactly painting a pretty picture ;)

And no, I didn't go through your other posts to derive the view of your statements outside of the ones I replied to: I took those immediate posts and merely picked them apart methodically, because, frankly, the reeked of technical ignorance and yes, a bit of irrational fanboyism, compared to what history seems to demonstrate, that regardless of your ideals and your thoughts about certain things, your views don't hold a lot of water from the commercial aspect of things, as geeks aren't the major buyers of most phones, even the supposedly easier-to-develop-for-and-sell-anything-for Palm, and users go for that whatever-is-cheaper-and-easier-for-them-to-use products with the most software variety of what the users (read: non-techies, not so much the technogeeks) want available that's easy to find (a very important point in this whole discussion, including getting down to why Palm is having such a bad time for hardware sales and adoption) while sane developers with business sense, even if the terms are a bit onerous, follow the money, which means, of course, not allowing their development priorities to fall towards a very small in-market platform where absolutely none of their code can be used on a different platform (Palm WebOS via the limitations of JavaScript) versus at least some reuse of their own codebase on multiple platforms (Android, iPhoneOS, Windows Mobile, etc. even going to straight Java phones) where, even if the GUI code and some of it is unique to each platform, each of those major languages used (Java, C/C++/Objective-C/Objective-C++) can use already tested and proven libraries for complex and powerful functionality that... does not exist in JavaScript, and regardless of JIT compilers that run on any phone browser (of which the iPhone also uses WebKit, so such apps could, if users didn't mind their slowness and limitations compared to going native code) will still have very poor performance with various injected delays. Yes, I've read Palm's documentation, admittedly, not 1.4, for the WebOS and programming for it: it explicitly mentions such delays related to garbage collection, etc. and that's something that needs to be taken into account. If all you're doing is purely low-end text-like stuff where quick reaction times and predictable response times aren't so critical, it's not such a problem: the bad thing is, many apps are left out of that equation.

If WebOS advances WebKit or uses something else to make truly precompiled JavaScript apps that don't need to be recompiled every time you start them up, that'll be a huge step, though JavaScript is still likely to be quite limited in performance compared to even Java, unless something is done to compile it to Java VM bytecode and then run the optimizer on that, but with the very dynamic nature of typing in JavaScript, there will be quite a few limitations there for optimizations. Oh well, if Palm lasts long enough, perhaps they will: either that, or, much like the iPhone's path, they'll migrate most software developers over to C/C++ or Java, where JavaScript applications are phased out as the main applications.

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Don't worry, I won't go and call you an asshole or anything like it: your responses paint whatever picture quite appropriately, and it isn't exactly painting a pretty picture

I'm not about to get drawn into a long and drawn out "penis waving" constest with a troll. Sorry mate, but some of us have day jobs ;)



And no, I didn't go through your other posts to derive the view of your statements outside of the ones I replied to:

I didn't say you should. Quite the opposite in fact. Are you actually going to read my posts properly or keep skimming through and then troll?


I took those immediate posts and merely picked them apart methodically, because, frankly, the reeked a bit of irrational fanboyism,

I've never owned a Palm product in my life. So I go back to my earlier point that you're just picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight.

that regardless of your ideals and your thoughts about certain things, your views don't hold a lot of water from the commercial aspect of things,

This part is odd as Apple has made a good business on image branding (which was one of my points) and then you go on to argue the commercial relevence of choosing the right programming languages (which was another one of my points).

I'm not about to say that the points I raised would rocket webOS ahead of Symbian. I just raised those points to prove that webOS does have some raw uniqueness to it.



as geeks aren't the major buyers of most phones,

I didn't say they were.


even the supposedly easier-to-develop-for-and-sell-anything-for Palm,

I said Javascript was lower barrier for entry than Objective-C, nothing more.
I have no idea how Palms app store compares to Apples nor what Palms SDK is like. I just know that Javascript is easier then Objective-C.
so once again you've massively overstated what was a very basic point.

and users go for that whatever-is-cheaper-and-easier-for-them-to-use products

Exactly. I never argued otherwise.

with the most software variety of what the users (read: non-techies, not so much the technogeeks) want available

Actually I don't think non-geeks even care that much about software variety (after all, RIM and Symbian hugely outsell the iPhone despite Apple's frequent adverts about the size of their app catalogue).

absolutely none of their code can be used on a different platform (Palm WebOS via the limitations of JavaScript) versus at least some reuse of their own codebase on multiple platforms (Android, iPhoneOS, Windows Mobile, etc. even going to straight Java phones) where, even if the GUI code and some of it is unique to each platform, each of those major languages used (Java, C/C++/Objective-C/Objective-C++) can use already tested and proven libraries for complex and powerful functionality that... does not exist in JavaScript, and regardless of JIT compilers that run on any phone browser (of which the iPhone also uses WebKit, so such apps could, if users didn't mind their slowness and limitations compared to going native code)

Sorry for the bad block quoted there, but you're point's are very poorly laid out with needlessly long sentences.

Anyhow:
* I never argued that Javascript was the same speed as C/C++. Having been a developer in around a dozen languages and their variants - including C and C++ - I'm well aware of how different languages perform. I've already stated this point, however you were too blind sighted by your own ranting to even notice what I actually said.

* While compiled Javascript isn't as speedy as *C*, most smart phone apps are basically just web front ends to web sites anyway. So while webOS apps may lack the speed of Objective-C/C++, most peoples smart phone needs are catered for

* You claim Javascript isn't portable as every other platform uses a C varient or Java, then you go on to state that the iPhone has a JIT compiler. Make your mind up. ;)
Besides, with the massive amount of online applications, Javascript is arguably MORE portable as it'll run on any Javascript enabled webbrowser.
However, whether you want to argue for or against Javascript's portability, I do agree that it would be nice if webOS did support C++ (or one if it's genus).

* and finally you keep ranting on about what USERS want and not geeks like us, then you rant on for half your post about the specific languages different mobile platforms support - something users wouldn't understand let alone care about. So your being somewhat hypocritical by moving the goal posts of what points can be argued depending on your argument.


If WebOS advances WebKit or uses something else to make truly precompiled JavaScript apps that don't need to be recompiled every time you start them up, that'll be a huge step, though JavaScript is still likely to be quite limited in performance compared to even Java, unless something is done to compile it to Java VM bytecode and then run the optimizer on that, but with the very dynamic nature of typing in JavaScript, there will be quite a few limitations there for optimizations. Oh well, if Palm lasts long enough, perhaps they will: either that, or, much like the iPhone's path, they'll migrate most software developers over to C/C++ or Java, where JavaScript applications are phased out as the main applications.

Personally I see Palm using Javascript to try and encourage developers that were a little intimidated by the iPhone (yeah, I know it's a small niche - I didn't say the decision makes sense).
If this is the case, they had better be working on a C++ (or one if it's brothers) SDK currently or massively drop the price of their devices so it appeals to people are after a less "sophisticated" smart phone.

Even Google knew that Java alone wasn't enough to keep Android competitive.

However, and not taking anything away from the points I've raised about the short comings of Javascript, to say that Palm's choice of language is the reason Palm are struggling is wrong given users couldn't give a toss what language apps are coded in. Thus Palm problems lie elsewhere.

Edited 2010-03-23 13:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

All of those value propositions are geared towards the extremely idealistic nerd contingent. And that is a veeeeeery tiny sector of the market.


Trying to compete with giants, to develop products which require a lot of monetary investment, to target to a market segment which is like less than 1% of the market on a good day... is just a recipe for disaster.

As I said, the main problem for Palm is that none of their offerings can answer the simple question of "why should they exist."

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

All of those value propositions are geared towards the extremely idealistic nerd contingent. And that is a veeeeeery tiny sector of the market.


Trying to compete with giants, to develop products which require a lot of monetary investment, to target to a market segment which is like less than 1% of the market on a good day... is just a recipe for disaster.

As I said, the main problem for Palm is that none of their offerings can answer the simple question of "why should they exist."


But then by that logic Google should never have built Android.
Or Apple should never have built the iPhone.

And let's not forget that the 3 biggest names in this discussion (Apple, Microsoft and Google) are still at least 3rd from the top stop (behind Nokia and RIM).

And let's also not forget that phones are not like computers in that someone will be expected to hold on to their device for several years. It's pretty common for mobile handsets to change every 18 months.

So I think there is definitely still room for competition

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Strawmen arguments are not considered to be part of "logic" in fact they are all the contrary.

As I said, the main problem Palm has is that none of their products has a clear reason to exist.

Google has an answer because android is at the end of the day a mobile interface for their cloud. And Apple positioned their iPhone at the center of their content/app ecosystem. Blackberry has their corporate services network to justify their devices' placement among business folk. And even Windows Phone has a the end of the day their integration with Office's app/mail ecosystem.

Yet Palm can't answer that very basic question: why does their WebOS platform exist?

Note, I am not disparaging technically the platform. I actually quite like it. It is just that "geek" creed a market builds not. And at the end of the day, it is customers who purchase the product and provide revenue. But the problem seems that Palm is offering an answer to a question nobody asked.

Edited 2010-03-23 18:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

So what about the largest mobile platform of them all, Symbian?

That doesn't have a reason to exist yet it still outsells every other platform.

Consumers don't care about office integration, Googles cloud or any of the other reasons you stated. Consumers just want something that's pretty and works.

Reply Score: 2

ariarinen Member since:
2009-02-07

So what about the largest mobile platform of them all, Symbian?

That doesn't have a reason to exist yet it still outsells every other platform.

Consumers don't care about office integration, Googles cloud or any of the other reasons you stated. Consumers just want something that's pretty and works.
Because its pretty and it works plus it has good office integration, and it has muscles behind it.

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Because its pretty and it works plus it has good office integration, and it has muscles behind it.

what, Symbian?!
That doesn't even make sense

Reply Score: 2

What might have been
by jack_perry on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 17:10 UTC
jack_perry
Member since:
2005-07-06

Palm spent five years reinventing the wheel. If PalmOne hadn't turned its nose up at PalmOS 6.x (Cobalt), would things have turned out differently?

Reply Score: 3

RE: What might have been
by Machster on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 19:14 UTC in reply to "What might have been"
Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

No one knows about Cobalt. There were rumours and speculations about why they didn't use it. They probably should have, at any cost, to stem the tide of defections. It is my belief that Palm has failed for three reasons:

1. Palm OS stagnated for years offering little improvements. No one saw any future, so people left.
2. Palm offered mediocre hardware. Wifi was frequently absent. Their PDA line languished and, finally, left to rot. Their user base got disgusted with the lack of updates, and realizing there was no future, started to move on. Ironically, that market was the one that put Palm on the map in the first place. Some users went on to "smartphones" while others went on to other devices like the Nokia N800, but most notably the iTouch. What would have happened if Palm offered a phoneless Pre? Would those 20+ million iTouch buyers have looked at that Pre?
3. Palm entered the much more competitive phone market. Now their competitors were no longer just the lone-standing PDA maker Microsoft/HP, but now the likes of RIMM, Apple, Nokia, Sony, HTC, Motorola, etc, where the users are more fickle and tend to chase either the best hardware or software. The magic of Palm OS was over.

Edited 2010-03-22 19:28 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Comment by defdog99
by defdog99 on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 17:37 UTC
defdog99
Member since:
2006-09-06

They need to release FLASH and HW accelerated DOOM / unreal engine asap...

And update their kiosks to mention those great features versus the iphone.

Reply Score: 1

Palm Tungsten T5 - it was the peak
by jabbotts on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 18:17 UTC
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

For me, the T5 was the peak of Palm's production. Virtual input area, full suite of PalmOS features.. They actually removed features in the later Tungsten and Lifedrive devices. All they had to do at the time was add a wifi radio to the T5. I sat on my PDA upgrade until it was long past due simply because nothing could top the T5 until the N800 (for my needs anyhow).

Reply Score: 4

I still have hope
by Moochman on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 19:59 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

People forget that Android was out for a *long time* before it really "caught on". Before the Droid was released, most people had never heard of it. Meanwhile in that time it was able to collect a large app catalogue and lots of OS tweaks so that when it finally did gain recognition, it was ready for it.

I think Palm is nearing a similar point right now. Once they do a global release, revamp their advertising and take care of the software and hardware issues they will be good to go, and I think you'll see many of these pundits have to eat their words.

Edited 2010-03-22 20:05 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: I still have hope
by tylerdurden on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 01:22 UTC in reply to "I still have hope"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Android has been out for a couple of years. And it has gotten traction for the better part of the past year and a half. I wouldn't call less than one year "a very long time."

Besides, google are in a position to build momentum with the immense cash reserves they have. Palm on the other hand does not have that luxury.

They had to execute a perfect product, on a perfect platform, with a perfect marketing strategy. It was an impossible situation, so it is no surprise they fell sort of the 3 requirements. They are right now burning through their investor's cash, throwing stuff at the wall and see what it sticks.

Sorry, that looks exactly like the MO of a company circling the drain, not a company on the verge of a turn around.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I still have hope
by Moochman on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: I still have hope"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Android has been out for a couple of years. And it has gotten traction for the better part of the past year and a half. I wouldn't call less than one year "a very long time."


Nice try, but Android has only really caught on in the past four months, which is the time since the Droid came out. Meanwhile the release of the first Android handset, the G1, happened about a year and a half ago. There was over a year of gap time before most people ever heard the word "Android".

Meanwhile, the Pre was released less than half a year ago.

I'm not going to try to argue with anyone whether or not Palm "is dying", as it's pointless. We will find out Palm's fate soon enough.

Edited 2010-03-23 16:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I still have hope
by tylerdurden on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I still have hope"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I am not trying anything. If you think that android sat there for 2 years waiting for anyone to notice. And that a whole ecosystem of android devices from different providers/manufacturers just sprung out of the blue a few months ago. I am afraid you have little experience with the reality of how tech companies operate.

A lot of people in this forum seem to equate their very very very distant perspective from their parent's basement, with the reality of the tech sector.

Android had momentum, iphone had momentum, webos does not. And you are right, there is no reason to ponder Palm's fate, their market position and share price already tell the story.

It sucks, because it is a decent platform from a technical point of view. But such is the market; "technically brilliant" solutions don't really matter if they are an answer to a question nobody asked. Geeks tend to offer mistake their technological bias with the realities of purchasing patterns by consumers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: I still have hope
by Moochman on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I still have hope"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not trying anything. If you think that android sat there for 2 years waiting for anyone to notice.


Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

I am afraid you have little experience with the reality of how tech companies operate.


Care to list your credentials?


A lot of people in this forum seem to equate their very very very distant perspective from their parent's basement, with the reality of the tech sector.


WTF??????

Reply Score: 2

AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

... by choosing Sprint as their carrier. Had them released on Verizon their CDMA models, and had them released GSM versions in a timely manner (including an unlocked, carrier-unadulterated model) their present would've been different.

And here I was, still considering getting a Pixi Plus when (and if) they become available for AT&T or T-Mobile, but the thought of Google acquiring Palm is enough for me to want to forget Palm and WebOS ever existed. Thanks but no thanks!

Reply Score: 2

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Google is not acquiring Palm, don't worry. It's just random bloggers' wishful thinking.

Reply Score: 3

Yes palm is dying.
by juvenile4909 on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 22:16 UTC
juvenile4909
Member since:
2007-08-04

As if we didn't know this, i mean seriously, what other reason did they hack the iTunes USB? it was only for a buzz and to stretch the freedoms they had before they became obsolete or bought out.

However, i have to say they make a nice device, but the market is becoming oversaturated. There will eventually be 3 smartphone heavy weights, and Palm aint one of them.

Thanks for reading,

OSNews is my SH##!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Yes palm is dying.
by Laurence on Mon 22nd Mar 2010 23:25 UTC in reply to "Yes palm is dying. "
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


However, i have to say they make a nice device, but the market is becoming oversaturated. There will eventually be 3 smartphone heavy weights, and Palm aint one of them.


Why is it becoming over saturated?
There have been dozens of phone manufacturers for years before smart phones were around.

At the end of the day, smart phones are still just gadgets so it's not like the desktop market where people expect their applications to look the same from one PC to the next.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Yes palm is dying.
by tylerdurden on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Yes palm is dying. "
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

... and ask yourself why you wrote "there have been" and not "there are" and you'll understand why the smart phone is saturated.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Yes palm is dying.
by Laurence on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yes palm is dying. "
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

... and ask yourself why you wrote "there have been" and not "there are" and you'll understand why the smart phone is saturated.


The companies which were still are, so your argument doesn't work.

Plus market saturation isn't as big an issue with phones as you make out:

1/ phones are, in some sense, consumables. Most people change their phone every 18months(ish). So there's a high turn around. Much much higher than with most other forms of electronic gadgets, computers or entertainment devices.

2/ aside communications (GSM et al) phones don't need to be inter-compatible in the same way PCs do.
so long as they support a few media codecs like MP3 and a few web standards like HTML.

3/ these days phones are more essential to every day life than most other forms of gadget / "leisure tech". So the potential market is 99% of the developed world.

So I think there's plenty of room for competition.


Besides, your attitude is almost as if you want to see Palm fail.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by motang
by motang on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 17:40 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

I hope not, I just a Pre not to long ago, because I fell in love with WebOS. The hardware is ok, but the OS is just awesome!

Reply Score: 1