MobileInfocenter

Comments on: Benhamou to Resign as PalmSource Chairman of the Board

PalmSource today announced Eric Benhamou has stated his intention to resign his position as chairman of the PalmSource board of directors immediately following the annual meeting of stockholders on October 28, 2004. The move signals the final step in the separation of PalmSource and palmOne.
Return to Story - Permalink

Article Comments

 (28 comments)

The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PalmInfocenter is not responsible for them in any way.
Please Login or register here to add your comments.

Comments Closed Comments Closed
This article is no longer accepting new comments.

Down

Now, we only need...

dave-the-ex-palm-guy @ 8/13/2004 2:58:31 PM #
... Benhamou, Bradley and Wirt to get out of PalmOne and the company can probably get back on track.
RE: Now, we only need...
Fammy @ 8/13/2004 5:47:02 PM #
They seem to be on the right track already. Still room to improve, but going the right direction. I have no complaints.

-- Fammy
RE: Now, we only need...
mikecane @ 8/13/2004 5:48:16 PM #
I second the motion. All in favor, post AYE!

RE: Now, we only need...
chinchorrero @ 8/13/2004 8:34:51 PM #
AYE.
cheers


"Life is Too Short"
Tungsten T3-Sony ericsson T610,HBH-60,SanDisk 256Mb Sd Card

RE: Now, we only need...
G M Fude @ 8/14/2004 3:00:58 AM #
Aye.
RE: Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers...
Foo Fighter @ 8/14/2004 9:28:43 AM #
What we really need is fresh talent in the development team. PalmSource needs go on a hiring spree and start stealing workers from Symbian. Perhaps even...*gasp* Microsoft. Kick those old-school Palmy engineers out and hire talented innovators.

Something needs to be done, and soon. PalmOS is so badly outdated compared to competing mobile platforms, its actually frightening. Hell, even Motorola's recent development of a Linux/Java based Smartphone platform is light years ahead of PalmOS. Where is this new GUI we were promised? Where is the much needed native file system?

And if I have to listen to Nagel brag about thousands of developers writing software for PalmOS, I will vomit on this shoes. Those developers won't matter for much if they are writing for a platform that belongs in a wheelchair.

It's time for a change.

-------------------------------
Contributing Editor, http://digitalmediathoughts.com
Editor, http://Pocketfactory.com

RE: Now, we only need...
mikecane @ 8/14/2004 10:16:43 AM #
I take it that's an Aye, Foo?

I love that wheelchair crack. I'll never look at those ads for scooters for the infirm on TV the same way now...

RE: Now, we only need...
sford @ 8/14/2004 11:19:29 AM #
Ah, nonsense. *Some* people are never satisfied, and never will be. PalmOS is hardly wheelchair-bound. Just get over your narrow, "enlightened" views and desires, and look at the big picture for once.

In a world of imperfect products created by imperfect beings (yes, of which, you *are* one), PalmSource is actually doing pretty well. Are there things I've been waiting for since '96? Well of course. Does the fact that I still don't have them available on any PalmOS device mean PalmSource is obsolete and clueless? Of course not.

Try walking in other folks' shoes for just a moment. Maybe, just *maybe*, there are factors involved in the decision making about which (just maybe, now) you know nothing.

And after all, anyone can complain (and here in the US, we seem to think that's our God-given right or patriotic duty!). But why not be *truly* different: be part of the solution. Why don't you sit down and program and show us all how it's done, if everything is just so unsatisfactory?

--steps off soapbox-- :)

Pilot Pro -> III -> IIIe -> Nino (yeah...oops!) -> IIIc -> VIIx -> m505 -> NR70V -> NX60 -> T3

Sell your home FAST!
www.NoStressHomeSales.com

RE: Now, we only need...
lamp @ 8/14/2004 12:16:52 PM #
>>What we really need is fresh talent in the development team.

Well, Palm did acquire some talent from Be Inc. Admittedly, Palm lost some talent to TapWave. Not sure stealing developers from Microsoft would help... why make the PalmOS look like PocketPC? Would that really help sell more Palm devices?

Anyway, I think PalmSource has the necessary talent and is on the right track with Cobalt. What remains to be done is execution, which is more of a management issue.


RE: Now, we only need...
Foo Fighter @ 8/14/2004 1:44:59 PM #
A typical knee-jerk reaction from an apologist viewpoint. PalmSource is most definitely NOT on the right track. If they were, PalmOS market share wouldn't be in decline. The mobile device market has change dramatically, and PalmOS has not evolved along the path it should have.

Why don't I program and show the folks at PS how it's done, you ask? I wouldn't have to, just look at Symbian, which is the fastest growing mobile OS on the market. It is tailor made from the ground up for both handheld and Smartphone form factors, with specialized software and interface for each device category. Ever used a Symbian based phone? They work great! And the operating system scales very well to a simple phone interface.

Look at RIM, who now comes close to rivaling HP in market share. The Blackberry's effective software and integration make it one of the best e-mail/messaging/phone products on the market. And its user base continues to outpace Treo.

Look at Danger, with its brilliant smartphone designed squarely for consumers. Another example of real innovation in both software and hardware.

All these products have one thing in common: from a software standpoint, they are simply better than anything PalmSource has to offer, or doesn't offer.

PalmSource has done NOTHING to deliver a specialized version of PalmOS for low-cost phones or personal messaging devices. Instead, they have opted to cram the same dated OS as it exists today, into a Smartphone. That's perfectly fine for high-end phones targeted at geeks, but what about the low to mid-range market segments? Where are all the low-cost Palm-powered smartphones? This is where the real meat and potato sales are. That alone shows that PalmSource isn't looking at the big picture. The company is still stuck back in the PDA era of mobile operating systems.

I never presented my opinion as "enlightened" or a roadmap for PalmSource's corporate strategy. But such fanboy apologist views as yours, if followed, will lead PalmSource into the ground.


-------------------------------
Contributing Editor, http://digitalmediathoughts.com
Editor, http://Pocketfactory.com

RE: Now, we only need...
Rome @ 8/14/2004 3:12:42 PM #
"Look at RIM, who now comes close to rivaling HP in market share. The Blackberry's effective software and integration make it one of the best e-mail/messaging/phone products on the market. And its user base continues to outpace Treo."

You are certainly entitled to your opinion...but Walt Mossberg Of WSJ disagrees with you. Walt may be wrong, and you may be right. But I do know that Walt's opinion is probably a lot more influential than yours at this time. Also keep in mind that RIMM has about a 4 year head start, if not more, on Treo when it comes to wireless email devices and software. Treo 600's success so far has certainly exceeded many people's expectation.

"Look at Danger, with its brilliant smartphone designed squarely for consumers. Another example of real innovation in both software and hardware."

Consumers? Let's try teenagers. Danger is a niche product with a closed OS. You are comparing apples and oranges here.


Is Palmsource perfect? Of course not. Did it make some mistakes to lose market share? Of course it did. But, in light of fierce comeptition from the two giants in the industry(microsoft and Nokia), Palm has survivied and will probably and hopefully thrive in the next few years.

Let's give palmsource some credits.



RE: Now, we only need...
Foo Fighter @ 8/14/2004 3:44:37 PM #
>> "You are certainly entitled to your opinion...but Walt Mossberg Of WSJ disagrees with you."

Walt is a well respected journalist, and I have always enjoyed reading his column. But the fact is, he is extremely set in his ways and has traditionally favored PalmOS and Macintosh in his product reviews. He uses a PalmOS device personally (a Treo 600 in fact) and often shows immense favoritism towards PalmOS. I'm not saying he is wrong in his assessment of RIM's Blackberry, but I do believe that he allows his preference of Palm-powered devices to color his judgment...especially when examing new products. If they don't operate like his Palm device, he thinks there is something wrong with its design.

>> "Consumers? Let's try teenagers. Danger is a niche product with a closed OS. You are comparing apples and oranges here."

Teenagers? You bet, and it works like a charm. The Hiptop is a targeted product designed for a specific market. It's a wonderful device. As for the closed OS, who cares? You're not looking at the big picture. You're viewing it through the eyes of a PDA fan. For students and teens the Hiptop is a successfully new piece of technology. This is an example of areas that PalmOS is not covering; mainstream users. Even Windows Mobile Smartphones would make a much better solution for mainstream cell phone users, if if weren't for the fact that MS stupidly believes its platform qualifies as a high-end mobile platform. At $499+ Microsoft-powered smartphones are a joke. But at say..$199 or less, they would make a great choice. Multimedia savvy, syncs with home computers, etc. Again, I ask...where are PalmOS solutions for this market? Come on PS, you're missing the boat here.

-------------------------------
Contributing Editor, http://digitalmediathoughts.com
Editor, http://Pocketfactory.com

RE: Now, we only need...
mikecane @ 8/14/2004 5:15:56 PM #
Nice argument.

If the rumor is true that Nokia will come out with a Symbian-based PDA, I'm all over it.

Please let the rumor be true!

RE: Now, we only need...
hkklife @ 8/14/2004 5:55:19 PM #
Nice comments, Foo, and I agree with 90% of your sentiments exactly. Maybe flesh your rant out a little and submit it to Ryan as a guest editorial?

Some random thoughts from this end:

I am not a fan at all of the actions of Palm/PalmSource in the past 4 years or so. In fact, they started playing catch-up and stumbling in the dark the day they launched the whole Palm.net initiative and the VII series ( a dark day indeed). To date, every "wireless" device (and the subsequent patched-together OS support of it) up to the Treo 600 & T|C ( a huge stretch to call it truly wireless) has been half-baked at best. Even the Treo 600 leaves much room for improvement and basically gets along as a smartphone on the strengths of its PDA side & not vice-versa. (What DOES happen when you receive a call while performing a Hotsync, btw? I continue to wonder to this day about that!)

I wish Palm had split their line into 3 segments back in the pre-OS4 days:
A. low-end basic PDAs (refined low-end models, not just older units with featres deleted in the sake of saving $,
B: well-built, solidly designed high-end multimedia PDAs
C: (Optionally, if the Palm.net experiment was inevitable) Solidly DATA-centric CDMA (not Mobitex pager) handhelds that could eventually morph into smartphones once 3G & GPRS networks had evolved enough.

Also, the Palm/PalmSource split should either have occured two years earlier than it did or not at all IMHO.

The OS should have been tweaked & continually refined as tailored to each separate line. The target customer for line A won't care about the lack of a filesystem but will care about being able to Hotsync MP3s directly to the device. You've gotta make as much as possible TRANSPARENT to the end-user!

Then the discriminating power user who changed devices annually (most PIC readers) wants things like switchable Graffiti and multitasking etc. We may not count for a huge amount of direct sales but we're the ones who write the reviews, keep the enterprise handhelds running and make the word-of-mouth recommendations. Eventually, alienating the eggheads is gonna be a bad move.

Look at how far RIM has come in a few short years. Marketing, hardware, software, the whole aura of Blackberry is quickly on its way to becoming a Mac-like culture and not just a "platform". Symbian has also made great strides in a relatively short amount of time. People love the products even if they don't know what OS it is that's runnong on their new smartphone. They just know that it's "not a Palm Pilot and not anything Windows". Now compare OS 4.0 (early '01) to whatever is on shelves now. Pretty underwhelming, huh?

Palm OS 4 was where the OS should have gotten aggressive with multimedia features instead of permitting Sony to cobble together proprietary elements on their own. OS 5 should basically have been what OS6 promises to be, at least as far as power management, stability, and multi-tasking etc and wireless integration.

The Palm platform will soon have been in consumers' hands for 10 years and with very little to show for it in the long haul. Foo is right, RIM is so tightly integrated that it's scary. With the Blackberry hardware now catching up to the rest of the market, OS6 is going to be Palm's last shot to make some inroads.

Are people really leaving PDAs in droves for smartphones? No, my guess is that they are either giving up on PDAs entirely and going back to their leather-bound Franklin Covey organizers or else using their old Vx until it dies because there's no compelling reason to upgrade. If anything, I'd argue it's the high end of the Palm PDA market that needs fixing ASAP and the trickle-down effects will have a positive impact on their other. With PalmOne effectively the only hardware game in town, we can basically go back to just saying "Palm" again.

RE: Now, we only need...
Rome @ 8/14/2004 8:03:59 PM #
"Walt is a well respected journalist, and I have always enjoyed reading his column. But the fact is, he is extremely set in his ways and has traditionally favored PalmOS and Macintosh in his product reviews. He uses a PalmOS device personally (a Treo 600 in fact) and often shows immense favoritism towards PalmOS. I'm not saying he is wrong in his assessment of RIM's Blackberry, but I do believe that he allows his preference of Palm-powered devices to color his judgment...especially when examing new products. If they don't operate like his Palm device, he thinks there is something wrong with its design."

Walt is human, just like the rest of us. We have bias, opinions and preferences, and that's why some like Ford while others prefer Chevy. Is Ford better than Chevy? Is Symbian better than Palm OS? There are no right or wrong answers. You prefer Symbian to PalmOS while Mossberg and I like Palm OS better. Mac OS was ahead of Windows in several aspects for many years, but it is Microsoft Windows that now rules the world. Better technolgoy doesn't always mean business success.

"Teenagers? You bet, and it works like a charm. The Hiptop is a targeted product designed for a specific market. It's a wonderful device. As for the closed OS, who cares? You're not looking at the big picture. You're viewing it through the eyes of a PDA fan. For students and teens the Hiptop is a successfully new piece of technology. This is an example of areas that PalmOS is not covering; mainstream users. Even Windows Mobile Smartphones would make a much better solution for mainstream cell phone users, if if weren't for the fact that MS stupidly believes its platform qualifies as a high-end mobile platform. At $499+ Microsoft-powered smartphones are a joke. But at say..$199 or less, they would make a great choice. Multimedia savvy, syncs with home computers, etc. Again, I ask...where are PalmOS solutions for this market? Come on PS, you're missing the boat here."

What's the "big picture" here? Teenagers and studnets are the mainstream users of smart devices? If the teenagers and students were the mainstream users as you had suggested, then RIM must be missing the boat comepletely because they target mainly on the corporate market. I used a mac all the way through undergraduate and graduate schools. How many Mac have I bought since? Zero!

As for your pricing arguments, that's a business decision more than a technology decision. You can buy a AT&T Treo 600 today on Amazon for $199 with new activation(it was at $149 for a few days before Amazon realized that the price too low.) I believe that Treo 600s are priced so high now is simply because palmone can and people (especially business users) are willing to pay that much for them. Smart devices are in the early adopter stage of the technology lifecycle, where prices are always high. IBM PC with two floppy drives were well over $3000 when they first came out in 1982.

Last but certainly not the least, Palmsource has no control whatsoever of how much palmone charges for their products. They get a fixed percentage of palmone's revenue with a guaranteed annual minimun. It is not like Microsoft charging $60 a copy for XP no matter how much the PC's total cost is. So don't blame Palmsource for the high cost of treos.



RE: Now, we only need...
Foo Fighter @ 8/14/2004 10:20:10 PM #
>> "Walt is human, just like the rest of us. We have bias, opinions and preferences,[snip] You prefer Symbian to PalmOS while Mossberg and I like Palm OS better. "

There is nothing wrong with having a personal preference. It's when you allow your personal preference to obfuscate your views of other products that it becomes a problem. And as a product reviewer, that the first sacred law of scientific principle. I know this from personal experience as a product reviewer myself. You have to go into any such review with a clean slate, an open mind. If you allow your preference or personal tastes to intrude upon the subject at hand, you taint the outcome. For example, if your a lifelong Mac user, reviewing a PC for the first time, you have to pretend you've never even used a Mac before, and judge the PC solely on its own merits and the unique experience it offers. If you start drifting into..."this doesn't work like my Mac, so I don't like it", then you have just discredited yourself and your review.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with have a personal preference. But seasoned and skilled reviewers like Walt should know better.

>> "What's the "big picture" here? Teenagers and studnets are the mainstream users of smart devices?

No, students are merely a segment of the larger mainstream audience. But while we're on the subject I should point out the obvious; that PalmOS has no youth targeted smartphones either. Basically, what we need is a smartphone version of the Zire 31. Not literally of course, but a device designed for entry level users. Symbian has that market covered...but where is PalmOS? Up in the clouds with Treo 600 of course.

I'm not criticising the Treo 600, by the way. It's just that the Palm platform as a whole is at a crucial point in its existence. A point where, if the OS is to survive, let alone thrive, it must break away from its exclusive status as a tool for geeks and IT workers and start moving into the mainstream world of soccer moms, students, and everyday working class folks. That's never going to happen so long as the OS is tied to PDAs, and high-end Smartphones for geeks.

>> "So don't blame Palmsource for the high cost of treos."

You have completely missed my point. I'm not criticizing PS for the price of hardware at all. I'm criticizing them for failing to produce an OS designed for entry level smartphones, as Symbian and Microsoft have done. Well, Microsoft did...it just doesn't know it yet. Once the folks in Redmond realize that Windows Mobile Smartphones is not a $499 platform, much like Symbian's low-end phone OS, the game will change. Just cramming Garnet into a cheapy phone is stupid and pointless. PalmSource needs to design an OS built on a subset of Garnet made specifically for phones. No touch interface, just a simple jog dial navigation that serves first and foremost as a PHONE...not a PDA. Then leave Treo-like devices for high-end users where it belongs.



-------------------------------
Contributing Editor, http://digitalmediathoughts.com
Editor, http://Pocketfactory.com

RE: Now, we only need...
arielb @ 8/15/2004 1:09:21 AM #
if symbian is so great then where are the symbian PDA's? if danger is so great then where are the thousands of superior-than-palmos apps?

RE: Now, we only need...
sford @ 8/15/2004 2:15:15 AM #
"You're viewing it through the eyes of a PDA fan"

Exactly! And that's what PalmOne/Source are all about. RIMM is about communication devices. Danger is about toy/phone combos for teens.

I like some of their products, but until they can be my checkbook, my Bible, a dozen ebooks, MSOffice to go, and many other things, they are for a different market. I just don't see the point or value in comparing them all.

Are you saying you think Palm should break out of the PDA market and venture into new ones? (And if that is what you're saying, why?)

Pilot Pro -> III -> IIIe -> Nino (yeah...oops!) -> IIIc -> VIIx -> m505 -> NR70V -> NX60 -> T3

RE: Now, we only need...
Rome @ 8/15/2004 9:21:05 AM #
"There is nothing wrong with having a personal preference. It's when you allow your personal preference to obfuscate your views of other products that it becomes a problem. And as a product reviewer, that the first sacred law of scientific principle. I know this from personal experience as a product reviewer myself. You have to go into any such review with a clean slate, an open mind. If you allow your preference or personal tastes to intrude upon the subject at hand, you taint the outcome. For example, if your a lifelong Mac user, reviewing a PC for the first time, you have to pretend you've never even used a Mac before, and judge the PC solely on its own merits and the unique experience it offers. If you start drifting into..."this doesn't work like my Mac, so I don't like it", then you have just discredited yourself and your review."

No product reviewer can be 100% objective, because everyone's objectivity is different, especially when it comes down to personal devices like smartphones and PDAs. We are all products of our environment and life experiences. Let's take movie reviews as an example. You read ten reviews from ten reviewers, and you will likely get ten differently views (of course, we can probably all agree that Catwoman is a bad movie, then again Halle Beryy sure looks fine:). So you tell me which one is the most objective? Did they all go into the review with an open mind? They all probably thought they did. You like Symbian better than palmOS. Is that a totally scientific judgment? How about the fact that PalmOS has much more third-party software than Symbian? Of course, this data may not be important to you, but it may be important to others. Are you then being not objective?

"As I said, there is nothing wrong with have a personal preference. But seasoned and skilled reviewers like Walt should know better."

Again, this is your personal view. Just because you disagree with Walt, it doesn't mean that Walt is less objective than you are. Nothing personal here, but I believe that a lot more people listen to Walt then you. In addition, Walt has had a successful career being a technology reviewer for a major newspaper; he is not where he is today if he has not been fair and objective.

“No, students are merely a segment of the larger mainstream audience. But while we're on the subject I should point out the obvious; that PalmOS has no youth targeted smartphones either. Basically, what we need is a smartphone version of the Zire 31. Not literally of course, but a device designed for entry level users. Symbian has that market covered...but where is PalmOS? Up in the clouds with Treo 600 of course. “

Is it palmsource’s fault that palmOne came out with Treo 600? Keep in mind that they are now two different and independent companies. On the other hand, Nokia owns almost half of Symbian,, and that’s why they have an inherent interest in using Symbian as much as possible. In addition, palmOne has repeatedly said that they will come out with a family of smartphones, so it’s just a matter time before we see a mainstream/youth version of treo 600. palmOne simply doesn’t have the deep pocket nor the resources like Nokia does at this time.

“You have completely missed my point. I'm not criticizing PS for the price of hardware at all. I'm criticizing them for failing to produce an OS designed for entry level smartphones, as Symbian and Microsoft have done. Well, Microsoft did...it just doesn't know it yet. Once the folks in Redmond realize that Windows Mobile Smartphones is not a $499 platform, much like Symbian's low-end phone OS, the game will change. Just cramming Garnet into a cheapy phone is stupid and pointless. PalmSource needs to design an OS built on a subset of Garnet made specifically for phones. No touch interface, just a simple jog dial navigation that serves first and foremost as a PHONE...not a PDA. Then leave Treo-like devices for high-end users where it belongs.”

We may just have to agree to disagree here. The reason that Treo 600 has been so successful, IMHO of course, is that Treo 600 works equally well as a phone and as a pda. Why choose phone over pda or vice versa? Couldn’t they both co-exist? As for pricing, I am not worried…...that will come down, they always did.



RE: Now, we only need...
Rome @ 8/15/2004 1:25:08 PM #
Below is another view point on Mobile OSs from PC Magazine columnist, John Dvorak. Objective? You be the judge.

http://www.pcmag.com/print_article/0,1761,a=126139,00.asp

----------------------------------------------------

Whenever I hear the assertion that one day your mobile phone will become your computer, I can't stop laughing. It's ridiculous. The mobile-phone business is a bonanza, with huge sales (nearly a billion units were sold worldwide over the past two years) and the never-ending upgrades. In case you haven't noticed, people like to chat incessantly on the phone. That's what cell phones are best for, even though the mobile-phone folks with their 3G and now 4G proposals seem intent on making these devices the most important things you'll ever own, your gateway to all your personal information and to the Internet.

It's a shame that mobile phones generally stink. They stink in Asia, in Europe, in Africa, and in Russia, but they really stink in the U.S., which may be our only edge: They stink so much that we are not quite as enamored with them as everyone else. The propaganda message promoted to the American public is, "We are so far behind Asia and Europe when it comes to these phones!" What is that supposed to mean? We're not talking enough?

I won't deny the usefulness of mobile phones, but let's objectively examine the idea that they will replace desktop and laptop computers. As far as I'm concerned, the basic technology has gone downhill over the years. Adding cameras and PDA capability isn't helping.

Let's start with the digitization of the mobile-phone networks. Anyone who remembers the earlier phones — analog car phones, phone packs, or even the big analog cell phone "bricks" — knows that service has progressively deteriorated. The analog system was far superior, but has been supplanted by an "all digital" network that the phone sellers actually brag about! Calls are constantly dropped. The towers are full of chatting teenagers. It's a laugh.

"All digital" is synonymous with poor quality, as the technology is used not to improve performance but to jam more calls into a smaller slot. The next time someone brags about digital phone technology being so great, flick them on the nose as hard as you can. I'm serious.

I recently got the latest Nokia super phone, the 6600. It's a nice phone, but it uses the Symbian OS, which people like for just one reason: It's not the Microsoft OS. I have not been able to use a phone with a Microsoft OS for more than five minutes without wanting to stomp on it. The Symbian OS is marginally better, but nothing makes sense on it. No wonder Psion sold it off. You can't find what you want easily. The menu system is redundant and stupid. It's as if it were invented to be difficult, just because someone enjoyed pushing too many buttons to do a simple chore.

The only phone OS with a prayer is the Palm OS for phones: It's simple and easy to use, and the phone functions are kept well away from the PDA apps, which is good. It's used on the Treo, Samsung, and Kyocera PDA/phone combos. Too bad that those are extremely expensive phones with questionable battery life.

Whatever happens with Palm, all research points to Nokia and Motorola winning the market-share game, with an OS that can go nowhere. This kills any chance of a powerful phone overtaking the desktop computer.

The problem is not just with the operating system. The leaders —Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson, and Samsung — all have so many models that it's nearly impossible for consumers to choose the right phone. Whatever happened to the idea of one perfect device? We don't need this many models and this much confusion.

Take the carriers (please!). The typical phone plan is mostly a lie. This has been the modus operandi of the phone companies for years. They tell you one thing, but there are so many hidden charges and steep price increases that what you get is never the unlimited $30 plan you signed up for. You have to draw the conclusion that all phone companies are basically dishonest.

I think I've made it clear that none of this points to the mobile phone as a computer replacement. It's never going to happen. At best they have a Blackberry-like keyboard, the screen is too small to be used for anything, and browsing is ridiculous — and expensive. Even in a docking station, the phone will never cut it as a computer. I don't think these things are even very good phones — they are annoying on so many levels. My ring tone is a rooster crowing — my revenge!



RE: Now, we only need...
Foo Fighter @ 8/15/2004 1:38:50 PM #
I'm going to write up an article for my site that will piece together all my rants into one steaming pile of....spaghetti.



-------------------------------
Contributing Editor, http://digitalmediathoughts.com
Editor, http://Pocketfactory.com

RE: Now, we only need...
Rome @ 8/15/2004 5:47:51 PM #
Foo,

Looking forward to your piece and enjoyed our little give and take. Drop us a note when the piece is ready.

RE: Now, we only need...
Kudzu62 @ 8/15/2004 6:31:21 PM #
I have really enjoyed this "discussion." I don't know either of you at all, and have read just a couple of reviews by Mossberg. Just as an observation, I think that a reviewer does not become popular by being "objective" at all. A reviewer becomes popular when their opinion turns out to be a reliable guide for a large enough group of people.

Who hasn't read a review and said, "I've got to see/do/buy that, because the last time I listened to them I got exactly what they said I would." By the same token, I think their is an, albeit smaller, group that reads a review and says, "If he hated that product/service I will probably love it, so I am going to give a try." The key to being an excellent reviewer is not objectivity, it is thoughtful and reasoned consistency. Next to that it, it would probably be the ability to understand, probably by some degree of "nature," what a group of people want; a group large enough to make what they will pay for your opinion enough to pay your bills!

FWIW,
Gordon

From the Great White North
Kudzu62

RE: Now, we only need...
lamp @ 8/15/2004 8:26:05 PM #
Just to add to the scientific principle of objectivity issue, a good reviewer doesn't need (or can even be) 100% objective. It's important for a reviewer to let the reader know where he's coming from.

My car was reviewed in Road & Track (sporty), and the ride was deemed too soft. The car was also reviewed by Consumer Reports (family), and they deemed the ride too hard. I bought the car, and to paraphrase Goldilocks, the car was juuust right.

What a good reviewer doesn't do is rant or engage in hyperbole.



RE: Now, we only need...
SaabCaptain @ 8/15/2004 8:28:13 PM #
Palmsource OS 6:

1. Development started in 2000 (some say earlier.)
2. Details announced in 2002 for planned 2003 release.
3. Late 2003 brought word that a new GUI and other key features have been delayed to OS 7 for release at earliest 1 year after OS 6 arrives.
4. Decemember 2003 brought word that OS 6 had gone "gold."
5. 2004... nothing so far, the wait continues.

When OS 6 arrives in the form of a Tungsten T4 the collective silence will be the stunned Palm fathful like myself staring at what little improvement nearly 5 years has brought.

How I long for the days of my Pilot 5000 when ideas were bold, and change was in the air.

owned: Pilot 5000, PalmPilot Pro, Palm V, Casio E-11, IIIc, m505, Sony T615, Tungsten T, iPaq 1945, Tungsten E.

RE: Now, we only need...
Foo Fighter @ 8/16/2004 3:53:48 PM #
My article is now live. Thanks for all your comments, I enjoyed the discussion. :-)

http://www.pocketfactory.com/archives/000315.php

-------------------------------
Contributing Editor, http://digitalmediathoughts.com
Editor, http://Pocketfactory.com

RE: Now, we only need...
Rome @ 8/16/2004 4:20:35 PM #
Foo,

Really enjoyed your piece on pocketfactory.com. Can't say that I agree with all your points, but some of your criticisms on Palmsource are fair and valid. I know that Palmsource management checks in on this board every now and then, and I hope they listen to the community and incorporate some of the feedback into their business strategy and plan going forward.

Thanks again for the interesting article.

Rome


RE: Now, we only need...
SaabCaptain @ 8/16/2004 9:21:11 PM #
Wonderful piece... Palm needs to expand the idea of a what a PDA is, what a cellphone is, what a smartphone is, what a PDA phone is. Right now they are simply rehashing with a "higher res, more memory, look its shiney!" model of how to innovate.

Someone, anyone needs to reinvent the PDA in the same way the Pilot 1000 did.

owned: Pilot 5000, PalmPilot Pro, Palm V, Casio E-11, IIIc, m505, Sony T615, Tungsten T, iPaq 1945, Tungsten E.

Top

Account

Register Register | Login Log in
user:
pass: