MobileInfocenter

Comments on: Rumor: Possible Rendering of the Palm Treo 700?

Yet another new Treo rumor this week. The CoolTechTimes has published an image of what appears to be another possible next generation Palm Treo smartphone. Read on for more details.
Return to Story - Permalink

Article Comments

 (172 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.

Start a new Comment Down

Sticking out aerials are bad design

fishtastic @ 8/12/2005 2:23:24 PM # Q
What is with this sticking out aerial stuff. Palm listen for once, NO STICKING OUT AERIALS.

Sticking out aerials are bad design, making them rounded doesn't help. Make the damn thing internal, there is plenty of space in there.

If Nokia could do it during the last century, you should be able to do it in this century.

Fish

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
twizza @ 8/12/2005 2:57:40 PM # Q
Actually, its the carrier request for the external antenna (mos def Sprint and VZW, Cingular probably doesnt care, neither does Orange and Rogers).

And if you havent noticed, cell phones are not designed for you, they are designed for carriers to be sold to you. We have some pull, but not a lot. Carriers are the customers there.

mobileministrymagazine.blogspot.com
antoinerjwright.com

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
fishtastic @ 8/12/2005 4:21:44 PM # Q
twizza said
'Actually, its the carrier request for the external antenna'

Actually it's an American carrier request. This is because they believe Americans are dumb and if the aerial sticks out then it must get better reception. Now bigger can mean better, but the Treo's reception is not a patch on Nokia phones that are not only smaller but have internal aerials.

I rememeber when at least one manufacturer made a phone with a sticking out aerial for the US market, fake because on the Euro models the aerial was internal. It was just a bit of plastic.

twizza said
'And if you havent noticed, cell phones are not designed for you'

Really, I'm shocked, I must remember that for the future.

The crap sticking out aerial is one of the reason that the Treo range didn't do well in Europe. It looked like crap, old-fashioned and backwards.

If Palm want to sell worldwide then they should have a crap model for the US with a huge aerial and a world model that doesn't look like it stepped out of a time machine from 1996.

Fish

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
twrock @ 8/12/2005 9:09:48 PM # Q
And if you havent noticed, cell phones are not designed for you, they are designed for carriers to be sold to you. We have some pull, but not a lot. Carriers are the customers there.

From all this stuff I hear about the US carriers, I really think you people are getting seriously jerked around. Fortunately Americans have enough disposable income to be "taken to the cleaners" and still be happy about it.

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
ocspub @ 8/13/2005 12:57:47 AM # Q
> This is because they believe Americans are dumb and
> if the aerial sticks out then it must get better reception.

No, it's so we know what side has to point up.

Oliver


Visit www.tapland.com for Zodiac news and discussion.

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
fierywater @ 8/13/2005 9:12:15 AM # Q
Huh. My Audiovox XV-6600 on Verizon doesn't have an aerial.

I guess they thought I was a smart American.

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
triggahead @ 8/14/2005 4:48:15 PM # Q
What's up with that antenna? WHYYYYYYYYY?!?!? Antennas provide NO what-so-ever advantages - reception is not better and it makes devices uncomfortable in (pant) pockets. Ericsson insisted on antennas and it almost ruined them and forced them into a merger with Sony. And FINALLY they understood that ANTENNAS DON'T SELL and removed them. Since then SonyEricsson devices have been a success in the marketplace (that together with a total rebranding, repositioning and redesign of phones and UI...).

PalmSource has screwed up, and now Palm(One) is doing it too? A Treo RUNNING WINDOWS? PalmLinux will be an orgie in delays transforming the (Win)Treo670 to the only viable alternative in 12 months or so. In >2 years time finally PalmLinux arrives - with an equally warm response from "the market", i.e. Palm(One) basically, as Cobalt received. In other words, in 2 years time there won't be any PalmOS devices left on the market.

How could the original Palm screw this up so much?

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
svrontis @ 8/14/2005 10:39:56 PM # Q
Bad design or not, the marketing people over at Redmond must be filling their pants over this.

No doubt they will retaliate with yet another FUD campaign here at PIC.

They're desperate, so who knows what sort of lies we will be subjected to next.

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
AdamaDBrown @ 8/15/2005 3:43:54 AM # Q
(Rolling eyes)

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
jackpipe @ 8/15/2005 9:24:41 AM # Q
I agree - not only is the sticking out aerial a bad idea, but palm really need to get some design cues from the rest of the world - europe, actually.
Americans and corps may be happy with the clunky design, but it just doesn't cut it in polite company.

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
twizza @ 8/15/2005 12:10:44 PM # Q
I am no more happy with antenni than any one else here (my SE T616 is quite the proof). I just know (from asking the sources why, and getting answers). Are American dumber - your call, but I say yes and I am one :) Are carriers taking advantage of people that are afriad to do a lil bit of homework and actually make an informed purchase - I'd say yes there too.

COntrary to what I 'want to believe' this view of the 700 seems more realistic. Whether it is or not, I dont know (and when I will know I wont be able to say). Maybe chopping this rounded one in half will appease a few more folks; but who knows? We all care more about what is under the hood than what sticks out of it (I hope).

mobileministrymagazine.blogspot.com
antoinerjwright.com

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
Scott R @ 8/15/2005 12:20:50 PM # Q
I think the antenna might have something to do with the extra radiation that Sprint phones put out.

http://Tapland.com
- Tapwave Zodiac News, Reviews, & Discussion -
RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
fishtastic @ 8/15/2005 2:46:12 PM # Q
The reason why I I believe Palm has to lose the aerial is that by bringing out a WinMob phone it is going head to head with other WinMob hardware. It had to be better than the others if it expects to sell.

How does the Treo stand up against wizard/galaxy/universal?

Well with a big aerial, and I guess no wifi, it's going to look like the hick-redneck-ginger-haired-cousin.

Fish

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
jamesgood72 @ 8/15/2005 2:48:34 PM # Q
Does anyone have any scientific information on why antennas are not required? Any radio engineers?

I would prefer not to have one on my T650, but assumed Palm knew more about the complexities of antennas than me. So I didn't make sure rash comments as others above are making. :)

-James.

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
Patrick @ 8/15/2005 2:50:35 PM # Q
If it is really the carriers insisting upon it, then it is up to us to complain to them that their phones have these awkward and unnecessary external antennae. According to what I've read, the Moto Razr has excellent reception so that can't serve as the excuse.

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
twizza @ 8/15/2005 3:52:25 PM # Q
I bought my ladi the Moto Razr and its ok. Not the greatest, but ok. I do much better with my older, still no antenna weilding T616.

mobileministrymagazine.blogspot.com
antoinerjwright.com
RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
ChiA @ 8/15/2005 4:17:56 PM # Q
Palm knew more about the complexities of antennas than me

That may be true but the point is RIM, HP, Qtek and E-Ten seem to know more about the complexities of antennas than Palm, as they're making devices similar in function to the Treos but with internal antennas.

I have feeling that there was a time when external aerials provided better transmission and reception than internal aerials (maybe because of other electronics in the phone causing interference?) but now there's little or no difference because of improvements made in electronics.

"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog" - Dwight D. Eisenhower

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
PenguinPowered @ 8/15/2005 4:38:16 PM # Q
antennas are required. The question is whether an internal antenna is sufficient or an external antenna is required. It's not really so much about reception as it is about battery life. An internal antenna is somewhat less efficient as a transmit antenna than an external one. Normally, this doesn't matter much, since there are plenty of other sources of loss, but occassionally, it means that the phone will have to use more power to achieve an acceptable signal at the tower. This cuts battery life.

All else being equal, a well designed external antenna is more efficent as a transmit antenna than an internal antenna. It's rare that all else is equal, so it's difficult to do head-to-head comparisons.



RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
LiveFaith @ 8/15/2005 4:42:15 PM # Q
It's not really a matter of antenna vs no antenna. They all have antennas. The question is, "do the engineers build the antenna into the design or outside it"?

Tear you S/E or Nokia "antennaless" phone down and you'll see that the antenna is nomally housed in the upper portion of the casing above the display. Unlike most flip phones (usually a pull out antenna) with a small space above the screen, the "antennaless" candy bar phones usually have a little extra up there. That space is usually where the antenna resides with plenty of room so as not to hinder transmission/reception. Maybe they'll put a speaker, power button or Ir port up there, but usually plenty of air too.

IMO, the "antennaless" design of my S/E T637 is far superior to the protruding type like the Treos. I really was hoping Palm would catch a clue and design the next gen this way, but I guess not.

The real innovation was done by Hawkins and Co at Handspring. If Palm releases this "700", then it will cement the fact that they are hanging desperately to market share for today's $$$, at the expense of tommorrow's survival.

"Antennaless" ... is that a word?

Pat Horne; www.churchoflivingfaith.com

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
fishtastic @ 8/15/2005 8:14:33 PM # Q
The thing is that the RF performance of a Treo 600, for example, is inferior to that of a Nokia with an internal aerial. This is despite the SAR scores which are rather scary compared to Nokia.

Next time you have your Treo open have a look at the aerial and then tell me it needs to stick out like it's got wood....

Fish

Presenting the ultimate phone-centric smartphone design:
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/15/2005 10:55:32 PM # Q
IMO, the "antennaless" design of my S/E T637 is far superior to the protruding type like the Treos. I really was hoping Palm would catch a clue and design the next gen this way, but I guess not.

Amen.

And you can add the Sony Ericsson T608 to the list of phones with internal antennae and (much) better reception than the Treo.

I think your antennaless Treo design is the best I've seen so far for a smartphone:

http://churchoflivingfaith.com/images/treo800big.jpg




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
LiveFaith @ 8/16/2005 12:37:11 AM # Q
Ahhhh, the Treo 800g ... Palm would have absorbed M$, S/E & Nokia already had they released her. Man that has to be the killer device of the decade.

Pat Horne; www.churchoflivingfaith.com
RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
jackpipe @ 8/16/2005 7:23:22 AM # Q
I have a treo 600 i'm prepared to hack. I'm thinking of maybe removing the external antenna - I believe smallish flat (fractal?) antennas are available. Anyone tried this, or have any ideas why this may or may not work ?
The reception is already pretty terrible, I can't see it getting any worse by replacing the antenna with a real phone company's (eg nokia) one ...

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
LiveFaith @ 8/16/2005 10:22:23 AM # Q
Hack it and get one of those stckers that goes on the back for recpeption increase. :-D

Or go the safe route and just get the 480v!
http://www.churchoflivingfaith.com/images/treo480v.jpg

Pat Horne; www.churchoflivingfaith.com

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
jackpipe @ 8/16/2005 2:08:41 PM # Q
I was thinking of saving some cash, and just painting an antenna pattern onto the cover with a silver marker pen :)

RE: Sticking out aerials are bad design
zook @ 9/1/2005 12:47:33 PM # Q
aaa.... major check, the main argument is that palm is no maker of mobile phones. How many phones have they made so far? 2? hahhhahah.... to me thats a hell of experience...(sarcasm)

Reply to this comment

Horrible Photoshop job

Scott R @ 8/12/2005 2:42:11 PM # Q
I can't believe this one's getting so much play. This is a horrible Photoshop job. The rounded corners are the work of the airbrush tool in the hands of an unskilled user.

And let's hope that the next Treo device is a bit more interesting and different than simply rounding some corners.

http://Tapland.com
- Tapwave Zodiac News, Reviews, & Discussion -

RE: Horrible Photoshop job
twizza @ 8/12/2005 2:56:33 PM # Q
Hey, we all know its a PS job. The ironic part is that its a BELIEVABLE PS job. And who knows, if it runs something other than Garnet, it would be worth getting :)

mobileministrymagazine.blogspot.com
antoinerjwright.com
RE: Horrible Photoshop job
ocspub @ 8/12/2005 3:06:05 PM # Q
> I can't believe this one's getting so much play. This is a
> horrible Photoshop job. The rounded corners are the work of
> the airbrush tool in the hands of an unskilled user.

Horrible photoshop job or not, the question is whether this is a "mockup" from Palm or some hoax.

Oliver



Visit www.tapland.com for Zodiac news and discussion.

RE: Horrible Photoshop job
MonkeyMike @ 9/6/2005 6:04:10 PM # Q
Well, the statistics say there's a 99% chance it's a hoax... And they really need to lose the external antenna. I'm looking to replace my zire 72 and k700 with one device, but it won't be something with an external antenna...

--
http://arpx.net/docs/top_10_palmos_applications - my top 10 palm apps.
Reply to this comment

No news

interlard @ 8/12/2005 3:26:00 PM # Q
It's a bad picture that looks too much like a Treo 650 to be worth reporting as a possible design for a Treo 700. I wouldn't have thought this worthy of publication.

Perhaps there is no real news today? At least Palm didn't change its name again, or have another CEO quit.

RE: No news
LiveFaith @ 8/12/2005 5:02:46 PM # Q
... and if Palm announces it Jan. 10th, then you'll post the following I'm sure ...

"It seemed a bad picture that looked too much like a Treo 650 to be worth reporting as a possible design for a Treo 700. I wouldn't have thought this worthy of publication. Perhaps, I thot, there was no real news that day? At least Palm didn't change its name again, or have another CEO quit.

Nevertheless, PalmInfocenter showed us all why we love it so much. They were able to navigate through all the rumors, hoaxs and spy photos to bring us the Treo 700 over 4 months before this Palm press release was reported by CNet and others. Thanks Ryan for taking the risk back then and furthermore for having the expertise to "seperate the sheep from the goats" concerning Palm rumors.

By the way, I'm sending $100 to your PayPal account as a token of my appreciation".

:-)

Pat Horne; www.churchoflivingfaith.com

Reply to this comment

More than 32MB RAM?

Gekko @ 8/12/2005 5:30:40 PM # Q

I hope that they put more than 32MB RAM (~24MB Usable) in this puppy.

"32MB RAM ain't good enough for anybody."



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
vesther @ 8/13/2005 7:59:49 PM # Q
At least 64MB (56MB Useable) or 128MB (120MB Useable) Ram would be nice.

Now give the Treo a well-polished, smooth-touch Anodized Aluminum Metal Casing so that the insides of the Treo can cool down. Plastic traps heat and no one can afford to see the insides fry apart thanks to plastic. Treos need to use cooling metal cases to cool the insides of the handheld (especially the Battery) in a hurry.

Powered by Palm OS since March 2002

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
grg @ 8/13/2005 10:25:53 PM # Q
Well, there are 217 1280x1024 photos left so you could do the math ;-)


I've given up the idea of ever having the device of my dreams sinceI have been too eclectic. No mater how much money I am going to give, I would end up most likely with a crap device. There are no companies for niche markets. Anyway:

- No aerial.
- Tungsten/Aluminium/Titatinum/Whateverium instead of cheapish plastic.
- Better battery life - it's time to ditch those power hungry Intel cpus.
- Better than 32MB RAM. Start with 128MB minimum.
- Standard minijack headphones socket. On the top of the device, please.
- WiFi AND Bluetooth.
- Better camera, marginally.
- New OS. 5.x looks so old now. We need new APIs and more developers. Multitasking (it should help somewhere), Unicode, Java, ...

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
joad @ 8/14/2005 1:21:03 AM # Q
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... memory.... good idea. I wonder what it would be like to have a Treo with a reasonable amount of RAM - bet you could actually USE some of those fancy programs like Handmark Express, Documents to Go, IBM Websphere, etc that are too much struggle to fit and work on the 650 and before (unless that's ALL you use)....


If they blow it again on the next PalmOS Treo and put in only 64 or less of RAM, perhaps since the specs for Windoze mobile require 128+ there will come a Shadowmite to hack the PalmOS into the 670 hardware and THEN we will finally have a decently built Treo for 2006...? You can change firmware, but when you build lousy hardware you're pretty well hosed from the beginning. MAYBE Palm has finally learned something... we'll see on the next release...



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
AdamaDBrown @ 8/14/2005 4:09:53 AM # Q
WM doesn't require 128 MB RAM, it can make do with 32. In any event, if you assume that the average size of the photos is 200-250 KB, then multiply by 217, and take the next standard RAM figure above that (allowing for overhead), then this image depicts a device with 64 MB of memory.

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
PenguinPowered @ 8/14/2005 4:22:35 AM # Q
I've got a Linux distro running on an ARM device that uses 4MB of ROM for the file system and just under 3MB of ram for the footprint of a running system. Nice, fast, useful.



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
sr4 @ 8/14/2005 4:41:02 AM # Q
You're not implying that Garnet is bloated, are you?

Surur

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
fishtastic @ 8/14/2005 9:40:51 AM # Q
AdamaDBrown said
"WM doesn't require 128 MB RAM, it can make do with 32."

Hhmmm, the Moto MPX(300) proved that your can take a nicely designed phone and cripple it with 32 MB of ram. Every review of it said nice phone needs more memory, (and a faster cpu). In the end it got canned mainly because it was unuseable with that little memory.

64MB is the real minimum for WM, obviuosly WM5 has is interesting because you need to get the mix of flash and real memory right.

Fish

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
sr4 @ 8/14/2005 10:21:56 AM # Q
With WM5, 32MB real ram = 64Mb ram shared equally between Storage (32MB) and Program(32Mb) usage in Wm2003SE.

Of course with wm2003se 64MB is still a tight squeeze, but its perfectly usable for the vast majority of people.

Personally I believe WM5 is much much delayed, and the Mpx was meant to be launched with it. Even the Axim and HP devices were meant to be launched with WM 5. Its finally here now however, so I hope it has been worth the wait, and they used all that time to debug it properly.

Surur

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
Gekko @ 8/14/2005 11:35:13 AM # Q

>With WM5, 32MB real ram = 64Mb ram shared equally between Storage (32MB) and Program(32Mb) usage in Wm2003SE.

WTF does this mean?



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
twrock @ 8/14/2005 11:47:04 AM # Q
Kinda looks familiar.... Oh yeah, I remember now. It must be something similar to the LD memory scheme.

"Sure we have 64 mb of RAM. That's 32 mb of real RAM and 32 mb of make-believe RAM for a total of 64 mb of 'perceived RAM'. Just use your imagination."

Its finally here now however, so I hope it has been worth the wait, and they used all that time to debug it properly.

Speaking of make-believe, when was the last time you remember that happening?

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
Gekko @ 8/14/2005 12:05:30 PM # Q

What is MSFT's minimum RAM mandate for WinMob5 licensees? And how is it broken up?



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
PenguinPowered @ 8/14/2005 12:57:12 PM # Q
You don't want to know the minimum numbers. You want to know the recommended numbers, which in m$ case are usually 2-3 times the minimums.


RE: More than 32MB RAM?
Gekko @ 8/14/2005 1:05:23 PM # Q

>You want to know the recommended numbers, which in m$ case are usually 2-3 times the minimums.

nothing wrong with this. i like that MSFT madates high RAM - and they do it for good reason.

for all the talk from Nagel and the MORONS at PSRC talking about giving licensees flexibility to essentially do whatever the hell they want - that's why were friggin stuck with a 24 MB RAM TREO at the TOP END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

there is something to be said to OS companies mandating a certain RAM number. it's called USER EXPERIENCE.

Presenting the Miraculous MartyOS: here to save the day.
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/14/2005 1:38:31 PM # Q
RE: More than 32MB RAM?
PenguinPowered @ 8/14/2005 4:22:35 AM #

I've got a Linux distro running on an ARM device that uses 4MB of ROM for the file system and just under 3MB of ram for the footprint of a running system. Nice, fast, useful.


Sounds like something your employer - PalmSource - could use. Compared to that it would appear that PalmOS 5 (Garnet) and PalmOS 6 (Cobalt) are fat, sloppy, bloated messy OSes. Why don't you do everyone a favor and license this miraculous OS, "MartyOS" to PalmSource? They NEED MartyOS. ASAP.

PalmSource are currently desperately looking for people + companies that can help them figure out how to bring PalmLinux to life. Desperate companies can be taken advantage of by those with the (Linux) sk!11z + products the company needs*. I hope you're not taking advantage of PalmSource, Mr. Fouts.

[*Anyone remember how PalmSource Board member JL Gassée tried to screw Apple by inflating his asking price for BeOS when Apple desperately needed a new OS? Ironic, isn't it?]

TVoR


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
Gekko @ 8/14/2005 2:01:33 PM # Q

Why Palm will succeed, and Microsoft will fail – Palmsource CEO
By John Lettice
Published Tuesday 12th November 2002 13:14 GMT

Armed with an impressive pile of research data, Palmsource CEO Dave Nagel mounted something of a troop-rallying exercise in London yesterday, and quite convincing it was too. But then you'd expect no less from a sometime industry demigod. It is not the case that the Palm platform is dead, doomed, about to be eclipsed by Redmond, says Nagel, unleashing another battery of heavy-duty Gartner - au contraire, it's in fine fettle, and Microsoft is maiming itself by trying to apply the wrong industry model to the handheld device business.

The wrong industry model in question is of course the PC one. In Nagel's view the only surviving name in the PC business that makes a profit is Dell, and this has been caused by Microsoft's commoditisation of the market. Similarly, Microsoft is now applying fairly rigid platform standards to the PDA and phone business (and in the latter case is even specifically attempting to unleash a wave of no-name cloners). Manufacturers going the Microsoft way therefore have little scope for differentiation, are forced to compete on price, and will get killed. Not that many of them are doing so - while the already-anointed PC ringwraiths have moved into the PocketPC market, the handset companies have looked at the model, looked at the history books and beaten a swift retreat.

But we've done this one before, haven't we? In the (still pretty convincing) world according to Nagel, the PC model won't work, the Palmsource approach of having a looser set of standards for a looser coalition of licensees will, and furthermore, having those licensees innovate and then put the results back into the pile means the Palmsource platform can and will develop faster than the Microsoft one.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/12/why_palm_will_succeed/



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
sr4 @ 8/14/2005 2:23:49 PM # Q
With WM5, 32MB real ram = 64Mb ram shared equally between Storage (32MB) and Program(32Mb) usage in Wm2003SE.

Currently, on a 64Mb PPC, the ram is divided between storage and program execution ram. Usually its divided equally, with 32Mb going for storage, and 32Mb for execution. This can however be changed dynamically by the OS, depending on need.

Basically however it means most wm2003se devices run within 32Mb ram.

This means in theory a WM5 device with 32Mb real ram (all dedicated to execution which is the new setup in WM5) is equivalent to a 64MB WM2003SE unit.

Of course the more ram the better, but 32Mb should be quite usable, as most devices have been getting along with it for quite a long time.

Of course I prefer having much more ram than I need, which is why I have a 128Mb device.

Sorry, did not know you guys knew so little about WM devices.

Surur

Look how Nagel managed to twist everything to suit his needs
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/14/2005 3:30:06 PM # Q
Why Palm will succeed, and Microsoft will fail – Palmsource CEO
By John Lettice
Published Tuesday 12th November 2002 13:14 GMT

Armed with an impressive pile of research data, Palmsource CEO Dave Nagel mounted something of a troop-rallying exercise in London yesterday, and quite convincing it was too. But then you'd expect no less from a sometime industry demigod. It is not the case that the Palm platform is dead, doomed, about to be eclipsed by Redmond, says Nagel, unleashing another battery of heavy-duty Gartner - au contraire, it's in fine fettle, and Microsoft is maiming itself by trying to apply the wrong industry model to the handheld device business.

The wrong industry model in question is of course the PC one. In Nagel's view the only surviving name in the PC business that makes a profit is Dell, and this has been caused by Microsoft's commoditisation of the market. Similarly, Microsoft is now applying fairly rigid platform standards to the PDA and phone business (and in the latter case is even specifically attempting to unleash a wave of no-name cloners). Manufacturers going the Microsoft way therefore have little scope for differentiation, are forced to compete on price, and will get killed. Not that many of them are doing so - while the already-anointed PC ringwraiths have moved into the PocketPC market, the handset companies have looked at the model, looked at the history books and beaten a swift retreat.

But we've done this one before, haven't we? In the (still pretty convincing) world according to Nagel, the PC model won't work, the Palmsource approach of having a looser set of standards for a looser coalition of licensees will, and furthermore, having those licensees innovate and then put the results back into the pile means the Palmsource platform can and will develop faster than the Microsoft one.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/12/why_palm_will_succeed/

What Nagel seems to have for gotten is you can take the next step down his "logic" pathway and say Linux would be even MORE attractive than PalmOS since it's "free", even more "open" and ANYONE - not just licensees - are able to "innovate and then put the results back into the pile". Looks like Nagel got bitten in the a$$ with his own orument and was too busy trying to rationalize Cobalt to see that it was doomed to fail. It's amazing that a OS using a proprietary kernel like Cobalt was even conceived in the first place as potentially being able to stave off Microsoft's World Domination Tour. Then again, given the arrogance rampant among executives at Palm over the years, maybe it's not too surprising...

Sorry, did not know you guys knew so little about WM devices.

Classic, Surur. Classic.


TVoR


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/14/2005 3:54:06 PM # Q
"orument" = arguement


Nice find, Gekko. Funny how the Palm Apologists keep regurgitating the same tripe that Nagel has spewed out over the years in an effort to bash Microsoft and pump/rationalize Palm's decisions. It would appear that The Intrepid Marty Fouts/PenguinPowered/Linux Consultant Extraordinaire has been studying the Nagel Manifesto in detail. Too bad Nagel didn't bother to tell everyone it was all a load of PR B.S. having little to do with reality.

You often trot out Gates' quote about companies quickly going into a downward spiral. It seems Palm/PalmSource are intent on making Gates look smart by proving him correct.

It's a shame that Palm somehow managed to squander a HUGE amount of money, a stranglehold on the marketplace, a great product and a several year head start on the competition and just handed over the market to Microsoft. It's almost as if Microsoft has had someone in charge at Palm working for them all along, sabotaging Palm every step of the way...


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
AdamaDBrown @ 8/14/2005 8:03:53 PM # Q
64MB is the real minimum for WM, obviuosly WM5 has is interesting because you need to get the mix of flash and real memory right.

Not quite. You can actually run WM2003 SE on as little as 21 MB of RAM (excluding, for the moment, the question of storage memory and talking exclusively about execution RAM). For ideal operation, 32 MB is preferred. Most mid-range and high-end WM5 devices will likely have 64 MB.

To put the whole thing in Palm OS terms, a PocketPC that comes with 64 MB of RAM is divided into 32 MB of storage memory and 32 MB of heap. This can be adjusted to give one side or the other more room.

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
PenguinPowered @ 8/14/2005 9:09:50 PM # Q
my, my, aren't we having fun. Pulling out nearly three year old interviews with the former PalmSource CEO. I guess that's what the trolls here do do when they realize no one is falling for their ranting.

By the way TVoR, the linux distro I described is available completely free and completely in open source. Anyone who cares can pick the source off of a couple of web sites, compile it, and have their very own royalty-free ARM Linux running on any of a number of platforms in a few hours. (How long it takes depends on how old the box you compile on is.)

Gotta wonder what Bill and Steve are thinking about maemo. Probably nothing, as m$ has never taken the embedded market seriously.

Gotta wonder what the first GSM successor to the 770 is going to be like.

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
PenguinPowered @ 8/14/2005 9:22:04 PM # Q
> Sounds like something ... PalmSource could use. ... Why don't
> you do everyone a favor and license this miraculous
> OS, "MartyOS" to PalmSource?

Poor TVoR; confused again. You misspelled "Linux", and Linus has already licensed it to PalmSource -- and anyone that cares to obey the GPL.

And if you think the footprint I described is 'miraculous', than it appears you haven't any real experience with OSes for embedded systems. Until recently, a 6mb footprint for an embedded OS would have been considered outrageously large.

has M$ done any good for the industry? Sure. they've bloated their way to being the backbone that drives the need for more memory and faster cpus to do the same old thing. Sad, really, unless you're Intel.

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
sr4 @ 8/15/2005 3:20:16 AM # Q
PenguinPowered said
Gotta wonder what Bill and Steve are thinking about maemo. Probably nothing, as m$ has never taken the embedded market seriously.

I guess thats why MS was the leading embedded OS vendor in 2004.

http://www.internetnews.com/wireless/article.php/3435501

Surur

ARMLinux... Wherefore art thou?
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/15/2005 10:22:31 AM # Q
I guess thats why MS was the leading embedded OS vendor in 2004.

http://www.internetnews.com/wireless/article.php/3435501

Surur

You'd think Marty would get tired of making himself look like a fool. But you'd be wrong.

Marty, do yourself a favor and THINK before you post next time. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for your pathetic Linux-pumping a$$.

By the way, unless things have changed recently, ARMLinux is a VERY amateurish work in progress that's been kept (barely) alive by a pretty limited group of hobbyist programmers. Surprising, given the amount of ARM hardware out there. Maybe - as with Linux on the desktop - most people simply have no need for Linux on PDAs. Until someone makes Linux painless to use (as PalmLinux could have been in theory) it will remain For Geeks Only. Sorry, Bubba. Try again.

TVoR




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
PenguinPowered @ 8/15/2005 3:13:06 PM # Q
Poor TVoR. Confused again.

Your knowledge of ARM Linux is on a par with your knowledge of PalmSource. You really have to stop getting your industry news from the National Enquirer.

I guess that's why so much of your trolling consists of insults and none of it ever consists of actual responses to comments people raise.

kinda reminds me of my grandkids, when they're tired, trying to get attention from the adults.

By the way, surur, looking over that internetnews article was fun. It appears that they and the Gartner group have made the same mistake in defining 'embedded' very narrowly. If you define it narrowly enough, sure enough, m$ took the 'lead' in q4 04. hint: pdas and cell phones are a tiny fraction of the embedded space.

But please don't confuse 'better' with 'more popular'. VHS is more popular than BetaMax, after all.


RE: More than 32MB RAM?
sr4 @ 8/15/2005 3:33:50 PM # Q
My PenguinPowered, you spout a lot of nonsense. Your rationalizations dont know any bounds.

http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS8800432563.html

Devices, by embedded OS

Device Category.....Windows Embedded....Embedded Linux
PDAs, handhelds.........103 devices......... 40 devices
Mobile phones.......... 36 devices ..........22 devices
VoIP phones/devices......3 devices.......... 14 devices
Robots............ (included in other)..... 11 devices
Audio/video devices..... 20 devices........ 60 devices
Thin client devices .....37 devices......... 26 devices
Tablets/webpads......... 36 devices .........13 devices
Gateways, servers, APs..(included in other)..73 devices
Other.................. 45 devices.......... 54 devices
TOTAL:................ 290 devices .........313 devices

http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2631993452.html

And this (MS funded) study should be of interest to palmsource.

Microsoft-funded report claims embedding Linux costs more than embedding Windows

Updated Sep. 11, 2003] -- A report released in July, 2003 by market research firm Embedded Market Forecasters (EMF) claims embedded development projects based on Microsoft's "Windows Embedded" operating system platforms (specifically, Windows CE .NET and Windows XP Embedded) are completed 43% faster and at 68% lower cost, on average, compared with similar projects using Embedded Linux.

The report includes data from a survey of 100 manufacturers using 32-bit processors in a range of embedded projects and applications -- 50 using various implementations of embedded Linux, and 50 using Microsoft's Windows Embedded platforms (Windows CE .NET and Windows XP Embedded). The devices and applications included in the source data reportedly covered consumer electronics, handheld computers, industrial controllers, network gateways, point-of-sale kiosks, set-top boxes, thin clients, and others. The report estimates "total cost of development" for each project by multiplying the average embedded design project time-to-market by the software engineering team size and cost.

http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS8800432563.html

For PalmSource's sake they better hope this study is very biased.

Surur

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
PenguinPowered @ 8/15/2005 4:24:41 PM # Q
Surur, your numbers have nothing to do with with anything other than describing that if you count 'devices' from a very well specified subset of embedded devices, there are more embedded Linux devices than embeded windows devices. Coupled with your earlier pointer to the article that quoted from the Gartner group, it's a good demonstration of how you can make the numbers come out how you want them based on what definitions you use.

I am amused by the definition of "total cost of development" in the cost study. Especially how it excludes much of the cost of developing an embedded device by simply ignoring all of the hardware development costs.

It's a good example of FUD too, since it doesn't compare time to market, BOM, or other factors that embedded device success tend to be far more sensitive to than cost of software development.

Ain't it great what you can appear to make the numbers say if you're selective in specifying what goes into them?

You're a bright lad, it seems. If you care about more than trolling and pretending to be a true believer, you need to start getting your information from more independent, better qualified sources.



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
sr4 @ 8/15/2005 4:40:33 PM # Q
I'm aware that MS funded numbers will not convince anyone, but that table from LinuxDevices.com demonstrates that Windows Embedded is used in more than "pdas and cell phones" which are "a tiny fraction of the embedded space."

Many of the things you appear to believe are just plain wrong. I hope to educate you past your seeming prejudices. Maybe you should keep a closer eye on the competition.

http://www.windowsembeddeddevices.com/

Surur

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
twrock @ 8/15/2005 7:58:21 PM # Q
The report estimates "total cost of development" for each project by multiplying the average embedded design project time-to-market by the software engineering team size and cost.

I have read a few articles lately (none of which I am going to go back and reference; you can find them too if you care) in which company "A" using embedded Linux says exactly that; the total cost of development was slightly higher for them. But each one goes on to point out that the extra cost was made up multiple times over after the initial development. What is more important? Initial development cost or long-term profitability?

Come on. You ask everyone else to be a "realist", but you find information put out by MS that is clearly designed to find the "perfect" combination of factors in which MS is superior to Linux in the embedded market. No, I do not believe the spin that Redmond puts out.

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
Gekko @ 8/15/2005 8:23:24 PM # Q

dear apologists - the market has spoken. everything else is just conversation.



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
sr4 @ 8/15/2005 8:33:31 PM # Q
POS certainly does not seem to care about time to market. Maybe they will recoup their massive development costs in their huge sales in 2008.....

Surur

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
twrock @ 8/15/2005 8:36:05 PM # Q
I'm aware that MS funded numbers will not convince anyone....

I'm curious. Did they convince you?

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
sr4 @ 8/15/2005 8:48:56 PM # Q

I would look for much more proof than that. I'm as cynical as you. I do believe however that MS at the moment can give you an out of the box solution much more easily (look at the Treo 670), but as time goes on and OS "kits" (with drivers for for standardized components and a few standard UI's) increasingly become available for Linux this advantage will diminish greatly. However I believe MS has the back-end workflow intra-operability advantage too, as they are often dealing with their own backend software.

Surur

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
AdamaDBrown @ 8/15/2005 10:37:48 PM # Q
Out of curiousity, other than from a hardware developer's perspective, what does it matter that a router or a set-top box runs Windows or Linux? The user isn't going to care. I have a DVD player that runs Linux, and it's not like it's interfacing with my PCs. It's just a box. It's not really going to be any more open or intuitive regardless of what kernel it has. The thing could run Goose OS for all I care, as long as it performs the tasks for which it was purchased.

The only embedded space where I see the OS making a real difference is devices where software compatibility and user experience become a factor: handhelds, phones, tablets, etcetera. What hurts Linux in these areas is that every manufacturer has their own spin on it. You can't just count embedded Linux devices, you have to break it down: how many with a QTopia shell, how many with a proprietary shell, etcetera. That's what keeps Linux down as a real competitor in the mobile space. Without a common UI and framework, you can't build the kind of application base you see in Palm and PocketPC.

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
Rome @ 8/16/2005 12:09:48 AM # Q
"Microsoft-funded report claims embedding Linux costs more than embedding Windows

Updated Sep. 11, 2003] -- A report released in July, 2003 by market research firm Embedded Market Forecasters (EMF) claims embedded development projects based on Microsoft's "Windows Embedded" operating system platforms (specifically, Windows CE .NET and Windows XP Embedded) are completed 43% faster and at 68% lower cost, on average, compared with similar projects using Embedded Linux.

The report includes data from a survey of 100 manufacturers using 32-bit processors in a range of embedded projects and applications -- 50 using various implementations of embedded Linux, and 50 using Microsoft's Windows Embedded platforms (Windows CE .NET and Windows XP Embedded). The devices and applications included in the source data reportedly covered consumer electronics, handheld computers, industrial controllers, network gateways, point-of-sale kiosks, set-top boxes, thin clients, and others. The report estimates "total cost of development" for each project by multiplying the average embedded design project time-to-market by the software engineering team size and cost."

A two-year old report funded by Microsoft....wow, that's some research, sr4!!!



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
Rome @ 8/16/2005 12:09:48 AM # Q
"Microsoft-funded report claims embedding Linux costs more than embedding Windows

Updated Sep. 11, 2003] -- A report released in July, 2003 by market research firm Embedded Market Forecasters (EMF) claims embedded development projects based on Microsoft's "Windows Embedded" operating system platforms (specifically, Windows CE .NET and Windows XP Embedded) are completed 43% faster and at 68% lower cost, on average, compared with similar projects using Embedded Linux.

The report includes data from a survey of 100 manufacturers using 32-bit processors in a range of embedded projects and applications -- 50 using various implementations of embedded Linux, and 50 using Microsoft's Windows Embedded platforms (Windows CE .NET and Windows XP Embedded). The devices and applications included in the source data reportedly covered consumer electronics, handheld computers, industrial controllers, network gateways, point-of-sale kiosks, set-top boxes, thin clients, and others. The report estimates "total cost of development" for each project by multiplying the average embedded design project time-to-market by the software engineering team size and cost."

A two-year old report funded by Microsoft....wow, that's some research, sr4!!!



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
PenguinPowered @ 8/16/2005 12:11:49 AM # Q
OK, let me slow it down for you. All of the devices in your example list belong in a very tiny part of the embedded system space. As a percentage of total embedded device by count they add up to 'miniscule'.

Until very recently, when marketing folks redefined 'embedded' to make m$ look good, almost none of those things would even have been considered embedded systems. Most of them are more "minaturized restricted-function general purpose computer systems" then they are whan an embedded systems developer would consider to be an embedded system. There was a brief period when the term "computer appliance" was used to describe them.

Don't confuse 'small' with 'embedded'. There are huge embedded systems and tiny non-embedded ones. Before people started confusing PDAs with embedded systems, 'embedded' meant that the processor substituted for purpose-built random logic, its presence wasn't noticable to the user, and the resulting device didn't behave like a general purpose computer with a limited set of applications. To most of the embedded community, that's still the definition. (Most people are surprised when they find out that they already own tens of embedded devices and never even knew it.)

And don't confuse 'experience' with 'prejudice'. Everything I've written here comes from 30 years of successful experience developing systems, not from random wiki pages and m$ funded 'study' web sites.

M$ has never done well in the embedded space because the devices didn't have the power necessary to support stripped down general purpose OSes, which is what every M$ attempt at an "embedded" OS has been. Moore's law is the OS designer's friend, and we're very close to the time when "embedded" systems can run general purpose OSes and cope with the generality and genericity that makes them slower and require more hardware than purpose-designed systems.

PalmOS's irony is that like MacOS, it suffers from having been designed for hardware about two generations before what was suitable for what the OS was meant for. MacOS suffered horrible limitations because of its need to fit the hardware/software budget of the original beige box, but succeded because it fit those limitations spectacularly well. The same thing with PalmOS and the original moto based PDAs.

Like MacOS, the hardware grew up faster than the software, and like MacOS, PalmOS is aged and showing wear. Apple managed to pull of OS/X. Although, ironically, it then decided to abandon the computer business.

Will PalmSource be able to pull of son-of-PalmOS using Linux the way that Apple used Mach? My crystal ball's fuzzy. Stay tuned for more developments.

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
AdamaDBrown @ 8/16/2005 1:32:32 AM # Q
Apple managed to pull of OS/X. Although, ironically, it then decided to abandon the computer business.

Um. Did I miss a news article, or something? Apple has abandoned the computer business? Or are you suggesting that because they're switching to Intel processors, their only interest now will be selling software?

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
PenguinPowered @ 8/16/2005 2:41:53 AM # Q
I doubt they're going to announce it, but Apple's a CE company, not a computer company, thanks to IPOD.

Eventually the truebelievers will realize what that means.

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
nuopus @ 8/17/2005 12:30:51 PM # Q
A Palm unit with 32mb of RAM can use nearly 32mb of ram to store software.

A PocketPC unit with 32mb of RAM will use 16mb of ram for storage and the other 16mb for runtime. And actually, with only 16mb of RAM you will quickly get programs complaining that there is not enough RAM available to run if you use it for a while and run program after program.

If you had 16mb or RAM ... well, a PocketPC is just screwed and people with Palm would still run fine.

A PocketPC runs just like a normal computer .. you have to have RAM to RUN your programs, and a place to store your software. You can pick and choose (by using a slider) how much RAM is for runtime and how much is for storage though.

(I also have Ipaq h5455)

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
sr4 @ 8/17/2005 12:52:19 PM # Q
WM 5 changes this, as explained above.

http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8026#110764

Surur

One of the few honest statements made here by Mr. Fouts:
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/20/2005 12:22:49 PM # Q
I doubt they're going to announce it, but Apple's a CE company, not a computer company, thanks to IPOD.

Eventually the truebelievers will realize what that means.

Funny how Marty can be brutally honest about Apple, yet somehow can't bring himself to speak the truth about PalmSource. I guess that PalmSource paycheck might have something to do with his mendacity...


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
PenguinPowered @ 8/20/2005 1:58:30 PM # Q
Poor TVoR, confused again. I don't know which is funnier though, your anonymous preoccupation with guessing other people's identities, or the selectiveness of your memory.

If you spent as much time getting your facts straight as you spend posting insults, you wouldn't have to be corrected nearly so often.

I do enjoy the amount of window you generate each time you've corrected, though Skippy. But a word of advice: most people will read that sort of whining as adolescent pouting in response to having been corrected. As someone who seems to think this is some kind of debate, do you really want to leave that impression with the readers?



RE: More than 32MB RAM?
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/20/2005 4:19:46 PM # Q
Marty, you're sounding more and more flustered with every post you make. Should we insert a nervous laugh from you every few lines?

I was actually complimenting you on an insightful post about Apple, but if you choose to take this as an insult, be my guest.


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: More than 32MB RAM?
AdamaDBrown @ 8/20/2005 8:40:53 PM # Q
I wouldn't call Apple a CE company. Their business, first and foremost, is selling style. The iPod isn't very competitive from a strict CE standpoint, but it sells well, because it's stylish. Likewise, their computers are unbelievably expensive, but they sell because they're well designed. None of Apples products, whether it's the iPod or the Airport Express, are particularly innovative, they're just well done.

Reply to this comment

cool compass...

batmon @ 8/12/2005 6:44:05 PM # Q
I wish that zoom thingy is a compass so I won't get lost in Yosemite...

RE: cool compass...
JohnKes @ 8/15/2005 11:33:21 AM # Q
A compass won't help if you hike yourself off the map that you are carrying. My girlfriend (at the time, now wife) did that, and we wandered for a long time around looking for trails and footprints for clues to get to Yosemite Falls. GPS is the way to go.

Reply to this comment

Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...

The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/18/2005 5:33:25 AM # Q
Palm "jumped the shark" when the m505 was prematurely announced. The Vx was the high point of Palm's run of successes and it's been all downhill since the m505 was hyped and failed to live up to "thousands" of [colors ;-O] expectations.

The PalmOS platform "jumped the shark" when Sony released the CLIE UX50. It's easily the most innovative PDA ever released, and it's been (mostly) all downhill for the platform ever since the UX50 came out.

TVoR


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

PalmSource is predicting a ROUGH RIDE ahead....
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/19/2005 1:27:29 AM # Q
"Outlook for fiscal year 2006: We anticipate revenue will be negatively impacted on a year-over-year basis by factors such as Sony’s exit from the PDA market, the pre-pay of one licensee’s royalty minimum, and the expiration of certain prepaid royalties that were being amortized on a quarterly basis."



------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/19/2005 2:31:48 AM # Q
that's old news, there skippy. No wonder your picture of PalmSource is so confused, if your knowledge is that far out of date.


RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
joad @ 8/19/2005 2:10:54 PM # Q
I'd have to disagree with "skippy". The M515 (released to fixed the problems of the M505) was the pinnacle of the Palm PDA thusfar. The Vx itself was a modification to the Palm V which Palm (typically) released with too little memory - and after eveyone was clamoring for third party warranty busting mods Palm "innovated" an 8MB chip into the Palm V. The M515 had a similar form factor and metal casing, but with the addition of a readable color screen, an SDIO slot for backups and the like, 8 times the memory of the Palm V, OS4, vibrating alarms, and USB syncing via the "universal" connector.

But after that, I'd agree that little real improvement has been made to the Palm PDA.

Basically the Pros are: OS5, cheap cameras, (so-so) attempts to build Outlook syncing into the installer, and high-res screens (probably the biggest improvement).

The Cons: removal of vibrating alarms, cheap plastic and/or scratch-and-sniff casing, sliding hardware built so poorly it begins losing screws within a month, Graffiti 2 (aaargh!!), switch to NVFS while maintaining similar amounts of RAM 5 years later...

It appears the same crew that bungled up the beauty that was the M515 have had free reign to ruin the Treo that Palm inherited from the Handspring purchase. At least I give them credit for putting the SDIO slot in the correct direction on the Treo 650...

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/19/2005 11:06:50 PM # Q
that's old news...


PalmOS is an old OS.

I wish you PalmSource employees would devote as much energy toward fixing the OS as you do trying to Astroturf on the various Palm sites.

By the way, has Dianne Hackborn given PalmSource notice that she's leaving the company yet?

Watch the rats flee the sinking ship. First one. Then another. Then another. And another...


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

PalmSource only has enough money to last 12 more months
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/19/2005 11:18:56 PM # Q
Assuming continued current rate of cash burn + no new revenue streams, PalmSource will run out of money sometime next Fall. Since PalmLinux will not be ready at that point and most of the licensees PalmSource had at the beginning of 2005 will be gone by Fall 2006, how the he11 does PalmSource expect to survive as an independent company? Maybe they could sell Palm the rights to the name "PalmSource" for $30 million? How about anothe stock offering? In reality, they knew PalmSource was doomed to fail from the beginning. It was all part of the plan.

Looks like the bogus Palm "split" is about to come to an end one year earlier than I had originally expected. I'll try not to say "I told you so" too many times. Colligan and Co. played it perfectly. Brilliant.

I wonder if any Palm execs have previously worked for Enron...


TVoR


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/19/2005 11:30:56 PM # Q
> PalmOS is an old OS.

There hasn't been a new OS since Research Edition 8.

> I wish you PalmSource employees would devote as much energy
> toward fixing the OS as you do trying to Astroturf on the
> various Palm sites.

Poor confused TVoR. Sorry, Skippy, but I don't astroturf (aren't you using a trademark adejective as a verb, there skippy?) and I'm not involved in fixing PalmOS. You're not very good at guessing who people are and what they do, there Skippy.

> By the way, has Dianne Hackborn given PalmSource notice that
> she's leaving the company yet?

Poor TVoR. Fixating on Hackborn again. I take it 'Dianne Hackborn' and 'Michael Mace' are the only two PalmSource related names you're familiar with? You'd think someone who'd been to the developers conference would be able to identify some names of folk more closely associated with PalmLinux.

By the way, it is cute the way you've jumped into so many threads to post your stale news about PalmSource financials. Another correction for you. PalmSource didn't make that announcement this week. They made it a couple of months ago.

Poor Skippy. Not even up to date on the press releases.


RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
hkklife @ 8/19/2005 11:39:19 PM # Q
In my opinion there have been 4 watershed design moments from Palm Inc/PalmOne/Handspring:

1. Pilot 1000 (the original)

2. Palm V (never mind the lack of RAM etc)

3. m500 line

4. Treo 600

While 2 & 3 could arguably be lumped together, the m5xx really needs to receive credit, as joad said, for perfecting the phenomenal Palm V formfactor. It's still the first thing that springs to my (and many others') mind when someone says "PDA"
Now the BUNGLED marketing/launch of the m500s...that's another story entirely. I am chiefly speaking here of the marriage of function & formfactor and the above hardware's status as icons in the marketplace.

(Yes, the Vx was what the V should have originally been, just as the m515 was what the m505 should've been and there should've been a subsequent m525 model with OS5, no BT, and a good 160*160 color LCD launched alongside the T|T in '02 etc etc).

The four designs above are simply milestones in the brief history of pocket computing. Palm will be hard-pressed to follow any of them up as they are simply content to keep cobbling out cookie-cutter knockoffs of Treos and T|E series variants.

Correcting some bad arithmetic
PenguinPowered @ 8/19/2005 11:40:55 PM # Q
> Assuming continued current rate of cash burn + no new revenue > streams, PalmSource will run out of money sometime next Fall.

Poor skippy, can't even do his arithmetic right. I guess it's that old information. First off skippy, "next fall" is six weeks away, not a year. I think you meant to type "Fall '06." But even then, you haven't been paying attention. Given the current burn rate, PalmSource has enough cash to get through 2Q '07.

> Since PalmLinux will not be ready at that point and most of
> the licensees PalmSource had at the beginning of 2005 will be
> gone by Fall 2006, how the he11 does PalmSource expect to
> survive as an independent company?

From a false premise, any conclusion may be arrived at, there Skippy.

> Maybe they could sell Palm the rights to the
> name "PalmSource" for $30 million? How about anothe stock
> offering? In reality, they knew PalmSource was doomed to fail
> from the beginning. It was all part of the plan.

Um, no Skippy, it wasn't part of the plan. Of all your fantasies, this one about "the plan" is the one that brings me the most chuckles.

> Looks like the bogus Palm "split" is about to come to an end
> one year earlier than I had originally expected. I'll try not
> to say "I told you so" too many times. Colligan and Co.
> played it perfectly. Brilliant.

Well, yeah, except that reality intrudes. You need to catch up on your news releases there Skippy. New licensees have been announced, along with new revenue sources. Also, your math on the burn rate is wrong by 3 quarters. (Hint: you don't seem to be taking CMS into account.)



RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
AdamaDBrown @ 8/20/2005 12:04:56 AM # Q
(aren't you using a trademark adejective as a verb, there skippy?)

"Astroturfing" is a phrase coined to describe the use of paid employees to create fake grassroots support for a thing or a company. It's a practice particularly prevalent in the oil, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries, but it's also been used extensively in politics (USA Next), and technology (Microsoft US antitrust trial). I'm shocked you've never heard of the term.

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
AdamaDBrown @ 8/20/2005 12:16:37 AM # Q
New licensees have been announced, along with new revenue sources. Also, your math on the burn rate is wrong by 3 quarters. (Hint: you don't seem to be taking CMS into account.)

Licensees? Plural? I only see LG, and until they produce actual hardware, the revenue from them has got to be minimal. I can't imagine that CMS is so vastly profitable that they'll have spare tens of millions to throw at PSRC either.

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/20/2005 1:56:56 AM # Q
> "Astroturfing" is a phrase coined to describe the use of paid
> employees to create fake grassroots support for a thing or a
> company.

I thought that's how skippy was using it. I am definitely not one of those. As mentioned before, I've never worked for an employer insane enough to think I'd post anything but my own opinion, nor dumb enough to pay me to post.

> I'm shocked you've never heard of the term.

Me too. Ah well, it's a big culture and you learn something new every day.

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/20/2005 1:59:04 AM # Q
> Licensees? Plural? I only see LG, and until they produce
> actual hardware, the revenue from them has got to be minimal.

My bad. Licensee. But one of the things Skippy seems to have missed is that Palm renewed its license and there is revenue slated before the end of next year.

> I can't imagine that CMS is so vastly profitable that they'll
> have spare tens of millions to throw at PSRC either.

When thinking in terms of burn rate, move the decimal one the other way. It doesn't take tens of millions to get through a month.



Astroturfing definition [for Marty Fouts]
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/20/2005 11:42:56 AM # Q
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing



We love it when you try to play innocent, Marty. Only problem is that when I looked up the definition of "Astroturfing" for you, it already had your picture there! You rascal!

Cut the B.S., Bubba. Even Mr. T would pity you.

TVoR


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/20/2005 12:27:16 PM # Q
> PalmOS is an old OS.

There hasn't been a new OS since Research Edition 8.

Too bad all consumers can get is decrepit, wheezy, unstable, hacked-up, kludgy, bug-infested PalmOS 5. Let's see: PalmOS 6 (Cobalt) STILL isn't available in a shipping device almost TWO YEARS after it was supposedly released. PalmOS 7 (PalmLinux) is still on the drawing board, in the early stages of development. I guess it makes sense that PalmSource divert as much of its infinite codemonkey resources towards development of PalmOS 8 (the one that finally introduces the long-awaited Alien Technology™ PalmSource obtained when they bought Be from (current PalmSource Board Director! Hmmmmm...) JL Gassée).

> I wish you PalmSource employees would devote as much energy
> toward fixing the OS as you do trying to Astroturf on the
> various Palm sites.

Poor confused TVoR. Sorry, Skippy, but I don't astroturf (aren't you using a trademark adejective as a verb, there skippy?) and I'm not involved in fixing PalmOS. You're not very good at guessing who people are and what they do, there Skippy.

No, you're confused. Skippy is the poor PalmSource intern in charge with the minor responsibility of maintaining PalmOS versions 4, 5 and 6 while all the other codemonkeys work on PalmOS 7 (PalmLinux) and PalmOS 8 (derived from Be's Top Secret E.T.OS). Try to keep up, Marty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

> By the way, has Dianne Hackborn given PalmSource notice that
> she's leaving the company yet?

Poor TVoR. Fixating on Hackborn again. I take it 'Dianne Hackborn' and 'Michael Mace' are the only two PalmSource related names you're familiar with? You'd think someone who'd been to the developers conference would be able to identify some names of folk more closely associated with PalmLinux.

Funny how you don't seem to have answered the question, Marty. A little bird told me Dianne is waving BuhBye! to PalmSource. Why would that be, Marty? Why? Why? Why?

By the way, it is cute the way you've jumped into so many threads to post your stale news about PalmSource financials. Another correction for you. PalmSource didn't make that announcement this week. They made it a couple of months ago.

Poor Skippy. Not even up to date on the press releases.

Actually, I don't deal with press releases, Marty. But PalmSource FINALLY filed their latest 10-K August 17. Is that fresh enough for you?

http://tinyurl.com/bna3r

Some higlights (lowlights?)

- The following list details some of our licensees who were actively shipping or developing Palm Powered products as of July 20, 2005:
AlphaSmart, Fossil, Garmin, GSPDA, Kyocera, palmOne, Samsung, Symbol palmOne is the only customer that accounted for 10% or more of total revenue for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005. [Oh dear. AlphaSmart? Fossil? Garmin? Kyocera? Samsung? Who does PalmSource think they're fooling?]

- As of July 20, 2005, we had a total of 518 employees, of which, 383 were in engineering and product development, 66 were in finance, administration and operations, 43 were in sales and marketing and 26 were in support and service. [I wonder if more than 10% of those "Magnificent 383" are competent.]

- In fiscal 2005, recognizing the maturing of our core PDA business, we began transitioning our business model to address potential new growth opportunities in the broader phone market. As part of this transition, we announced a restructuring on June 29, 2005 that had two objectives. The first was to focus and streamline our product development activities and accelerate the integration of our China-based engineering resources into our global product development efforts. The second objective was to align our cost structure with the anticipated revenue decline in fiscal 2006. This included a 16 percent reduction in our U.S. headcount, over half of which were middle to senior managers, mainly in our product development groups. In addition to the cost savings related to the headcount reductions, we took steps to reduce discretionary spending in areas such as travel and the use of contractors and consultants, which when combined with a decline in stock compensation expense, is expected to substantially reduce overall expenses in fiscal 2006 when compared to fiscal 2005. A $2.7 million charge for employee termination benefits was taken in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 related to our cost cutting initiatives. [Translation: PDA sales have nosedived. Time to trim the fat, make a smartphone OS and wait until we get bought out in 2006. And we promise to stop expensing those triple martini lunches!]

Historical stock prices (high) (low)

Fiscal year 2005

First quarter
$ 25.18 $ 15.27
Second quarter
$ 27.20 $ 15.12
Third quarter
$ 17.00 $ 9.61
Fourth quarter
$ 10.40 $ 8.25

Fiscal year 2004

October 28, 2003 to November 30, 2003
$ 48.00 $ 24.56
Third quarter
$ 26.29 $ 17.35
Fourth quarter
$ 24.99 $ 16.20

[Call me crazy, but I think I see a definite trend in PalmSource's stock price. Can you say "Asymptote"? http://www.answers.com/topic/asymptote]

- As of July 25, 2005, we had approximately 2,400 registered stockholders of record. PalmSource has not paid and does not anticipate paying cash dividends in the near future. [Translation: Thanks for your money! Suckers!!!]

- In April 2004, we completed a firm commitment underwritten public offering of 3,450,000 shares of our Common Stock... the net proceeds from the offering were approximately $57.4 million. In June 2004, we applied $13.1 million of the net proceeds of the offering held in money market funds to prepay the 5% convertible subordinated note due to Texas Instruments. [Very slick - investors get fleeced to pay PalmSource's debt!]

- In fiscal 2005, the majority of our business came from the traditional PDA market. We have seen this part of our business decline over the past few years, as the growth in wireless data networks and wireless applications and services have simultaneously contributed to the maturation of this market and increased demand for converged mobile devices such as smartphones. As a result, in fiscal 2005, we saw a significant shift in our product mix towards smartphones, where our licensees reported unit volumes increased by 94% compared to fiscal 2004 and represented 27% of the total Palm OS unit volume.

- Outlook for fiscal year 2006: We anticipate revenue will be negatively impacted on a year-over-year basis by factors such as Sony’s exit from the PDA market, the pre-pay of one licensee’s royalty minimum, and the expiration of certain prepaid royalties that were being amortized on a quarterly basis.

- We expect that palmOne will continue to account for a substantial portion of our revenues for the foreseeable future. On May 23, 2005, we and palmOne entered into the Second Amended and Restated Software License Agreement (the “SARSLA” [affectionately known as "SARS"]). The principle changes made to the Software License Agreement were the following:

• the term was extended for an additional three years and will expire December 2, 2009. [But those yearly payments were DECREASED. Massively.]

• the minimum annual royalty and license commitments was extended in each of the additional three years provided that certain development milestones between the parties are met by PalmSource.

• The amounts, if any, spent by palmOne on professional services will be credited towards the annual royalty and license minimum commitments on the basis of $1 credit for every $2 spent on professional services.

• palmOne’s access to the Palm OS source code was extended for the three additional years for a fee of $400,000 per year. This provision gives palmOne more extensive access to the code [Golly gee whiz!], expanded rights to request bug fixes in the software platform with time frames for accepting or rejecting these bug fixes [they aren't "bugs" - they're "features"].

PalmOne can cease selling Palm Powered products at any time, which could be due to their withdrawal from the market or their use of a competing operating system. [Wow.]

- During fiscal 2005, we saw several licensee specific events that will negatively impact future revenues. These events include the expiration of a license agreement without renewal, the end of the amortization for a licensee’s prepaid royalty commitment, and the prepay of minimum royalty commitments from another licensee resulting from that licensee being acquired by another company [Gee, could that possibly be AlphaSmart?]. Additionally, following the first fiscal quarter of 2006, we will see another licensee’s prepaid royalty commitment become fully amortized. Including the revenue decline from Sony and Acer, we expect the total impact of these events will negatively impact revenue for fiscal 2006 when compared to the fiscal 2005. [So, exactly how many licensees are REALLY left? Sounds like this will be a good year...]

- Smartphones generally take an especially long time to develop and ship, because they are complex and because they must be tested and approved by wireless operators before they are shipped to users. Because of this long development time, the period between signing a licensee and receiving royalty revenue from them can be lengthy. [Translation: the LG announcement is meaningless to The Bottom Line.]

- Our product mix is shifting toward converged mobile devices, but not yet fast enough to fully offset the decline in PDAs. For example, in the three months ended May 31, 2005, smartphones were 37% of our unit shipment mix, compared to 18% in the same period a year before. In the 12 months ended May 31, 2005, smartphones were over 27% of our product mix, compared to 12% in the same period a year before. Our overall unit shipments declined from 1.1 million to 0.7 million in the three month period, and from 5.2 million to 3.6 million in the 12 month period. The shift toward smartphones has also offset a large part of the decline in revenue associated with lower PDA sales. This is because smartphones tend to sell at higher average selling prices than do PDAs, leading to higher per unit royalty revenue from our licensees. [Translation: The Treo won't save us.]

- Additionally, our strategic plans focus our product development toward offering platforms for the mobile phone market, which is growing. We believe the high-end of the mobile phone market is in its early stages, and there is no guarantee that the market will grow as forecasted.

- Historically, we have generated revenues from a mix of upfront license fees and per unit royalties. Recently, we have witnessed a trend in the software industry away from the payment of upfront license fees in favor of royalty fees based upon units sold. We have experienced a significant decline in our upfront license fees and, as a result, we expect our deferred revenues to continue to decline over time.

- Goodwill Impairment. We perform an evaluation of the carrying value of goodwill on an annual basis or whenever an event or change in circumstances occurs which would indicate potential impairment. We anticipate that during fiscal year 2006, we will be required to test for goodwill impairment more frequently. In response to changes in industry and market conditions, we may strategically realign our resources in a manner that could result in an impairment of goodwill. We cannot assure you that future impairment tests will not result in a charge to earnings. At the end of fiscal 2005, our goodwill balance was $72.8 million or approximately 39% of total assets. [SLICK. VEEEEEEERY SLICK]

- License and royalty revenues from Sony were $7.8 million and $2.0 million in fiscal years 2004, and 2005, respectively.

- Interest expense. Interest expense was $0.7 million in fiscal year 2004 and $31,000 in fiscal year 2005. Interest expense increased after the distribution date due to interest on the $15.0 million 5% convertible subordinated note issued to Texas Instruments, partially offset by the decrease in interest paid to Palm as a result of the contribution to our capital by Palm of the $20.0 million note payable to Palm that bore interest at 2.48%. We expect interest expense to decrease as the $15.0 million 5% convertible subordinated note payable to Texas Instruments was repaid in June 2004. [Did the shell game confuse you? Good. And you thought PalmSource and Palm/palmOne were separate companies! Sucker.]

- Gain on Asset Sale. Gain on the sale of an asset was $26.7 million in fiscal 2005, and is related to the sale of our 55% interest in Palm Trademark Holding Company LLC (“PTHC”) to palmOne for $30 million in cash. In determining the amount of net gain, PalmSource’s basis in the net assets of PTHC and direct transaction costs (primarily legal fees and valuation expenses) have been deducted from the discounted proceeds. [We will next be asking employees to empty their desks of items that can be offered at next month's MASSIVE garage sale that will be taking place at Gassée's house. Don't miss it.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here's a little more financial news to ponder:

- Fred Alger Management, Inc just sold all 1.3 million shares they had (around 8% of PalmSource!)

- Fidelity just dumped around 1 million shares of PalmSource (around 6% of PalmSource)

[Remember TVoR's prediction about how investor panic will soon set in, driving PalmSource's stock price down, just in time for a takeout, Kiddies? It's already coming true.]

- In July + August David Nagel and some other former PalmSource execs dumped 320,000 shares (2% of PalmSource).

- Doreen Yochum - PalmSource's Chief Accounting Officer - just dumped 44,000 shares.

And the piece de resistance: Not even ONE PalmSource insider has ever purchased a single share of PalmSource. Do they know something no one else knows? Do they have insider knowledge? ;-O

The facts seem to suggest you're full of feces, Marty. People here aren't dumb enough to fall for your little game. Nice try, though.


SOMETHING'S ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF PALMSOURCE™

Copyright, 2005.
The Voice of Reason, Inc.




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/20/2005 1:54:23 PM # Q
You can always tell how poorly skippy thinks its doing in the actual discussion by how many posts it makes in a short period with no content other than insults.

So Skippy, why is it you think PalmSource would pay someone to say that if they don't get PalmLinux right they're doomed?



RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/20/2005 3:43:11 PM # Q
You can always tell how poorly skippy thinks its doing in the actual discussion by how many posts it makes in a short period with no content other than insults.

So Skippy, why is it you think PalmSource would pay someone to say that if they don't get PalmLinux right they're doomed?


Marty, Marty, Marty. Is that the best you can do? Instead of attacking the POSTER, why don't you try to address the points raised in the POSTS, instead?

Looks like you're getting flustered, Marty. Time to call for backup. Where are Michael Mace [KIA], RhinoSteve [MIA], just_little_me [hiding], svrontis [shot themself in the foot], Jeff Kirvin [shot themself in the foot and then deserted] and Dianne Hackborn [deserting] when you need them? You've been getting shot up pretty badly here Mr. Fouts. Quite noble of you to give your life for PalmSource...

Palminfocenter seems to be the main place people go to read about + discuss PalmOS devices. It's also the ONLY major site that isn't heavily censored, so this is where PalmSource's deficiencies have been exposed. If enough PalmSource employees can post here to counteract the facts, it might help sway current user opinion that PalmSource and PalmOS are circling the toilet bowl and about to be flushed out of existence. The sudden rash of posts to Palm sites by PalmSource employees in June + July suggests this was a co-ordinated plan to influence user opinion. [Wouldn't it be embarassing if a Really Bad Person posted an internal PalmSource email discussing how to Astroturf effectively?] The logical next step is to have "anonymous" PalmSource staff like you start Astroturfing and bashing anyone that reports The Ugly Truth About PalmSource.

You have NO idea how much people are laughing at you, Marty. You may find RhinoSteve's exit strategy to be a sensible one.

TVoR



------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/20/2005 5:42:04 PM # Q
In my opinion there have been 4 watershed design moments from Palm Inc/PalmOne/Handspring:

1. Pilot 1000 (the original)

2. Palm V (never mind the lack of RAM etc)

3. m500 line

4. Treo 600

I would say the original Pilot 1000, the TRGpro, the Handspring Treo 600 and the CLIE UX50 are the 4 most significant designs we have seen. But the "jumped the shark" reference is about a device that is the high point for the company. After the Vx, things have steadily gone downhill for Palm. And remember, Handspring made the Treo 600 - not Palm.


> Assuming continued current rate of cash burn + no new revenue > streams, PalmSource will run out of money sometime next Fall.

Poor skippy, can't even do his arithmetic right. I guess it's that old information. First off skippy, "next fall" is six weeks away, not a year. I think you meant to type "Fall '06." But even then, you haven't been paying attention. Given the current burn rate, PalmSource has enough cash to get through 2Q '07.

Ummm... Doesn't PalmSource's fiscal year 2007 start in June, 2006? So that would mean their second quarter 2007 starts in SEPTEMBER, 2006. Just around the time I previously said they would be bankrupt. Nice try, Marty.

> Since PalmLinux will not be ready at that point and most of
> the licensees PalmSource had at the beginning of 2005 will be
> gone by Fall 2006, how the he11 does PalmSource expect to
> survive as an independent company?

From a false premise, any conclusion may be arrived at, there Skippy.

Here's a simple exercise that even you should be able to do, Marty: List every PalmSource licensee that is currently still developing new hardware that runs PalmOS. What happened to AlphaSmart? Fossil? Sony? Tapwave? Garmin? Samsung? I don't think Symbol and its PalmOS 4 bricks really counts... SPIN that, Marty.

> Maybe they could sell Palm the rights to the
> name "PalmSource" for $30 million? How about another stock
> offering? In reality, they knew PalmSource was doomed to fail
> from the beginning. It was all part of the plan.

Um, no Skippy, it wasn't part of the plan. Of all your fantasies, this one about "the plan" is the one that brings me the most chuckles.

I hope you're still chuckling when the fleeced PalmSource stockholders figure out what happenened and send their lawyers in for retribution.

> Looks like the bogus Palm "split" is about to come to an end
> one year earlier than I had originally expected. I'll try not
> to say "I told you so" too many times. Colligan and Co.
> played it perfectly. Brilliant.

Well, yeah, except that reality intrudes. You need to catch up on your news releases there Skippy. New licensees have been announced, along with new revenue sources. Also, your math on the burn rate is wrong by 3 quarters. (Hint: you don't seem to be taking CMS into account.)

Love how you managed to pleuralize LG. Did PalmSource seell a licence to both L and G? Or are you starting to see double from the beating you've taken since showing up here? I'll say it again: PalmSource runs out of money "sometime next Fall" (i.e. September - November, 2006, just to make it simple for you.)

"Astroturfing" is a phrase coined to describe the use of paid employees to create fake grassroots support for a thing or a company. It's a practice particularly prevalent in the oil, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries, but it's also been used extensively in politics (USA Next), and technology (Microsoft US antitrust trial). I'm shocked you've never heard of the term.

Adam, do you REALLY believe Marty is that naive? ;-O

Licensees? Plural? I only see LG, and until they produce actual hardware, the revenue from them has got to be minimal. I can't imagine that CMS is so vastly profitable that they'll have spare tens of millions to throw at PSRC either.

In Marty's World, PalmSource announces a new licensee every week and these licensees all start shipping devices within 2 months (as opposed to the two YEARS it will take to see a smartphone from LG).

> Licensees? Plural? I only see LG, and until they produce
> actual hardware, the revenue from them has got to be minimal.

My bad. Licensee. But one of the things Skippy seems to have missed is that Palm renewed its license and there is revenue slated before the end of next year.

My bad? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ha. Homeboy, you slipped up and forgot PalmSource has not yet announced its shocking new licensee. Ooops! Their only new sources of revenue might be if they sell some of Gassée's greasy hair.

> I can't imagine that CMS is so vastly profitable that they'll
> have spare tens of millions to throw at PSRC either.

When thinking in terms of burn rate, move the decimal one the other way. It doesn't take tens of millions to get through a month.

PalmSource spent approximately $75 million on expenses in fiscal year 2005. It's burning over $6 million/month just to stay in business. It has around $100 million in cash, short-term and long-term investments. Its revenues were around $70 million in fiscal year 2005, but will plummet this year and unless they can get another $30 million gift from Palm (or a $15 million "loan" like how they got from Palm a few years ago) things are going to get ugly. Stock price is dropping faster than Mike Cane's knickers in The Village and at this rate the company will get delisted in 2006 unless it is rescued by White Knight Palm..

Sorry Marty, but any way you slice it, PalmSource will NOT finish 2006 as a solvent independent company. I fully expect them to be purchased as soon as investor panic drives share prices low enough to make it a worthwhile acquisition for Palm. Odds are this takeover will happen within a year.


TVoR/Smith Barney, Inc.



------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/20/2005 9:49:12 PM # Q

> Ummm... Doesn't PalmSource's fiscal year 2007 start in June, > 2006?

No idea.

> So that would mean their second quarter 2007 starts in
> SEPTEMBER, 2006. Just around the time I previously said they
> would be bankrupt.

poor TVoR, confused again. I didn't say "PalmSource's fiscal quarter." It is clear from what I wrote that I meant calendar quarter. Nice try at window Skippy, but no go.

> Here's a simple exercise that even you should be able to do,
> List every PalmSource licensee that is currently still
> developing new hardware that runs PalmOS.

Why would I want to do that? To show that you were wrong, I merely had to identify, as I did, sources of revenue you weren't accounting for.

> I hope you're still chuckling when the fleeced PalmSource
> stockholders figure out what happenened and send their
> lawyers in for retribution.

Stockholders in companies that lose as much valuation as PalmSource has tend to sue whether there was a reason or not. But you're attributing to malice what is more accurately described as incompetence.

> I'll say it again: PalmSource runs out of money "sometime
> next Fall" (i.e. September - November, 2006, just to make it
> simple for you.)

An you're wrong. At the current burn rate, they don't run out until calendar 2q 07.

> Homeboy, you slipped up and forgot PalmSource has not yet
> announced its shocking new licensee.

No. I slipped up and thought of the Palm renewal as a new licensee. That's LG and Palm, the two licensees we were discussing in a different thread.

> PalmSource spent approximately $75 million on expenses in
> fiscal year 2005.

Jeez Skippy, can't you read a 10k? PalmSource's fiscal 10k says that their total operating expenses for fiscal '04 were 107.4 million (The fiscal year ended in May of '05, Skippy, but accounts refer to them by the year they start in. *this* is fiscal year '05.)

> It's burning over $6 million/month just to stay in business.

Um, no. Guess you missed the news about the layoffs In PalmSource's fiscal '04 it burned just over 9 million per month to stay in business. But that's not the current burn rate.

> It has around $100 million in cash, short-term and long-term
> investments. Its revenues were around $70 million in fiscal
> year 2005, but will plummet this year and unless they can get > another $30 million gift from Palm

Poor TVoR, confused again. PalmSource revenues for fiscal '04 were right around 137 million. PalmSource had a net income of 27 million in '04.

But your math doesn't make any sense, there Skippy. First your base numbers are wrong. Second, your burn rate calculation is, not surprisingly, based on old news, and an old burn rate. Third, revenues drop off next year and the following. They don't go to zero. Palm's license runs until dec '09, for example and will generate revenue in '05 and '06 that you haven't accounted for.

As for your analysis about buying PalmSource: it's possible that someone will see the stock as undervalued and buy them. The next year or two would certainly be the time to do that if you gamble that they're going to pull this off.

On the other hand, if you're Palm, you've already got them in a good position because of the way licenses are structured, and if you believe they're not going to pull it off, you'd be smarter to wait until the fire sale and pick up the handful of assets you're interested in cheap. That way you would be able to pick and choose and you wouldn't have the take on any of the PalmSource obligations, like CMS, that would be a distraction to Palm.

So I doubt that anyone will be buying PSRC in the next year.



RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
hkklife @ 8/20/2005 9:59:17 PM # Q
Voice;

Nicely summarized & written analysis. I really wish you'd put all of this into one seamless, far-reaching editorial piece on how the Palm-CONomy has become FUBARed over the past four years and what, if anything can be doing to save at least the basic trappings of the OS.

Two comments, however:

Point #1: Not knocking your inclusion of the TRGPro but do know that my list specifically was intented to cover home-grown Palm Inc/PalmOne/Handspring units. Sony,TRG/Handera,Tapwave etc. aren't part of that one big, happy, dysfunctional family that sprang from Hawkins' loins and thus weren't part of the "watershed" devices I was considering.

So my list was basically Palm Inc's finest offerings through '01 and then Handspring's swan song (Treo 600) and not meant to be anything more than that. Ironic in that Palm Computing released the Pilot 1000 in '96, peaked with the Vx in '99 or the m500 in '01 (take your pick) and has been slowly regressing ever since. Handspring started with a rather lackluster Visor line and, even as their fortunes worsened, managed to crank out better designs (Edge, Prism, Treo 600) before being assimiliated. I still disagree wholeheartedly with the entire Springboard concept. They should have started with CF or SmartMedia, then migrated to SD/MMC on the Edge and never looked back.

Point #2:

If Palm officially announcs a WinMob Treo 700 and a WinMob LifeDrive (for good measure to show they are seriously in the M$ camp) next month, how would that alter your predictions on PalmSource's ultimate fate? Do you think it matters a BIT to PalmSource's ultimate fate if the WinMob Treo launches before year's end vs. spring '06? Also, do you happen to know off-hand when/if Sony's lingering royalty payments cease?

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/20/2005 11:03:12 PM # Q
> do you happen to know off-hand when/if Sony's lingering
> royalty payments cease?

That's in the 10k.



RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
Rome @ 8/21/2005 3:55:48 AM # Q
Just some clarifictions on Palmsource's fiscal year:

- Fiscal year for palmsource ends around May 31.
- Fiscal year 2005 ended on 5/31/05.
- We are currently in Q1 FY2006.
- Palm and Palmsource have the same fiscal year ending date.

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
Rome @ 8/21/2005 4:04:18 AM # Q
"- As of July 25, 2005, we had approximately 2,400 registered stockholders of record. PalmSource has not paid and does not anticipate paying cash dividends in the near future. [Translation: Thanks for your money! Suckers!!!]"

??? Do you know what the following 5 companies have in common with Palmsource???

- Dell
- Cisco
- Berkshire Hathaway
- Intuit
- Electronic Arts

The answer will explain the ignorance of your above statement.

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/21/2005 4:54:09 AM # Q
> Ummm... Doesn't PalmSource's fiscal year 2007 start in June, > 2006?

No idea.

Hmmmm... Isn't it odd that someone that claims to know so much about PalmSource doesn't even know when their Fiscal Year begins? Once again, your attempts to sound like a Regular Joe posting at Palminfocenter rings false. As with many Astroturfers you have difficulty playing "innocent", Marty. Try to work on that some more.

> So that would mean their second quarter 2007 starts in
> SEPTEMBER, 2006. Just around the time I previously said they
> would be bankrupt.

poor TVoR, confused again. I didn't say "PalmSource's fiscal quarter." It is clear from what I wrote that I meant calendar quarter. Nice try at window Skippy, but no go.

Unfortunately, what you "meant" was clear only to you, Marty. When discussing the financial matters of companies, it is standard practice to use the financial quarters as used by the company in question. Perhaps it's time for you to once again grace us with your eloquent trademark: "My bad".

> Here's a simple exercise that even you should be able to do,
> List every PalmSource licensee that is currently still
> developing new hardware that runs PalmOS.

Why would I want to do that? To show that you were wrong, I merely had to identify, as I did, sources of revenue you weren't accounting for.

You WOULDN'T want to do that, because doing so would show that most of PalmSource's oft-touted 13 licensees (as listed on their website and in almost every statement issued by PalmSource) either have completely left the market or are no longer developing new PalmOS models. That's gotta hurt.

> I hope you're still chuckling when the fleeced PalmSource
> stockholders figure out what happened and send their
> lawyers in for retribution.

Stockholders in companies that lose as much valuation as PalmSource has tend to sue whether there was a reason or not. But you're attributing to malice what is more accurately described as incompetence.

But in this case, stockholders will likely have plenty of ammunition when they attempt to show that they were swindled by an elaborate scam. We are increasingly hearing PalmSource Apologists claim that PalmSource decisions were made due to incompetence rather than being willful attempts to con investors. I won't be surprised to see that the courts don't believe that SPIN. I'm afraid the "Bumbling Yokel CEO" defence rings false, Bubba

> I'll say it again: PalmSource runs out of money "sometime
> next Fall" (i.e. September - November, 2006, just to make it
> simple for you.)

An you're wrong. At the current burn rate, they don't run out until calendar 2q 07.

All depends how you look at the numbers. Exclude the restructuring charges + employee termination benefits, include China MobileSoft bonuses + raises current executives are giving each other (isn't it unbelievable?) + stock compensation. The estimation is based on items in flux. A Lean Palm might burn as little as $5 - 6 million/month, likely at the expense of any real productivity. I don't believe that low a burn rate is beneficial (or even possible, as a desperate PalmSource will likely have to outsource parts of PalmLinux to third party developers).

Of course, if Palm moves to Windows Mobile, it's Game Over for PalmSource. Pretty much instantly.

> Homeboy, you slipped up and forgot PalmSource has not yet
> announced its shocking new licensee.

No. I slipped up and thought of the Palm renewal as a new licensee. That's LG and Palm, the two licensees we were discussing in a different thread.

If you say so.

> PalmSource spent approximately $75 million on expenses in
> fiscal year 2005.

Jeez Skippy, can't you read a 10k? PalmSource's fiscal 10k says that their total operating expenses for fiscal '04 were 107.4 million (The fiscal year ended in May of '05, Skippy, but accounts refer to them by the year they start in. *this* is fiscal year '05.)

Again, it depends on what you include. When tring to summarize the balance sheets, do you include unique one-time expenses like Nagel's golden parachute and the severence checks for the 60 employees that were terminated? And do you include the unique one-time $30 million "gift" from Palm that allowed PalmSource to finally post a so-called "profit" for one quarter? I don't and posted a link to the actual 10-K, so hopefully people will actually READ it themselves and learn something about PalmSource. If more people read this report there would be a LOT less confusion among the PalmOS fanboys and fangirls about what's going on with PalmSource and Palm.

http://tinyurl.com/bna3r

And again, the Fiscal Year that started June 1, 2005 is Fiscal Year 2006.

> It's burning over $6 million/month just to stay in business.

Um, no. Guess you missed the news about the layoffs In PalmSource's fiscal '04 it burned just over 9 million per month to stay in business. But that's not the current burn rate.

I estimated the burn rate based on previous expenses minus the reduced salary expense achieved by the reduction in headcount. But if McVeigh and Seeley et. al. keep voting themselves more salary raises, I'm not sure why they even bothered to fire all those people. Pathetic. I also didn't factor in that if PalmSource begins to outsource much of the development now that they realize that they can't create PalmLinux by themselves within a reasonable time frame, then costs will escalate. Another "loan" from Palm (that "completely separate" company)might be necessary.

> It has around $100 million in cash, short-term and long-term
> investments. Its revenues were around $70 million in fiscal
> year 2005, but will plummet this year and unless they can get > another $30 million gift from Palm

Poor TVoR, confused again. PalmSource revenues for fiscal '04 were right around 137 million. PalmSource had a net income of 27 million in '04.

Again, how do you choose to come up with the numbers, Marty? Do you include the $30 million "gift" from Palm as real "revenue"? I think not.

But your math doesn't make any sense, there Skippy. First your base numbers are wrong. Second, your burn rate calculation is, not surprisingly, based on old news, and an old burn rate. Third, revenues drop off next year and the following. They don't go to zero. Palm's license runs until dec '09, for example and will generate revenue in '05 and '06 that you haven't accounted for.

The math doesn't make sense only to you, Marty. And the revenues plummet in 2006, only to drop even more steeply in subsequent years. If fact, there is no guarantee that Palm has to pay PalmSource ANYTHING if either PalmSource can't deliver a stable PalmOS or if Palm moves completely to Windows Mobile. Again, that's gotta hurt.

As for your analysis about buying PalmSource: it's possible that someone will see the stock as undervalued and buy them. The next year or two would certainly be the time to do that if you gamble that they're going to pull this off.

I've proposed elsewhere why and when Palm will buy back PalmSource. So far, the Palm companies are following my script precisely.

On the other hand, if you're Palm, you've already got them in a good position because of the way licenses are structured, and if you believe they're not going to pull it off, you'd be smarter to wait until the fire sale and pick up the handful of assets you're interested in cheap. That way you would be able to pick and choose and you wouldn't have the take on any of the PalmSource obligations, like CMS, that would be a distraction to Palm.

The firesale is coming soon.

So I doubt that anyone will be buying PSRC in the next year.

Care to bet on that?

TVoR, Inc.




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/21/2005 12:35:25 PM # Q
Voice;

Nicely summarized & written analysis. I really wish you'd put all of this into one seamless, far-reaching editorial piece on how the Palm-CONomy has become FUBARed over the past four years and what, if anything can be doing to save at least the basic trappings of the OS.

Thanks. I could do that, but I think anyone reading the discussion here at PIC already knows MOST of the issues. The solution is simple: If Palm and PalmSource spent around $20 million on outsourcing PalmLinux, licensing various components and hiring a few key programmers, they could have rock solid, flexible, and VERY attractive OS within a year. The modular components are easy enough (e.g. folding BackupMan, TealLock, TCPMP, etc. into the OS). What PalmSource lacks the ability to do is fuse the Linux kernel to the scavenged underpinnings of PalmOS 6 (Cobalt) and keep the flexibility of both Linux and PalmOS intact. Expecting the former Be employees to suddenly all become 133t Linux hAXX0rz is a little optimistic. China MobileSoft? Nope. I think the money would have been better spent on assembling a group with several people like Marty Fouts and a few dozen talented Linux codemonkeys. Keep the most gifted half of the current Be-derived PalmSource codemonkeys and start working overtime on whipping PalmLinux into shape.

Will PalmLinux be ready Summer 2006 if Palm does all the coding in house again (Cobalt-style)? As ready as Cobalt was in December, 2003.

By the way, I love your line about the Palm CONomy. I wish I'd come up with that. Would you license it to me for $30 million?

Two comments, however:

Point #1: Not knocking your inclusion of the TRGPro but do know that my list specifically was intented to cover home-grown Palm Inc/PalmOne/Handspring units. Sony,TRG/Handera,Tapwave etc. aren't part of that one big, happy, dysfunctional family that sprang from Hawkins' loins and thus weren't part of the "watershed" devices I was considering.

If you're only including Palm-branded devices, I agree with your choices as the high points of Palm's PDAs. I probably would have narrowed the list to the Pilot 1000, the Vx and the Treo 600, though.

Those of us who are old skoolers remember "back in the day" what an impressive device the TRGpro was/is. Back when Palm was still offering up the 4 MB IIIx, TRG put out an 8 MB device with a CompactFlash slot, real speaker, built-in backup application, file browser and the ability to run programs right off the memory card. The TRGpro offered features 2 or 3 YEARS ahead of its time and showed us that PDAs could be serious business tools (as opposed to just trendy fashion accessories). I was one of the first people on the waiting list for the TRGpro and had they just released that legendary (hideous) color version I would never have stayed with CLIEs (despite how good the S300 etc. were back then). TRG continued to make its mark on the PDA world despite getting squeezed out (stabbed in the back) by Palm. They engineered the AlphaSmart Dana and one of their employees - Mike Waldron - created the best PalmOS backup app available (BackupMan) and one of the top 3 file managers around (FileMan).

http://www.bitsnbolts.com/

So my list was basically Palm Inc's finest offerings through '01 and then Handspring's swan song (Treo 600) and not meant to be anything more than that. Ironic in that Palm Computing released the Pilot 1000 in '96, peaked with the Vx in '99 or the m500 in '01 (take your pick) and has been slowly regressing ever since. Handspring started with a rather lackluster Visor line and, even as their fortunes worsened, managed to crank out better designs (Edge, Prism, Treo 600) before being assimiliated. I still disagree wholeheartedly with the entire Springboard concept. They should have started with CF or SmartMedia, then migrated to SD/MMC on the Edge and never looked back.

Yes, the Springboard concept was a joke. CompactFlash would have made a LOT more sense, as many brands of CF cards + accessories were already in existence at the time. My biggest concern regarding Palm is how bad their quality control and support have become since around 2000. Things keep getting worse every year. The Treo 600 I bought in Fall/Winter 2003 was the last straw for me. Probably the poorest construction quality of ANY piece of electronics I've EVER purchased. Sorry Palm, but I "won't get fooled again".

Point #2:

If Palm officially announcs a WinMob Treo 700 and a WinMob LifeDrive (for good measure to show they are seriously in the M$ camp) next month, how would that alter your predictions on PalmSource's ultimate fate? Do you think it matters a BIT to PalmSource's ultimate fate if the WinMob Treo launches before year's end vs. spring '06? Also, do you happen to know off-hand when/if Sony's lingering royalty payments cease?

From the beginning, PalmSource was doomed as an independent company. Several things suggest this was all by design. When (not "if") Palm announces the Sprint Treo 700, it merely accelerates the devaluation of PalmSource to the point that it can inexpensively be purchased by Palm. Remember, PalmOS is still a valuable property. There are millions of active users, thousands apps in the library (including several hundred that are truly stellar) and the OS has defined a product category for a decade. Even though PalmOS is now being Netscaped (due to Palm's unbelievable greed and laziness, resulting in the failure to improve the OS until it was too late) there will probably be demand for PalmOS products for the next 2 - 5 years, especially if they can figure out how to get a STABLE PalmLinux to market soon.

Please read the latest PalmSource 10-K that I posted the link to - it has a wealth of information.

http://tinyurl.com/bna3r

This information from the 10-K should answer your question about Sony:

"The outstanding receivable from Palm/palmOne was $5.1 million, $5.2 million and $6.2 million at May 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. The outstanding receivable from Sony was $0.1 million, $0 and $2.3 million at May 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. No other individual customer accounted for 10% or more of gross accounts receivable at May 31, 2004 or 2005."

"In June 2002, PalmSource entered into two royalty agreements with third-party vendors, and in February 2004, PalmSource entered into another royalty agreement with a third-party vendor for certain licensed technology, which includes minimum commitments. In December 2003, one of these royalty agreements was renegotiated and the minimum commitment was eliminated."

"Future minimum commitments under these agreements as of May 31, 2005 are as follows:

Years ending May 31, minimum payments

2006 - $903,000
2007 - $731,000
2008 - $439,000
2009 - $335,000

Total minimum lease and royalty payments - $2,408,000."

So in other words, this year Sony will be paying PalmSource the whopping amount of around $225,000 per quarter and PalmSource will keep listing Sony as one of their "licensees". What a waste.

The renegotiation allowing Sony to eliminate their minimum commitment was a major mistake, for which head(s) rolled, as you may recall.


TVoR



------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/21/2005 1:58:18 PM # Q
> When discussing the financial matters of companies, it is
> standard practice to use the financial quarters as used by
> the company in question.

Sorry Skippy, wrong again. When discussing quarters, it's "standard practices" to say "fiscal quarter" when you mean a company's financial quarter. If you just say quarter, especially when you say something like "2 quarters after fall", only the very confused thinks you mean anything other than calendar quarter when you next mention the same thing as 2q 07.

Lotta window you're generating there skippy, but, as usual, no substance.

> You WOULDN'T want to do that, because doing so would show
> that most of PalmSource's oft-touted 13 licensees (as listed
> on their website and in almost every statement issued by
> PalmSource) either have completely left the market or are no
> longer developing new PalmOS models. That's gotta hurt.

Do they do that? Amusing. That's 9 more than I know about Skippy. But you're looking to the past again. It doesn't take quantity of licensees to be successful, it takes licensees that generate quantities of revenue. Me, I'd rather focus on one or two licensees that, if successful, will generate a lot of revenue. In business, that's a far more effective way for a faltering company to get back on a good financial footing.

> But in this case, stockholders will likely have plenty of
> ammunition when they attempt to show that they were swindled
> by an elaborate scam.

Un huh. And they'll be getting it from you?

> All depends how you look at the numbers.

Well, given that you didn't even quote last year's numbers right, I hope you don't mind if I don't use yours.

> A Lean Palm might burn as little as $5 - 6 million/month,
> likely at the expense of any real productivity.

Wouldn't know about Palm's burn rate. (I assume you meant to type "PalmSource"). But I've done enough OS development over the last thirty years to know that you can be very productive on $5m / month in today's market.

> Of course, if Palm moves to Windows Mobile, it's Game Over
> for PalmSource. Pretty much instantly.

Um, no. Palm has a contract with PalmSource that runs through '09. If PalmSource delivers on it, Palm pays at least the minimums, which gives PalmSource more opportunity.

And then there's the inconvenient fact that PalmSource has other licensees than Palm, and revenue from CMS' ongoing business.

> Again, it depends on what you include.

Yup. That's why your reliance on last year's numbers to guess this year's burn rate isn't veyr itneresting.

> I estimated the burn rate based on previous expenses minus
> the reduced salary expense achieved by the reduction in
> headcount.

You estimated it in wrong, even if you have good numbers on salary expense, then. Salary expense is only one part of employee expense, the other being overhead. In the valley overhead runs between 50 and 150 percent of salary. I have no idea what it is at PalmSource. You also neglected to factor in income.

> if PalmSource begins to outsource much of the development now
> that they realize that they can't create PalmLinux by
> themselves within a reasonable time frame

Sorry, but Brook's law pretty much guarentees that they won't do that. But other than wishful thinking, do you have any evidence that they feel they can't hit their schedules?

> Again, how do you choose to come up with the numbers, Marty?

I read the 10k, skippy. It's the only evidence either of us has to go on.

> the revenues plummet in 2006, only to drop even more steeply
> in subsequent years.

Interesting adjectives, Skippy, but you still didn't factor the revenue, whatever it is, into your equation, and it's positive, so that means that whatever estimate you arrive at will be short by at least as long as it takes to burn that money.

> If fact, there is no guarantee that Palm has to pay
> PalmSource ANYTHING if either PalmSource can't deliver a
> stable PalmOS or if Palm moves completely to Windows Mobile.

Only half right, Skippy. Palm's got a contract with PalmSource that requires them to pay if PalmSource hits delivery milestones. There's no out for Palm deciding to also spend money on WinMob.

> I've proposed elsewhere why and when Palm will buy back
> PalmSource. So far, the Palm companies are following my
> script precisely.

> The firesale is coming soon.

Skippy, you just contradicted yourself. If Palm picks assests from PalmSource at a firesale, they won't also buy the company back.

> So I doubt that anyone will be buying PSRC in the next year.

me too.

> Care to bet on that?

Nope. I've seen people with cash do even dumber things.

Its funny, though, the way you keep going back and forth from one position to another.

Here's my view:

Palm split off PalmSource for what they thought were good reasons, but that turned out not to be.

PalmSource then floundered for a couple of years, while Palm lucked onto the Treo as a result of having bought Handspring.

PalmSource got desperate after they finished Cobolt and none of the licensees would pick it up, took a look at the market, and figured out that their best bet would be to give up on PDAs and "developers" and concentrate on the phone market.

Palm independently arrived at the same conclusion, but, unlike PalmSource, couldn't quite abandon the non-phones because it had two product lines in that area.

Meanwhile, PalmSource buys CMS and announces it's going into the Linux phone business. Neither TrueBelievers, nor DoomSayers seem to completely understand what that means yet. Actually, it's not all that clear that having done it PalmSource understands what it means.

Still later, Palm, while experimenting with alternative OSes, gets cold feet about their risk, while also recognizing that the Palm/PalmSource naming confusion is a BadThing. So they buy naming rights back from PalmSource, who talk themselves into thinking that in their new business, name doesn't matter, because they really need the Palm money.

But 30M is not enough, and so, layoffs. (Again)

Now PalmSource is of no real value to Palm as a corporate entity because Palm has the name back, and PalmSource is drifting into parts of the market, via CMS, that Palm's not interested in. So you can pretty much abandon your conspiracy/buy-back theory.

If PalmSource pulls this off, then there will be no value to Palm in buying them. If PalmSource doesn't, then Palm will pick up whatever IP they care about at the going-out-of-business sale. Given the job market in the valley, Palm would get to pick and chose among the freshly laid off PalmSource folk, so that would make more sense than trying to digest the organization whole and then pruning the dead weight.

PalmSource, then has to pull a rabbit out of its hat before the cash runs out (mid '07, not late '06, Skippy) by:

1) welding Cobolt onto Linux making PaluxOS or whatever they're going to call it.

2) sign up a couple of major phone players as licensees and work with them to get smartphones to market

3) take advantage of whatever revenue they can get out of CMS' products in the feature-phone business

and

4) stay competitive against the various LinuxPhone players.

See, skippy, that's the part you keep missing. PalmSource's big competition isn't winmob. It's Linux.

I hope they realize that.


RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/21/2005 2:59:14 PM # Q
Voice;

Nicely summarized & written analysis. I really wish you'd put all of this into one seamless, far-reaching editorial piece on how the Palm-CONomy has become FUBARed over the past four years and what, if anything can be doing to save at least the basic trappings of the OS.

Thanks. I could do that, but I think anyone reading the discussion here at PIC already knows MOST of the issues. The solution is simple: If Palm and PalmSource spent around $20 million on outsourcing PalmLinux, licensing various components and hiring a few key programmers, they could have rock solid, flexible, and VERY attractive OS within a year. The modular components are easy enough (e.g. folding BackupMan, TealLock, TCPMP, etc. into the OS). What PalmSource lacks the ability to do is fuse the Linux kernel to the scavenged underpinnings of PalmOS 6 (Cobalt) and keep the flexibility of both Linux and PalmOS intact. Expecting the former Be employees to suddenly all become 133t Linux hAXX0rz is a little optimistic. China MobileSoft? Nope. I think the money would have been better spent on assembling a group with several people like Marty Fouts and a few dozen talented Linux codemonkeys. Keep the most gifted half of the current Be-derived PalmSource codemonkeys and start working overtime on whipping PalmLinux into shape.

Will PalmLinux be ready Summer 2006 if Palm does all the coding in house again (Cobalt-style)? As ready as Cobalt was in December, 2003.

By the way, I love your line about the Palm CONomy. I wish I'd come up with that. Would you license it to me for $30 million?

Two comments, however:

Point #1: Not knocking your inclusion of the TRGPro but do know that my list specifically was intented to cover home-grown Palm Inc/PalmOne/Handspring units. Sony,TRG/Handera,Tapwave etc. aren't part of that one big, happy, dysfunctional family that sprang from Hawkins' loins and thus weren't part of the "watershed" devices I was considering.

If you're only including Palm-branded devices, I agree with your choices as the high points of Palm's PDAs. I probably would have narrowed the list to the Pilot 1000, the Vx and the Treo 600, though.

Those of us who are old skoolers remember "back in the day" what an impressive device the TRGpro was/is. Back when Palm was still offering up the 4 MB IIIx, TRG put out an 8 MB device with a CompactFlash slot, real speaker, built-in backup application, file browser and the ability to run programs right off the memory card. The TRGpro offered features 2 or 3 YEARS ahead of its time and showed us that PDAs could be serious business tools (as opposed to just trendy fashion accessories). I was one of the first people on the waiting list for the TRGpro and had they just released that legendary (hideous) color version I would never have stayed with CLIEs (despite how good the S300 etc. were back then). TRG continued to make its mark on the PDA world despite getting squeezed out (stabbed in the back) by Palm. They engineered the AlphaSmart Dana and one of their employees - Mike Waldron - created the best PalmOS backup app available (BackupMan) and one of the top 3 file managers around (FileMan).

http://www.bitsnbolts.com/

So my list was basically Palm Inc's finest offerings through '01 and then Handspring's swan song (Treo 600) and not meant to be anything more than that. Ironic in that Palm Computing released the Pilot 1000 in '96, peaked with the Vx in '99 or the m500 in '01 (take your pick) and has been slowly regressing ever since. Handspring started with a rather lackluster Visor line and, even as their fortunes worsened, managed to crank out better designs (Edge, Prism, Treo 600) before being assimiliated. I still disagree wholeheartedly with the entire Springboard concept. They should have started with CF or SmartMedia, then migrated to SD/MMC on the Edge and never looked back.

Yes, the Springboard concept was a joke. CompactFlash would have made a LOT more sense, as many brands of CF cards + accessories were already in existence at the time. My biggest concern regarding Palm is how bad their quality control and support have become since around 2000. Things keep getting worse every year. The Treo 600 I bought in Fall/Winter 2003 was the last straw for me. Probably the poorest construction quality of ANY piece of electronics I've EVER purchased. Sorry Palm, but I "won't get fooled again".

Point #2:

If Palm officially announcs a WinMob Treo 700 and a WinMob LifeDrive (for good measure to show they are seriously in the M$ camp) next month, how would that alter your predictions on PalmSource's ultimate fate? Do you think it matters a BIT to PalmSource's ultimate fate if the WinMob Treo launches before year's end vs. spring '06? Also, do you happen to know off-hand when/if Sony's lingering royalty payments cease?

From the beginning, PalmSource was doomed as an independent company. Several things suggest this was all by design. When (not "if") Palm announces the Sprint Treo 700, it merely accelerates the devaluation of PalmSource to the point that it can inexpensively be purchased by Palm. Remember, PalmOS is still a valuable property. There are millions of active users, thousands apps in the library (including several hundred that are truly stellar) and the OS has defined a product category for a decade. Even though PalmOS is now being Netscaped (due to Palm's unbelievable greed and laziness, resulting in the failure to improve the OS until it was too late) there will probably be demand for PalmOS products for the next 2 - 5 years, especially if they can figure out how to get a STABLE PalmLinux to market soon.

Please read the latest PalmSource 10-K that I posted the link to - it has a wealth of information.

http://tinyurl.com/bna3r

This information from the 10-K should answer your question about Sony:

"The outstanding receivable from Palm/palmOne was $5.1 million, $5.2 million and $6.2 million at May 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. The outstanding receivable from Sony was $0.1 million, $0 and $2.3 million at May 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. No other individual customer accounted for 10% or more of gross accounts receivable at May 31, 2004 or 2005."

"In June 2002, PalmSource entered into two royalty agreements with third-party vendors, and in February 2004, PalmSource entered into another royalty agreement with a third-party vendor for certain licensed technology, which includes minimum commitments. In December 2003, one of these royalty agreements was renegotiated and the minimum commitment was eliminated."

"Future minimum commitments under these agreements as of May 31, 2005 are as follows:

Years ending May 31, minimum payments

2006 - $903,000
2007 - $731,000
2008 - $439,000
2009 - $335,000

Total minimum lease and royalty payments - $2,408,000."

So in other words, this year Sony will be paying PalmSource the whopping amount of around $225,000 per quarter and PalmSource will keep listing Sony as one of their "licensees". What a waste.

The renegotiation allowing Sony to eliminate their minimum commitment was a major mistake, for which head(s) rolled, as you may recall.


TVoR




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

Special message to my pal, Marty Fouts:
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/21/2005 3:17:00 PM # Q
> When discussing the financial matters of companies, it is
> standard practice to use the financial quarters as used by
> the company in question.

Sorry Skippy, wrong again. When discussing quarters, it's "standard practices" to say "fiscal quarter" when you mean a company's financial quarter. If you just say quarter, especially when you say something like "2 quarters after fall", only the very confused thinks you mean anything other than calendar quarter when you next mention the same thing as 2q 07.

Lotta window you're generating there skippy, but, as usual, no substance.

That may be how it is in your world, but when discussing company finances, SEC filings and the respective "fiscal" quarters, the rest of us use the quarters as spelled out by the companies based on their Financial Year. (I take it you're now clear on the concept that PalmSource is currently in Financial Year 2006, right?) Please keep those "window" and "Skippy" references coming, Mr. Fouts - they add a LOT of creedence to your arguments...

> You WOULDN'T want to do that, because doing so would show
> that most of PalmSource's oft-touted 13 licensees (as listed
> on their website and in almost every statement issued by
> PalmSource) either have completely left the market or are no
> longer developing new PalmOS models. That's gotta hurt.

Do they do that? Amusing. That's 9 more than I know about Skippy. But you're looking to the past again. It doesn't take quantity of licensees to be successful, it takes licensees that generate quantities of revenue. Me, I'd rather focus on one or two licensees that, if successful, will generate a lot of revenue. In business, that's a far more effective way for a faltering company to get back on a good financial footing.

Golly gee whiz. So you have in depth knowledge about PalmSource but somehow you are only familiar with FOUR of their licensees? Come on Marty. Remember what I said earlier about Astroturfers slipping up when they try to make themselves appear to be not-so-knowledgeable "Regular Joe" anonymous posters? You're doing it again. Think about it, Marty. You need to go back to the drawing board and come up with an Astroturfing personality that has believable degrees of knowledge about the various aspects of PalmSource and the industry. We'll give you a "C" for your efforts as "PenguinPowered", though. Perhaps you should call Michael Mace for a little advice. Assuming he's still on speaking terms with anyone at PalmSource...

> But in this case, stockholders will likely have plenty of
> ammunition when they attempt to show that they were swindled
> by an elaborate scam.

Un huh. And they'll be getting it from you?

No. From lawyers that will be relentless in tracking down all the evidence (and people) that can prove the scam happened. And Michael Mace's ridiculous posts saying things like the following won't help Palm convince too many judges:

"I'd also like to remind the gentle readers of PalmInfoCenter that there is no "Palm" anymore. Really, truly there isn't. There's a PalmSource, the software platform company I work for; and there's palmOne, the largest licensee of Palm OS. They are two totally separate companies, with separate management, stock, and headquarters. We're not even located in the same city.

Mike
CCO, PalmSource
"

http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=6530#90888

> All depends how you look at the numbers.

Well, given that you didn't even quote last year's numbers right, I hope you don't mind if I don't use yours.

Why thank you. But you should just read the 10-K again and filter out the non-recurring costs, factor in the effects of the reductions and then look at What PalmSource's revenue source will drop to. And also remember what expenses have ALREADY been added and what may need to be added. Please read carefully this time though, Marty. Others here might actually read the 10-K as well and realize how full of poo you are. Again, please remember that we're now in PalmSource's first quarter (started June 1) of their Financial Year 2006.

> A Lean Palm might burn as little as $5 - 6 million/month,
> likely at the expense of any real productivity.

Wouldn't know about Palm's burn rate. (I assume you meant to type "PalmSource"). But I've done enough OS development over the last thirty years to know that you can be very productive on $5m / month in today's market.

Yes, I meant PalmSource. $5 or 6 million/month is peanuts for a company under INTENSE pressures to produce a STABLE multi-platform OS using a kernel they aren't familiar with, a core environment that has NEVER been field tested by consumers, and having to maintain backward compatibility with legacy applications. Not to mention that there is no room for error, since its primary customers - cellphone providers - will not likely give PalmSource a second chance should they pull the same kind of crap they did with PalmOS 6 (Cobalt) and ship the OS a year before it was even vaguely stable. On top of this, PalmSource's competitors - Windows Mobile, Symbian and Linux derivatives are already out and being used on real devices by real people. Not many companies can realistically expect to overcome those kind of odds. $5 or 6 million/month is not enough for a company on it's final of 9 lives to be spending.

> Of course, if Palm moves to Windows Mobile, it's Game Over
> for PalmSource. Pretty much instantly.

Um, no. Palm has a contract with PalmSource that runs through '09. If PalmSource delivers on it, Palm pays at least the minimums, which gives PalmSource more opportunity.

And then there's the inconvenient fact that PalmSource has other licensees than Palm, and revenue from CMS' ongoing business.

http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108070

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050525/psrc8-k.html


"The minimum annual royalty commitments for the contract years ending December 3, 2005 and 2006 remain unchanged from the Prior Agreement at $41.0 million and $42.5 million, respectively. The minimum annual royalty commitments under the extended term of the SARSLA for the contract years ending December 3, 2007, 2008 and 2009 are $35 million, $20 million and $10 million, respectively, subject to the Company meeting certain development milestones."

And regarding China MobileSoft: http://tinyurl.com/bjbp8

> Again, it depends on what you include.

Yup. That's why your reliance on last year's numbers to guess this year's burn rate isn't veyr itneresting.

Really? The estimate of this year's initial (post layoffs) and required (to meet goal of producing PalmLinux before the end of 2006) burnrates are actually "veyr itneresting". But it will likely all be academic, since I feel Palm will have stepped in to "rescue" PalmSource before the-money runs out (with a similar stock-only deal to what Handspring was given). The SPIN will be that the buyout is happening "in order to ensure users may continue to enjoy the bennifits of PalmOS for many years to come"...

> I estimated the burn rate based on previous expenses minus
> the reduced salary expense achieved by the reduction in
> headcount.

You estimated it in wrong, even if you have good numbers on salary expense, then. Salary expense is only one part of employee expense, the other being overhead. In the valley overhead runs between 50 and 150 percent of salary. I have no idea what it is at PalmSource. You also neglected to factor in income.

Income will likely be $50 million for the current Financial Year. You are correct in one thing, though: I don't know how much China MobileSoft will contribute. But as a startup that's barely getting off the ground in China, I doubt it would be a good idea to parasitize CMS' profits (if any) to prop up a failing/flailing PalmSource.

> if PalmSource begins to outsource much of the development now
> that they realize that they can't create PalmLinux by
> themselves within a reasonable time frame

Sorry, but Brook's law pretty much guarentees that they won't do that. But other than wishful thinking, do you have any evidence that they feel they can't hit their schedules?

Then they will fail as spectacularly as they did with Craptastic Cobalt. You're obviously unaware of The Voice of Reason's Corollary to Brooke's Law: "Not adding manpower to a late software makes it worse."

Regarding the development timeline, no I'm not wanting them to fail. But based on what I've been advised by developers who were familiar with where PalmSource's PalmLinux components were at PalmSource and also what a little DeepThroated bird has told me, unless the outsourcing is ramped up, they will fail.

> Again, how do you choose to come up with the numbers, Marty?

I read the 10k, skippy. It's the only evidence either of us has to go on.

Well have someone else read it to you. Or else put on you glasses this time.

> the revenues plummet in 2006, only to drop even more steeply
> in subsequent years.

Interesting adjectives, Skippy, but you still didn't factor the revenue, whatever it is, into your equation, and it's positive, so that means that whatever estimate you arrive at will be short by at least as long as it takes to burn that money.

Once again:

http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108070

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050525/psrc8-k.html


"The minimum annual royalty commitments for the contract years ending December 3, 2005 and 2006 remain unchanged from the Prior Agreement at $41.0 million and $42.5 million, respectively. The minimum annual royalty commitments under the extended term of the SARSLA for the contract years ending December 3, 2007, 2008 and 2009 are $35 million, $20 million and $10 million, respectively, subject to the Company meeting certain development milestones."

> If fact, there is no guarantee that Palm has to pay
> PalmSource ANYTHING if either PalmSource can't deliver a
> stable PalmOS or if Palm moves completely to Windows Mobile.

Only half right, Skippy. Palm's got a contract with PalmSource that requires them to pay if PalmSource hits delivery milestones. There's no out for Palm deciding to also spend money on WinMob.

Wonder what those milestones are and how likely PalmSource is to hit them. Or issue the required bug fixes...

> I've proposed elsewhere why and when Palm will buy back
> PalmSource. So far, the Palm companies are following my
> script precisely.

> The firesale is coming soon.

Skippy, you just contradicted yourself. If Palm picks assests from PalmSource at a firesale, they won't also buy the company back.

The "firesale" refers to Palm buying the ENTIRE PalmSource back for pennies on the dollar. The cherry picking you envision won't happen, as was the case with BeOS. Once The Reunification of Palm is complete, they are right back where they would have been had the "split" never happened, except they're now a couple hundred million $$$ richer, thanks to the IPOs, the Palm name "sale", etc. All courtesy of a few thousand SUCKERS known as "investors". Thanks for helping out, guys! You've been a big help. But gotta go now!

> So I doubt that anyone will be buying PSRC in the next year.

me too.

Actually, that was your quote. I've said that Palm's "Berlin shoji screen/noren curtain" will come down in 2006 and the Reunification will be complete.

> Care to bet on that?

Nope. I've seen people with cash do even dumber things.

Didn't think so.

Its funny, though, the way you keep going back and forth from one position to another.

Here's my view:

Palm split off PalmSource for what they thought were good reasons, but that turned out not to be.

PalmSource then floundered for a couple of years, while Palm lucked onto the Treo as a result of having bought Handspring.

PalmSource got desperate after they finished Cobolt and none of the licensees would pick it up, took a look at the market, and figured out that their best bet would be to give up on PDAs and "developers" and concentrate on the phone market.

Palm independently arrived at the same conclusion, but, unlike PalmSource, couldn't quite abandon the non-phones because it had two product lines in that area.

Meanwhile, PalmSource buys CMS and announces it's going into the Linux phone business. Neither TrueBelievers, nor DoomSayers seem to completely understand what that means yet. Actually, it's not all that clear that having done it PalmSource understands what it means.

Still later, Palm, while experimenting with alternative OSes, gets cold feet about their risk, while also recognizing that the Palm/PalmSource naming confusion is a BadThing. So they buy naming rights back from PalmSource, who talk themselves into thinking that in their new business, name doesn't matter, because they really need the Palm money.

But 30M is not enough, and so, layoffs. (Again)

Now PalmSource is of no real value to Palm as a corporate entity because Palm has the name back, and PalmSource is drifting into parts of the market, via CMS, that Palm's not interested in. So you can pretty much abandon your conspiracy/buy-back theory.

If PalmSource pulls this off, then there will be no value to Palm in buying them. If PalmSource doesn't, then Palm will pick up whatever IP they care about at the going-out-of-business sale. Given the job market in the valley, Palm would get to pick and chose among the freshly laid off PalmSource folk, so that would make more sense than trying to digest the organization whole and then pruning the dead weight.

Your view presumes Palm was run by complete idiots. They weren't. No doubt the "Idiot CEO Defence" (ICD) will probably start coming up a lot if PalmSource investors sue.

PalmSource, then has to pull a rabbit out of its hat before the cash runs out (mid '07, not late '06, Skippy) by:

1) welding Cobalt onto Linux making PaluxOS or whatever they're going to call it.

2) sign up a couple of major phone players as licensees and work with them to get smartphones to market

3) take advantage of whatever revenue they can get out of CMS' products in the feature-phone business

and

4) stay competitive against the various LinuxPhone players.

See, skippy, that's the part you keep missing. PalmSource's big competition isn't winmob. It's Linux.

I hope they realize that.

Besides your timing and the fact that Windows Mobile, Symbian AND Linux are the competition, your final statements are (at last!) correct. But even if PalmSource fails, a 133t Linux Lord like you can easily latch onto another Linux phone OS provider and continue feeding on a new host, undisturbed. I doubt it matters to you one way or another if PalmSource survives.

TVoR




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when..
sr4 @ 8/21/2005 3:30:15 PM # Q
I really do not want to become involved in this long running clash, but Ive always been a believer in that old saying "Do not attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence". I therefore agree mostly with Marty's interpretation, accept for some key details.


So, here's my view:

Palm split off PalmSource for what they thought were good reasons, but that turned out not to be. At time time there was still a lot of hubris surrounding POS, and they thought either it was worth a whole lot more than it was, or at the very least they could sell it for a whole lot more than it was worth.

PalmSource then floundered for a couple of years, while Palm intentionally bought the Treo as a result of having bought Handspring. They could see the convergence writing on the wall as well as anybody else, and this way it was just the family re-uniting.

PalmSource got desperate after they finished Cobalt and none of the licensees would pick it up, took a look at the market, and figured out that their best bet would be to give up on PDAs and "developers" and concentrate on the phone market.

Palm independently arrived at the same conclusion, but, unlike PalmSource, couldn't quite abandon the non-phones because it had two product lines in that area.

Meanwhile, PalmSource buys CMS and announces it's going into the Linux phone business. Neither TrueBelievers, nor DoomSayers seem to completely understand what that means yet. Actually, it's not all that clear that having done it PalmSource understands what it means.

Still later, Palm, experimented with alternative OSes, and realizes that the Palm name is the only way to transition the true believers to another OS. To maintain at least some of the 'Classic Coke' base they needed to keep the nostalgia of the Palm name. 30M is well worth it.

Now PalmSource is of no real value to Palm as a corporate entity because Palm has the name back, and PalmSource is drifting into parts of the market, via CMS, that Palm's not interested in.

If PalmSource pulls this off, then there will be no value to Palm in buying them. If PalmSource doesn't, then Palm will pick up whatever IP they care about at the going-out-of-business sale. Given the job market in the valley, Palm would get to pick and chose among the freshly laid off PalmSource folk, so that would make more sense than trying to digest the organization whole and then pruning the dead weight.

PalmSource, then has to pull a rabbit out of its hat before the cash runs out by:

1) welding Cobalt onto Linux making PaluxOS or whatever they're going to call it. This is difficult, and lead to major compatibility issues with old Palm software.

2) sign up a couple of major phone players as licensees and work with them to get smartphones to market. This is unlikely to happen, despite LG signing up.

3) take advantage of whatever revenue they can get out of CMS' products in the feature-phone business. Talk about the tail waging the dog. With income from POS licensees drying up, its preposterous to expect this small Chinese Linux software maker to support the large American POS bureaucracy.

and

4) stay competitive against the various LinuxPhone players.

I agree to a degree. PalmSource's big competition isn't winmob. It's Linux. Plus to get the value add of the PDA platform why not go Win Mob for the more vibrant base and better support?

PalmSource is doomed, and with it POS. No matter what our positions, I think the stock price shows most investors agree.

Surur

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/21/2005 5:28:36 PM # Q
> Plus to get the value add of the PDA platform why not go Win
> Mob for the more vibrant base and better support?

Well, that works for players like Dell, who are in the grey box business anyway, but for Palm, who need a market differentiator in the software, as well as the hardware, it's not such an obivous play.

> PalmSource is doomed, and with it POS. No matter what our
> positions, I think the stock price shows most investors agree.

The market cap certainly reflects the apparent belief that the company should be valued at slightly more than its cash holdings.

But I'm not so sure about the doomed bit. Somebody has to come out of the linux wars as winner, and provided that PalmSource gets their act together, it could still be them. I'll wait until this time next year before I start speclating on who is going to come out of that thicket in front.


RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/21/2005 6:32:15 PM # Q

We've heard that quote being trotted out with increasing frequency (Hmmmm...) in recent months, Surur, but you have been deceived.

The quote you need to remember is the following:

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save [Palm], but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Thank you very much.

- Eric "G. G." Benhamou


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/21/2005 6:52:06 PM # Q
I really do not want to become involved in this long running clash, but Ive always been a believer in that old saying "Do not attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence".

We've heard that quote being trotted out with increasing frequency (Hmmmm...) in recent months, Surur, but you have been deceived.

The quote you need to remember is the following:

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save [Palm], but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Thank you very much.

- Eric "G. G." Benhamou



------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/21/2005 8:59:42 PM # Q
> Golly gee whiz. So you have in depth knowledge about
> PalmSource but somehow you are only familiar with FOUR of
> their licensees?

Jeez Skippy, where'd you get the idea I had "in depth knowledge"? I've certainly never claimed that. All I've done so far is use the public record to correct various erroneous
claims made here, and offered my own opinion.

> $5 or 6 million/month is peanuts for a company under INTENSE
> pressures to produce a STABLE multi-platform OS using a
> kernel they aren't familiar with, a core environment that has
> NEVER been field tested by consumers, and having to maintain
> backward compatibility with legacy applications.

Well, I'm sure "multi-platform" will turn out to mean something special to you, Skippy, but to OS developers it means doing on OS on multiple instruction set architectures. PalmSource has never claimed they're going to do that.

But help me out here, Skippy. In one post, you say $5M / month for 2 years isn't enough money. In another, you say that the whole thing could be done by consultants & contractors for $20M. Which is it, Skippy, $5M / month over 2 years, or $20M.

> Income will likely be $50 million for the current Financial
> Year. You are correct in one thing, though: I don't know how
> much China MobileSoft will contribute. But as a startup
> that's barely getting off the ground in China, I doubt it
> would be a good idea to parasitize CMS' profits (if any) to
> prop up a failing/flailing PalmSource.

Well, lets use your numbers. $100m in the bank + $100m revenue over two years = $200M. $200M / 6M = 33 months. So even if you don't use CMS' revenue and you do use your guestimated burn rate, you still don't run out of money in 15 months. Looks to me like you're off by a factor of 2 there, Skippy.

> You're obviously unaware of The Voice of Reason's Corollary
> to Brooke's Law: "Not adding manpower to a late software
> makes it worse."

Ah. I see. You're not a software developer. Thanks for the insight.

> Regarding the development timeline, no I'm not wanting them
> to fail. But based on what I've been advised by developers
> who were familiar with where PalmSource's PalmLinux
> components were at PalmSource and also what a little
> DeepThroated bird has told me, unless the outsourcing is
> ramped up, they will fail.

Well, given the accuracy of your sources at PalmSource so far, that's not exactly a compelling argument, there Skippy.

> Wonder what those milestones are and how likely PalmSource is
> to hit them.

Didn't your little bird tell you, Skippy? Huh? Thought an insider like you would know those things. Guess not.

But that's the whole point skippy. You don't know what the milestones are. You don't know what the state of the code is. You don't even know who is working on what. Tough to make accurate predictions based on evidence that slim.

> The "firesale" refers to Palm buying the ENTIRE PalmSource
> back for pennies on the dollar. The cherry picking you
> envision won't happen, as was the case with BeOS. Once The
> Reunification of Palm is complete, they are right back where
> they would have been had the "split" never happened, except
> they're now a couple hundred million $$$ richer, thanks to
> the IPOs, the Palm name "sale", etc. All courtesy of a few
> thousand SUCKERS known as "investors". Thanks for helping
> out, guys! You've been a big help. But gotta go now!

Um, Skippy? About that couple hundred million? For there to be a firesale, PalmSource will have had to spend it all. There won't be a couple hundred million left. There'll be the source code for PaluxOS, worth, you seem to think, very little.

> Besides your timing and the fact that Windows Mobile, Symbian
> AND Linux are the competition, your final statements are (at
> last!) correct. But even if PalmSource fails, a 133t Linux
> Lord like you can easily latch onto another Linux phone OS
> provider and continue feeding on a new host, undisturbed. I
> doubt it matters to you one way or another if PalmSource
> survived.

Jeez, which is it Skippy? Am I a paid booster, one of the losing slobs at Palmsource, a l33t Linux Lord, or whatever other contradictory things you've guessed me to be?

You keep guessing who I am and what I do, Skippy. Given enough tries, you'll trip over it eventually.

Marty: Bwahahaha!
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/21/2005 10:37:04 PM # Q
Marty you just made me laugh so hard I sprayed Coke (as in Cola - not the stuff you appear to have been snorting) over my monitor.

> Golly gee whiz. So you have in depth knowledge about
> PalmSource but somehow you are only familiar with FOUR of
> their licensees?

Jeez Skippy, where'd you get the idea I had "in depth knowledge"? I've certainly never claimed that. All I've done so far is use the public record to correct various erroneous
claims made here, and offered my own opinion.

Gosh, Marty. You mean to say everything you've said here about PalmSource is derived from your ability to "use the public record"? Wow - you must be one clever "user"! [KnowWhatImean, Vern?] Too bad you only came across FOUR PalmOS licensees during your searches of "the public record".

Come on Marty. Remember what I said about how to Astroturf properly. You're supposed to make people believe you DON'T work for PalmSource. Got it now?

> $5 or 6 million/month is peanuts for a company under INTENSE
> pressures to produce a STABLE multi-platform OS using a
> kernel they aren't familiar with, a core environment that has
> NEVER been field tested by consumers, and having to maintain
> backward compatibility with legacy applications.

Well, I'm sure "multi-platform" will turn out to mean something special to you, Skippy, but to OS developers it means doing on OS on multiple instruction set architectures. PalmSource has never claimed they're going to do that.

No, I meant working for both smartphones and regular PDAs. I hope you'll forgive me if that wasn't clear to you, Marty.

But help me out here, Skippy. In one post, you say $5M / month for 2 years isn't enough money. In another, you say that the whole thing could be done by consultants & contractors for $20M. Which is it, Skippy, $5M / month over 2 years, or $20M.

I think you're starting to invent things I said, Marty. I estimated that with the dumping of their dedicated former employees, PalmSource slashed their burn rate down to around $6 million/month. It has around $100 million in cash, short-term and long-term investments (not all of this can be quickly converted to fuel for PalmSource to burn, by the way). I also suggested it will take in around $45 - 50 million from licensees over the next year. I also said that "A Lean Palm might burn as little as $5 - 6 million/month, likely at the expense of any real productivity." As you know, if your company does not get PalmLinux out by next Fall (that would be 2006 if your name is Marty), you can probably kiss your future goodbye. PalmSource needs to deliver the goods NOW, and that means outsourcing (that "$20 million" is in addition to - not instead of continued spending), hiring extra staff, overtime, etc. if they plan to deliver on PalmLinux before the end of 2006. Doing this will cost money, Marty. A lot of money.

As I said earlier in this thread: "$5 or 6 million/month is peanuts for a company under INTENSE pressures to produce a STABLE multi-platform OS using a kernel they aren't familiar with, a core environment that has NEVER been field tested by consumers, and having to maintain backward compatibility with legacy applications. Not to mention that there is no room for error, since its primary customers - cellphone providers - will not likely give PalmSource a second chance should they pull the same kind of crap they did with PalmOS 6 (Cobalt) and ship the OS a year before it was even vaguely stable. On top of this, PalmSource's competitors - Windows Mobile, Symbian and Linux derivatives are already out and being used on real devices by real people. Not many companies can realistically expect to overcome those kind of odds. $5 or 6 million/month is not enough for a company on it's final of 9 lives to be spending."

Now if PalmSource plans to take the cheapest way out and continue on doing everything the Cobalt way (all by themselves and at a glacial pace with Arrogant Be A$$es making decisions) then they can spread that $150 million out however they choose. They could easily last two or more years at that rate, but it wouldn't matter, since they would have no market for PalmLinux by the time it was finished. IF if ever got finished. In fact, firing most of their staff and entering Full Bunker Mode might allow PalmSource to last four more years, but what would be the point? Why bother waste everyone's time if you have no intention to compete on the same level as Windows Mobile, Symbial and other Linux derivatives? I would be shocked if PalmSource has chosen to avoid the necessary expenses and continues to just slowly fade away. If PalmSource has not doubled its spending plans for the next year, it truly DESERVES to get Netscaped in 2007.

> Income will likely be $50 million for the current Financial
> Year. You are correct in one thing, though: I don't know how
> much China MobileSoft will contribute. But as a startup
> that's barely getting off the ground in China, I doubt it
> would be a good idea to parasitize CMS' profits (if any) to
> prop up a failing/flailing PalmSource.

Well, lets use your numbers. $100m in the bank + $100m revenue over two years = $200M. $200M / 6M = 33 months. So even if you don't use CMS' revenue and you do use your guestimated burn rate, you still don't run out of money in 15 months. Looks to me like you're off by a factor of 2 there, Skippy.

PalmSource doesn't HAVE two years, Marty. If they can't deliver PalmLinux in 2006 they are dead as an OS company. Sorry pal.

> You're obviously unaware of The Voice of Reason's Corollary
> to Brooke's Law: "Not adding manpower to a late software
> makes it worse."

Ah. I see. You're not a software developer. Thanks for the insight.

You're welcome. Make sure to reference me when you use that line in the future.

> Regarding the development timeline, no I'm not wanting them
> to fail. But based on what I've been advised by developers
> who were familiar with where PalmSource's PalmLinux
> components were at PalmSource and also what a little
> DeepThroated bird has told me, unless the outsourcing is
> ramped up, they will fail.

Well, given the accuracy of your sources at PalmSource so far, that's not exactly a compelling argument, there Skippy.

If you say so, Marty. Make sure to bookmark this thread and come back next year to see who was right. How do you like your crow served?

> Wonder what those milestones are and how likely PalmSource is
> to hit them.

Didn't your little bird tell you, Skippy? Huh? Thought an insider like you would know those things. Guess not.

But that's the whole point skippy. You don't know what the milestones are. You don't know what the state of the code is. You don't even know who is working on what. Tough to make accurate predictions based on evidence that slim.

Jeez Marty, where'd you get the idea I was "an insider"? I've certainly never claimed that. And no, the little bird didn't tell me what milestones PalmSource must reach, Marty. Not the kind of thing I would ever ask. And some people don't divulge secrets that can't be determined by "[using] the public record". That would be illegal, now wouldn't it?

> The "firesale" refers to Palm buying the ENTIRE PalmSource
> back for pennies on the dollar. The cherry picking you
> envision won't happen, as was the case with BeOS. Once The
> Reunification of Palm is complete, they are right back where
> they would have been had the "split" never happened, except
> they're now a couple hundred million $$$ richer, thanks to
> the IPOs, the Palm name "sale", etc. All courtesy of a few
> thousand SUCKERS known as "investors". Thanks for helping
> out, guys! You've been a big help. But gotta go now!

Um, Skippy? About that couple hundred million? For there to be a firesale, PalmSource will have had to spend it all. There won't be a couple hundred million left. There'll be the source code for PaluxOS, worth, you seem to think, very little.

Ummmm... Marty, how much did PalmSource make from its stock offering? [Hint: I already mentioned one of its offerings and it's a lot less than a couple hundred million $$$.] And how much did PalmOne make? [Hint: the two together made over $700 MILLION on the IPO.]

> Besides your timing and the fact that Windows Mobile, Symbian
> AND Linux are the competition, your final statements are (at
> last!) correct. But even if PalmSource fails, a 133t Linux
> Lord like you can easily latch onto another Linux phone OS
> provider and continue feeding on a new host, undisturbed. I
> doubt it matters to you one way or another if PalmSource
> survived.

Jeez, which is it Skippy? Am I a paid booster, one of the losing slobs at Palmsource, a l33t Linux Lord, or whatever other contradictory things you've guessed me to be?

You are all those things and so much more, Marty Fouts. So much more. I would say what, but Ryan would delete it.

You keep guessing who I am and what I do, Skippy. Given enough tries, you'll trip over it eventually.

No need to guess, Marty. You got outed within days of your arrival at Palminfocenter. That's gotta hurt. Maybe one of the Brilliant Be Engineers can give you a big hug? I feel your pain, Martyr. I mean Marty.

Ta Ta For Now, Mr. Fouts.


TVoR

- Investigative journalist
- Palm pundit
- President of the Mike Cane Fanclub
- CLIE maven
- Astroturf mower
- 133t PalmOS k0d3r (PDA ToolBox, Baby!)
- Treo 600 victim
- PalmOS advocate
- <><
- ;-O

P.S. Please post more, Marty. You're even more fun than Ska, BubbaSteve, MikeCon and a dozen monkeys.



------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

PSRC: Circling the Toilet
Gekko @ 8/21/2005 11:07:52 PM # Q
Marty: Bwahahaha!
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/22/2005 1:53:01 AM # Q
Marty you just made me laugh so hard I sprayed Coke (as in Cola - not the stuff you appear to have been snorting) over my monitor.

> Golly gee whiz. So you have in depth knowledge about
> PalmSource but somehow you are only familiar with FOUR of
> their licensees?

Jeez Skippy, where'd you get the idea I had "in depth knowledge"? I've certainly never claimed that. All I've done so far is use the public record to correct various erroneous
claims made here, and offered my own opinion.

Gosh, Marty. You mean to say everything you've said here about PalmSource is derived from your ability to "use the public record"? Wow - you must be one clever "user"! [KnowWhatImean, Vern?] Too bad you only came across FOUR PalmOS licensees during your searches of "the public record".

Come on Marty. Remember what I said about how to Astroturf properly. You're supposed to make people believe you DON'T work for PalmSource. Got it now?

> $5 or 6 million/month is peanuts for a company under INTENSE
> pressures to produce a STABLE multi-platform OS using a
> kernel they aren't familiar with, a core environment that has
> NEVER been field tested by consumers, and having to maintain
> backward compatibility with legacy applications.

Well, I'm sure "multi-platform" will turn out to mean something special to you, Skippy, but to OS developers it means doing on OS on multiple instruction set architectures. PalmSource has never claimed they're going to do that.

No, I meant working for both smartphones and regular PDAs. I hope you'll forgive me if that wasn't clear to you, Marty.

But help me out here, Skippy. In one post, you say $5M / month for 2 years isn't enough money. In another, you say that the whole thing could be done by consultants & contractors for $20M. Which is it, Skippy, $5M / month over 2 years, or $20M.

I think you're starting to invent things I said, Marty. I estimated that with the dumping of their dedicated former employees, PalmSource slashed their burn rate down to around $6 million/month. It has around $100 million in cash, short-term and long-term investments (not all of this can be quickly converted to fuel for PalmSource to burn, by the way). I also suggested it will take in around $45 - 50 million from licensees over the next year. I also said that "A Lean Palm might burn as little as $5 - 6 million/month, likely at the expense of any real productivity." As you know, if your company does not get PalmLinux out by next Fall (that would be 2006 if your name is Marty), you can probably kiss your future goodbye. PalmSource needs to deliver the goods NOW, and that means outsourcing (that "$20 million" is in addition to - not instead of continued spending), hiring extra staff, overtime, etc. if they plan to deliver on PalmLinux before the end of 2006. Doing this will cost money, Marty. A lot of money.

As I said earlier in this thread: "$5 or 6 million/month is peanuts for a company under INTENSE pressures to produce a STABLE multi-platform OS using a kernel they aren't familiar with, a core environment that has NEVER been field tested by consumers, and having to maintain backward compatibility with legacy applications. Not to mention that there is no room for error, since its primary customers - cellphone providers - will not likely give PalmSource a second chance should they pull the same kind of crap they did with PalmOS 6 (Cobalt) and ship the OS a year before it was even vaguely stable. On top of this, PalmSource's competitors - Windows Mobile, Symbian and Linux derivatives are already out and being used on real devices by real people. Not many companies can realistically expect to overcome those kind of odds. $5 or 6 million/month is not enough for a company on it's final of 9 lives to be spending."

Now if PalmSource plans to take the cheapest way out and continue on doing everything the Cobalt way (all by themselves and at a glacial pace with Arrogant Be A$$es making decisions) then they can spread that $150 million out however they choose. They could easily last two or more years at that rate, but it wouldn't matter, since they would have no market for PalmLinux by the time it was finished. IF if ever got finished. In fact, firing most of their staff and entering Full Bunker Mode might allow PalmSource to last four more years, but what would be the point? Why bother waste everyone's time if you have no intention to compete on the same level as Windows Mobile, Symbial and other Linux derivatives? I would be shocked if PalmSource has chosen to avoid the necessary expenses and continues to just slowly fade away. If PalmSource has not doubled its spending plans for the next year, it truly DESERVES to get Netscaped in 2007.

> Income will likely be $50 million for the current Financial
> Year. You are correct in one thing, though: I don't know how
> much China MobileSoft will contribute. But as a startup
> that's barely getting off the ground in China, I doubt it
> would be a good idea to parasitize CMS' profits (if any) to
> prop up a failing/flailing PalmSource.

Well, lets use your numbers. $100m in the bank + $100m revenue over two years = $200M. $200M / 6M = 33 months. So even if you don't use CMS' revenue and you do use your guestimated burn rate, you still don't run out of money in 15 months. Looks to me like you're off by a factor of 2 there, Skippy.

PalmSource doesn't HAVE two years, Marty. If they can't deliver PalmLinux in 2006 they are dead as an OS company. Sorry pal.

> You're obviously unaware of The Voice of Reason's Corollary
> to Brooke's Law: "Not adding manpower to a late software
> makes it worse."

Ah. I see. You're not a software developer. Thanks for the insight.

You're welcome. Make sure to reference me when you use that line in the future.

> Regarding the development timeline, no I'm not wanting them
> to fail. But based on what I've been advised by developers
> who were familiar with where PalmSource's PalmLinux
> components were at PalmSource and also what a little
> DeepThroated bird has told me, unless the outsourcing is
> ramped up, they will fail.

Well, given the accuracy of your sources at PalmSource so far, that's not exactly a compelling argument, there Skippy.

If you say so, Marty. Make sure to bookmark this thread and come back next year to see who was right. How do you like your crow served?

> Wonder what those milestones are and how likely PalmSource is
> to hit them.

Didn't your little bird tell you, Skippy? Huh? Thought an insider like you would know those things. Guess not.

But that's the whole point skippy. You don't know what the milestones are. You don't know what the state of the code is. You don't even know who is working on what. Tough to make accurate predictions based on evidence that slim.

Jeez Marty, where'd you get the idea I was "an insider"? I've certainly never claimed that. And no, the little bird didn't tell me what milestones PalmSource must reach, Marty. Not the kind of thing I would ever ask. And some people don't divulge secrets that can't be determined by "[using] the public record". That would be illegal, now wouldn't it?

> The "firesale" refers to Palm buying the ENTIRE PalmSource
> back for pennies on the dollar. The cherry picking you
> envision won't happen, as was the case with BeOS. Once The
> Reunification of Palm is complete, they are right back where
> they would have been had the "split" never happened, except
> they're now a couple hundred million $$$ richer, thanks to
> the IPOs, the Palm name "sale", etc. All courtesy of a few
> thousand SUCKERS known as "investors". Thanks for helping
> out, guys! You've been a big help. But gotta go now!

Um, Skippy? About that couple hundred million? For there to be a firesale, PalmSource will have had to spend it all. There won't be a couple hundred million left. There'll be the source code for PaluxOS, worth, you seem to think, very little.

Ummmm... Marty, how much did PalmSource make from its stock offering? [Hint: I already mentioned one of its offerings and it's a lot less than a couple hundred million $$$.] And how much did PalmOne make? [Hint: the two together made over $700 MILLION on the IPO.]

> Besides your timing and the fact that Windows Mobile, Symbian
> AND Linux are the competition, your final statements are (at
> last!) correct. But even if PalmSource fails, a 133t Linux
> Lord like you can easily latch onto another Linux phone OS
> provider and continue feeding on a new host, undisturbed. I
> doubt it matters to you one way or another if PalmSource
> survived.

Jeez, which is it Skippy? Am I a paid booster, one of the losing slobs at Palmsource, a l33t Linux Lord, or whatever other contradictory things you've guessed me to be?

You are all those things and so much more, Marty Fouts. So much more. I would say what, but Ryan would delete it.

You keep guessing who I am and what I do, Skippy. Given enough tries, you'll trip over it eventually.

No need to guess, Marty. You got outed within days of your arrival at Palminfocenter. That's gotta hurt. Maybe one of the Brilliant Be Engineers can give you a big hug? I feel your pain, Martyr. I mean Marty.

Ta Ta For Now, Mr. Fouts.


TVoR

- Investigative journalist
- Palm pundit
- President of the Mike Cane Fanclub
- CLIE maven
- Astroturf mower
- 133t PalmOS k0d3r (PDA ToolBox, Baby!)
- Treo 600 victim
- PalmOS advocate
- <><
- ;-O

P.S. Please post more, Marty. You're even more fun than Ska, BubbaSteve, MikeCon and a dozen monkeys.



------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/22/2005 3:26:43 AM # Q
>> Well, I'm sure "multi-platform" will turn out to mean
>> something special to you, Skippy, but to OS developers it
>> means doing on OS on multiple instruction set architectures.
>> PalmSource has never claimed they're going to do that.

> No, I meant working for both smartphones and regular PDAs. I
> hope you'll forgive me if that wasn't clear to you, Marty.

Oh. Dear. Skippy's confused again. It already works on smartphones and PDAs, Skippy. Not as well as you'd like, but PalmOS runs on the Tungsten and the Treo.

> As you know, if your company does not get PalmLinux out by
> next Fall, you can probably kiss your future goodbye.

Poor TVoR, confused, still, after all this time. PalmSource doesn't have to have anything out in calendar Fall '06. They never claimed they would, and no one expects them to. Palm and LG, knowing that, have both signed on for PaluxOS.

> PalmSource needs to deliver the goods NOW, and that means
> outsourcing (that "$20 million" is in addition to - not
> instead of continued spending), hiring extra staff, overtime,
> etc. if they plan to deliver on PalmLinux before the end of
> 2006.

Ah, poor TVoR, confused again. Bad news for you Skippy, programmers are exempt employees. You don't pay them overtime. And anyone who is at all familiar with the business will tell you that accelerating schedules on integration projects is not achieved by outsourcing.

> Now if PalmSource plans to take the cheapest way out and
> continue on doing everything the Cobalt way (all by
> themselves and at a glacial pace with Arrogant Be A$$es
> making decisions) then they can spread that $150 million out
> however they choose.

It's 200 million, Skippy. There's 2 years left. But even 150 million at 6m/month is more than enough to get through the 2nd calendar quarter of '07, Skippy.

> They could easily last two or more years at that rate, but it
> wouldn't matter, since they would have no market for
> PalmLinux by the time it was finished.

Well, see Skippy, that's where your argument's the weakest. There's plenty of market for linux phones. it is growing, not shrinking. And second place tends to make a lot more money than bleeding edge in those markets. Given that you divide 150m by 6m and come up with a number < 12, I'm not sure it'd be too wise for anyone to rely terribly hard on your say-so and you haven't made any arguments to support your claim.

> PalmSource doesn't HAVE two years. If they can't deliver
> PalmLinux in 2006 they are dead as an OS company.

Oops. Confused again. PalmSource got out of the OS business in December, Skippy. They're in the smartphone feature set business now. It's not clear they understand that yet, but that's what they do now.

> Jeez, where'd you get the idea I was "an insider"? I've
> certainly never claimed that.

Ah, you have an unusual definition of "insider", there Skippy. One who claims to have "deep tonsils" or whatever you call your imaginary informant, is considered an "insider" by the SEC.

I won't bet you on whether PalmSource is still in business in calendar q3 '06, because their low market cap makes them a fascinating target for some kinds of dismantlers, and I have no knowledge of the financial markets.

I hope you don't mind I left out all the parts where you repeated yourself, skippy. Especially since you seem to have posted this message twice, and at this point, I'd be surprised if anyone other than you and I are following our exchanges.


RE: circling the wagons.
PenguinPowered @ 8/22/2005 3:54:40 AM # Q
It's drain, gekko. the analogy you wanted was 'circling the drain'.

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/22/2005 10:46:27 AM # Q
It's drain, gekko. the analogy you wanted was 'circling the drain'.

No, it's "swirling in the toilet"... and about to get flushed.


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/22/2005 10:50:02 AM # Q
>> Well, I'm sure "multi-platform" will turn out to mean
>> something special to you, Skippy, but to OS developers it
>> means doing on OS on multiple instruction set architectures.
>> PalmSource has never claimed they're going to do that.

> No, I meant working for both smartphones and regular PDAs. I
> hope you'll forgive me if that wasn't clear to you, Marty.

Oh. Dear. Skippy's confused again. It already works on smartphones and PDAs, Skippy. Not as well as you'd like, but PalmOS runs on the Tungsten and the Treo.

Since you appear to have forgotten, we were talking about PalmLinux, Marty. And last I heard it doesn't run in stable condition on ANY class of device.

> As you know, if your company does not get PalmLinux out by
> next Fall, you can probably kiss your future goodbye.

Poor TVoR, confused, still, after all this time. PalmSource doesn't have to have anything out in calendar Fall '06. They never claimed they would, and no one expects them to. Palm and LG, knowing that, have both signed on for PaluxOS.

Marty, if you cannot produce PalmLinux in 2006 it will be time to turn off the lights at PalmSource. Denying this publicly doesn't change the desperate reality PalmSource is faced with.

> PalmSource needs to deliver the goods NOW, and that means
> outsourcing (that "$20 million" is in addition to - not
> instead of continued spending), hiring extra staff, overtime,
> etc. if they plan to deliver on PalmLinux before the end of
> 2006.

Ah, poor TVoR, confused again. Bad news for you Skippy, programmers are exempt employees. You don't pay them overtime. And anyone who is at all familiar with the business will tell you that accelerating schedules on integration projects is not achieved by outsourcing.

It doesn't matter how PalmSource does it, but they need to produce results in less than half the time it took for the Be refugees to defecate the OS known as Cobalt.

> Now if PalmSource plans to take the cheapest way out and
> continue on doing everything the Cobalt way (all by
> themselves and at a glacial pace with Arrogant Be A$$es
> making decisions) then they can spread that $150 million out
> however they choose.

It's 200 million, Skippy. There's 2 years left. But even 150 million at 6m/month is more than enough to get through the 2nd calendar quarter of '07, Skippy.

Wrong on both counts, Marty. PalmSource has only one year left to produce results. (By the way, they would be set to receive only $35 million from Palm in 2007. Please try to keep up.)

> They could easily last two or more years at that rate, but it
> wouldn't matter, since they would have no market for
> PalmLinux by the time it was finished.

Well, see Skippy, that's where your argument's the weakest. There's plenty of market for linux phones. it is growing, not shrinking. And second place tends to make a lot more money than bleeding edge in those markets. Given that you divide 150m by 6m and come up with a number < 12, I'm not sure it'd be too wise for anyone to rely terribly hard on your say-so and you haven't made any arguments to support your claim.

Again, as said before, PalmOS is quickly becoming an also-ran in the mobile OS world. Windows Mobile, Symbian and othe Linux variants aren't sitting still waiting for PalmSource to get its act together. They're too busy taking over the market. The only reason PalmOS still has ANY presence at all is because up until now the only way to get the best smartphone hardware design (Treo 600/650) was to use PalmOS. And guess what? That's all about to change. Sorry, Marty, but if you really feel PalmSource can step into the market in two years and achieve significant market share, you're delusional.

> PalmSource doesn't HAVE two years. If they can't deliver
> PalmLinux in 2006 they are dead as an OS company.

Oops. Confused again. PalmSource got out of the OS business in December, Skippy. They're in the smartphone feature set business now. It's not clear they understand that yet, but that's what they do now.

Do smartphones use an OS, Marty? Is PalmSource attempting to supply that?

> Jeez, where'd you get the idea I was "an insider"? I've
> certainly never claimed that.

Ah, you have an unusual definition of "insider", there Skippy. One who claims to have "deep tonsils" or whatever you call your imaginary informant, is considered an "insider" by the SEC.

So the SEC is defining an "insider" as someone with "deep tonsils", Marty? Oh dear.

I won't bet you on whether PalmSource is still in business in calendar q3 '06, because their low market cap makes them a fascinating target for some kinds of dismantlers, and I have no knowledge of the financial markets.

Wise choice.

I hope you don't mind I left out all the parts where you repeated yourself, skippy. Especially since you seem to have posted this message twice, and at this point, I'd be surprised if anyone other than you and I are following our exchanges.

The post was repeated to fix a formatting mistake near the end. Palminfocenter's posting software won't allow for corrections, in case you were not aware. Please feel free to continue pretending to not see the points that have been raised. Your "selective hearing" very is reminiscent of another legendary Palm Apologist named Jeff Kirvin and it's quite telling.

I actually think a lot of people are following this thread. It's been a rather revealing exposé of PalmSource's litany of problems, Astroturfing, and how NOT for a PalmSource employee to react to questions in public.

Take care, Martyr.

TVoR



------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
hkklife @ 8/22/2005 10:58:42 AM # Q
Not to digress, but I think vultures circling a survivor who is fading quickly under the midday sun presents a better analogy...

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/22/2005 11:24:53 AM # Q
Not to digress, but I think vultures circling a survivor who is fading quickly under the midday sun presents a better analogy...

... and the survivor is crawling on his hands and knees now towards the oasis, oblivious to the fact that it's just a mirage...

Isn't it amazing how Marty keeps coming back for more? Reading his posts is like seeing a train wreck in slow motion. It's too late to put the brakes now, on so just hold on and hope not too many PalmSource employees get killed...

;-O


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
twrock @ 8/22/2005 11:31:03 AM # Q
It's been a rather revealing exposé of PalmSource's litany of problems, Astroturfing, and how NOT for a PalmSource employee to react to questions in public.

"And you can be sure this is true because:
a) I said so.
b) I have taken an 'exit poll' and have the data right here to prove it: one of us is sure I'm right.
c) I find myself to be very convincing.
d) Any of the above anyone will believe."

http://tinyurl.com/7maap

(Wow, am I ever bored tonight!)

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
AdamaDBrown @ 8/22/2005 2:28:52 PM # Q
Palm and LG, knowing that, have both signed on for PaluxOS.

As little interest as I have in getting involved in this fight, I need to ask, where does it say that Palm and LG licensed PalmLinux? As far as I'm aware, they have simply licensed PalmOS. Given their history with Cobalt, I certainly can't see Palm immediately jumping on PalmLinux, and I don't think there's anything stopping them from continuing to use Garnet (God forbid).

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/22/2005 2:29:54 PM # Q
> If you cannot produce PalmLinux in 2006 it will be time to
> turn off the lights at PalmSource.

You keep making this claim. You keep forgetting to substantiate it.

> Again, as said before, PalmOS is quickly becoming an also-ran
> in the mobile OS world.

There's a long gap in your reasoning between 'also-ran' and 'turn out the lights', there Skippy. That's another gap in your argument.

> Do smartphones use an OS?

Why yes, they do Skippy.

> Is PalmSource attempting to supply that?

Why no, they're not. They're supplying a set of services that live on top of an OS that comes from someone else. You were paying attention back in December when they announced that, weren't you Skippy?

> Please feel free to continue pretending to not see the points
> that have been raised.

Points, Skippy? You asserted that PalmSource would run out of money in calendar 3q 06. Upon inspection, it turned out that you had calculated incorrectly. Even using your numbers ($150m available, 6m/month burn rate,) they don't run out of money at that point. (150/6 is 25, Skippy.)

You asserted that whether they run out of money or not, if they don't deliver product in calendar 3q 06 they'll fail. You offered as an argument to support that that they are currently losing ground in the market. While they are losing ground, they are working to an announced schedule and have signed up both Palm and LG on that schedule. Yes, Skippy, they have to deliver, but on the announced schedule, not yours.

Losing ground is not the same as going out of business, Skippy, and yes, there are many companies that have made up greater losses. (IBM, although sui generes, is the classic, repeating, example of this.) At HP we used to say that the time to enter a market was when you could see the competitors tail lights fading into the distance.

You assert that Palm will reabsorb PalmSource late next year if PalmSource fails to deliver. This is inconsistent with the announced schedule, and, based on your assumption that PalmOS is failing, makes no sense for Palm as a business move.

You also have some fantasy about there being a plot to bilk investors. And yes, I'm ignoring that one Skippy. It is amusing to read, but it comes with no evidence, and isn't relevant to a discussion about how PalmSource will do over the next couple of years.

Oh, and you keep guessing who I am and what I do. That's definitely generated a lot of laughs, keep at it.

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/22/2005 4:06:49 PM # Q
> If you cannot produce PalmLinux in 2006 it will be time to
> turn off the lights at PalmSource.

You keep making this claim. You keep forgetting to substantiate it.

All the evidence you need will probably be available in a year. Until then we await the closing moves of the endgame.

> Again, as said before, PalmOS is quickly becoming an also-ran
> in the mobile OS world.

There's a long gap in your reasoning between 'also-ran' and 'turn out the lights', there Skippy. That's another gap in your argument.

I seem to recall hearing similar statements about Netscape, WordPerfect, Amiga, etc, etc. As with many of these rationalizations, until the Day of Reckoning arrives, the Apologists traditionally attempt to reduce things to an "I said" vs. "He/she said" battle. We will all see who was correct in due course.

> Do smartphones use an OS?

Why yes, they do Skippy.

Amazing. You finally admit to something factual.

> Is PalmSource attempting to supply that?

Why no, they're not. They're supplying a set of services that live on top of an OS that comes from someone else. You were paying attention back in December when they announced that, weren't you Skippy?

So now the kernel is the entire OS? All Riiiiiiiiiiighty then.

> Please feel free to continue pretending to not see the points
> that have been raised.

Points, Skippy? You asserted that PalmSource would run out of money in calendar 3q 06. Upon inspection, it turned out that you had calculated incorrectly. Even using your numbers ($150m available, 6m/month burn rate,) they don't run out of money at that point. (150/6 is 25, Skippy.)

You need to read this thread over again, Marty. I hope for your sake you don't believe what you've just posted.

You asserted that whether they run out of money or not, if they don't deliver product in calendar 3q 06 they'll fail. You offered as an argument to support that that they are currently losing ground in the market. While they are losing ground, they are working to an announced schedule and have signed up both Palm and LG on that schedule. Yes, Skippy, they have to deliver, but on the announced schedule, not yours.

If PalmSource delivers "on the announced schedule", there will be no one waiting to sign for the package. As was the case with Cobalt, PalmLinux will be Returned To Sender.

Losing ground is not the same as going out of business, Skippy, and yes, there are many companies that have made up greater losses. (IBM, although sui generes, is the classic, repeating, example of this.) At HP we used to say that the time to enter a market was when you could see the competitors tail lights fading into the distance.

Yes, it all makes sense now. PalmSource is following HP's "strategy". Maybe they will go one better and wait until their competitors are crossing the finish line before entering the race. We definitely need more deep thinkers like you at PalmSource...

You assert that Palm will reabsorb PalmSource late next year if PalmSource fails to deliver. This is inconsistent with the announced schedule, and, based on your assumption that PalmOS is failing, makes no sense for Palm as a business move.

PalmOS 5 is still useful and PalmOS 7 will likely be serviceable in a couple years. Two assets worthy of a fire sale price. But the twist is the "split" and "Reunification" were all by design, funded by clueless investors. The "failure" of PalmSource merely makes it easier for Palm to complete the deal quickly.

You also have some fantasy about there being a plot to bilk investors. And yes, I'm ignoring that one Skippy. It is amusing to read, but it comes with no evidence, and isn't relevant to a discussion about how PalmSource will do over the next couple of years.

Fantasy? We'll see what relevance it has when the lawsuits start flying.

Oh, and you keep guessing who I am and what I do. That's definitely generated a lot of laughs, keep at it.

Guessing? I don't think so, Mr. Fouts. But maybe if you claim I'm guessing enough times someone here might actually believe you.

TVoR




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

"circling the toilet BOWL"
Gekko @ 8/22/2005 9:18:09 PM # Q

thanks for all the attempted corrections but the correct saying is "circling the toilet BOWL". forgive me for the omission, it was a rough ketel one weekend.



RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/22/2005 9:27:01 PM # Q
> So now the kernel is the entire OS? All Riiiiiiiiiiighty then.

Nope. Guess that's why PalmSource is using more from the open source community than just the kernel.

>> You asserted that PalmSource would run out of money in
>> calendar 3q 06. Upon inspection, it turned out that you had
>> calculated incorrectly. Even using your numbers ($150m
>> available, 6m/month burn rate,) they don't run out of money
>> at that point. (150/6 is 25, Skippy.)

> You need to read this thread over again. I hope for your sake
> you don't believe what you've just posted.

You've got it backwards, there Skippy. You're the one who made the claim that PalmSource would be out of money in 3q '06, based on bad assumptions and worse arithmetic. I merely pointed out the simple errors you had made.

> If PalmSource delivers "on the announced schedule", there
> will be no one waiting to sign for the package. As was the
> case with Cobalt, PalmLinux will be Returned To Sender.

You keep saying that Skippy, but, you keep failing to account for Palm and LG. As you say, we shall just have to see how this plays out.

> PalmOS 5 is still useful and PalmOS 7 will likely be
> serviceable in a couple years.

"A couple" Skippy? Meaning _two_? Meaning you agree with PalmSource that PaluxOS will be "servicable" on their schedule? So why, exactly is it that Palm signed up to wait "a couple years" but they'll suddenly change their mind half way through and buy PalmSource back, even though you think they'll get a servicable OS then?

And whatever happened to your argument that if PalmSource didn't deliver in a year the market would abandon them? You're trying to cover both sides, there Skippy.

>> Oh, and you keep guessing who I am and what I do. That's
>> definitely generated a lot of laughs, keep at it.

> Guessing? I don't think so. But maybe if you claim I'm
> guessing enough times someone here might actually believe you.

Yes, Skippy, guessing. You guessed at one time or another that I had a financial interest in Palm, that I was a contractor, that I was working of "fixing PalmOS", that I'd been a PalmSource employee long enough to know who Michael Mace was, that someone was paying me to post here, and other equally erroneous things. You also tried, by innuendo and clumsy probing several other ideas such as hinting that I worked for Dianne Hackborn, or worked on the PalmLinux demo at the DevCon. That's a batting average that'd get an MLB player sent to the minors, Skippy.

It also doesn't do much to establish the credibility of your supposed "sources" at PalmSource. But so much you claim to know from those sources is so easily countered with evidence from the public record, one wonders if they ever existed.

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/22/2005 9:57:21 PM # Q
> So now the kernel is the entire OS? All Riiiiiiiiiiighty then.

Nope. Guess that's why PalmSource is using more from the open source community than just the kernel.

So in Marty's World, "the open source community" is providing PalmSource the OS and PalmSource is "supplying a set of services that live on top of the OS". Wow. That's a classic line, Marty. Thanks for sharing. Will "the open source community" also cook and clean for you? Will "the open source community" pick up your dry cleaning? Polish your shoes? Mow your lawn? Walk your dog? Wash your car? Whoever hired you at PalmSource should have their head examined. Don't be surprised to hear "the open source community" tell you to go **** yourself. While it's been fun seeing those arrogant Be Boppers finally get their comeuppance, Marty's World sounds like just a different - but equally as tiresome - attitude for PalmSource. And Be careful that one of the Holy Be Engineers ("HoBeEn") doesn't shiv you in the bathroom or slip some cyanide into your Wissotzky...

>> You asserted that PalmSource would run out of money in
>> calendar 3q 06. Upon inspection, it turned out that you had
>> calculated incorrectly. Even using your numbers ($150m
>> available, 6m/month burn rate,) they don't run out of money
>> at that point. (150/6 is 25, Skippy.)

> You need to read this thread over again. I hope for your sake
> you don't believe what you've just posted.

You've got it backwards, there Skippy. You're the one who made the claim that PalmSource would be out of money in 3q '06, based on bad assumptions and worse arithmetic. I merely pointed out the simple errors you had made.

No, Marty it's quite simple really. If PalmSource accelerates OS production at a rate that will allow them to produce PalmLinux in time for it to possibly still matter in the big scheme of things (Fall, 2006) they will burn through their resources. If they continue at the estimated post-layoffs burn rate of $6 million/month they can last 2 - 3 years, but will not likely have a stable PalmLinux ready until mid/late 2007. That kind of delay is suicide for PalmSource as an INDEPENDENT company.

That makes the big assumption that they are really trying to be an independent OS company that sells the OS to anyone - including companies other than Palm. [But much as Apple eventually realized, Palm figured out the hard way that they need to control the OS if they want to survive. Once Palm reclaims PalmOS, expect licensing to come to an abrupt end.]

As a division of Palm, a 2007 release for PalmLinux is acceptable. They are already the only significant PalmOS vendor remaining and PalmLinux could complement their Windows Mobile Treos and allow Palm to differentiate themselves from all the other Windows Mobile + Linux smartphone vendors. Palm's $30 million $$$ "gift" to PalmSource makes sense as ultimately they are using investors' money to pay for development of something that will belong to Palm in the near future: PalmOS.

> If PalmSource delivers "on the announced schedule", there
> will be no one waiting to sign for the package. As was the
> case with Cobalt, PalmLinux will be Returned To Sender.

You keep saying that Skippy, but, you keep failing to account for Palm and LG. As you say, we shall just have to see how this plays out.

The final act will be Palm's takeout of PalmSource followed by an "exclusive" lineup of PalmLinux phones. Having a unique OS is the only way for Palm to avoid the commoditization it will quickly face in the smartphone market.

> PalmOS 5 is still useful and PalmOS 7 will likely be
> serviceable in a couple years.

"A couple" Skippy? Meaning _two_? Meaning you agree with PalmSource that PaluxOS will be "servicable" on their schedule? So why, exactly is it that Palm signed up to wait "a couple years" but they'll suddenly change their mind half way through and buy PalmSource back, even though you think they'll get a servicable OS then?

Because by reintegrating PalmSource and ending the licensing to PalmSource to other hardware vendors, Palm will once again own something that will differentiate their product from the hoarde of other smartphones out there. The only way this could blow up in Palm's face would be if several smartphone manufacturers take out longterm PalmOS licenses NOW, preventing PalmSource from having exclusive rights to PalmLinux after PalmSource is folded back into Palm. It would be interesting to see if current PalmSource licenses are rendered null and void if PalmSource gets bought out. The LG contract would definitely be an interesting read...

And whatever happened to your argument that if PalmSource didn't deliver in a year the market would abandon them? You're trying to cover both sides, there Skippy.

The market will abandon PalmSource, and this will play right into what Palm wants: exclusive rights to PalmLinux.

>> Oh, and you keep guessing who I am and what I do. That's
>> definitely generated a lot of laughs, keep at it.

> Guessing? I don't think so. But maybe if you claim I'm
> guessing enough times someone here might actually believe you.

Yes, Skippy, guessing. You guessed at one time or another that I had a financial interest in Palm, that I was a contractor, that I was working of "fixing PalmOS", that I'd been a PalmSource employee long enough to know who Michael Mace was, that someone was paying me to post here, and other equally erroneous things. You also tried, by innuendo and clumsy probing several other ideas such as hinting that I worked for Dianne Hackborn, or worked on the PalmLinux demo at the DevCon. That's a batting average that'd get an MLB player sent to the minors, Skippy.

It also doesn't do much to establish the credibility of your supposed "sources" at PalmSource. But so much you claim to know from those sources is so easily countered with evidence from the public record, one wonders if they ever existed.

Marty, I said you are a PalmSource employee involved with their Linux efforts. As an employee of PalmSource, you DO have a "financial interest" in the company, whether or not you choose to admit this publicly. I made NO statements as to how long you were working at PalmSource - but it is highly unlikely that anyone in your position would be unaware of the name of an individual that was the company's Chief Competitive Officer until a couple months ago. You still need to work on balancing the Insider vs. Regular Joe parts of your "PenguinPowered" character, Marty. Your Astroturfing lost all semblance of sublety at around your third post to PAlminfocenter...


TVoR



------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/22/2005 11:54:45 PM # Q
??? Do you know what the following 5 companies have in common with Palmsource???

- Dell
- Cisco
- Berkshire Hathaway
- Intuit
- Electronic Arts

They're all successful, well-managed companies with high quality, shipping product?




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/23/2005 1:02:52 AM # Q
poor Skippy. reduced to repeating himself and not a single line addressing any of comments, other than to deny what's in the record for all to see.

Palm's not going to buy PalmSource back in '06, or otherwise reabsorb them Skippy. They might get bought out by a dismantler, because their market cap is so close to their cash reserve, but that's an entirely different situation than anything you've put forth. In that case, Palm _might_ make a white knight offer, but that's the only way it makes any sense for them to buy PalmSource.

Palm's got no reason to buy PalmSource back. Either PalmSource is on track, in which case Palm's better off sharing the costs with other licensees, or they're not, in which case Palm's better off waiting for the bankruptcy and buying the IP at the firesale. (Provided they even have to do that. License contracts often have indemnity clauses that cover that case. Wouldn't surprise me if Palm gets PalmOS royalty free if PalmSource goes belly up.)

Even if you add in the 20M$ number you made up for how much extra PalmSource ought to spend, they still don't run out of money in 3q '06. (6*12, Skippy, is 72. That leaves them another 75M to spend on 'accelerating if they thought here was any reason.)

It *was* funny to see you pull 20M out of the air and then make the mistake of including 'overtime' in your description of cost. It's pretty obvious that whether you're a power user or not, Skippy, you don't understand the cost structure of computer software development.

You're not even consistent in your arguments about PaluxOS's chances. You can't have it be both as bad as Cobalt, implying that Palm would never use it and have it good enough in a couple of years (IE, the window in which PalmSource said they'd deliver it) that it'd be worth Palm buying the company for.

You've yet to explain why PalmSource, or anyone, for that matter would pay me to 'astroturf' by writing that I though PalmLinux was PalmSource's last chance. Kind of inconvenient for your theory of 'astroturfing', eh skippy?

I'd dig up the quotes where you made the various guesses about my relationship with Palm and PalmSource, but you and I both know what they were and no one else cares.

Right now you're just guessing I'm "involved with their Linux effort" because I picked a Linux related handle here and because I've written a few knowledgable things about Linux on ARM. I suppose you could be vaguer than "involved with", but I can't imagine how.

You should spend less time guessing who other people are and what they do and more time double checking your arithmetic before you post.


RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/23/2005 1:33:35 AM # Q
> They're all successful, well-managed companies with high
> quality, shipping product?

Berkshire Hathaway doesn't ship anything, skippy. It's a holding company.



RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/23/2005 2:01:24 AM # Q
poor Skippy. reduced to repeating himself and not a single line addressing any of comments, other than to deny what's in the record for all to see.

Come on, Marty. Don't give up so easily. I've given given you so much to try and respond to and that's the best you can do?

Palm's not going to buy PalmSource back in '06, or otherwise reabsorb them Skippy. They might get bought out by a dismantler, because their market cap is so close to their cash reserve, but that's an entirely different situation than anything you've put forth. In that case, Palm _might_ make a white knight offer, but that's the only way it makes any sense for them to buy PalmSource.

I've explained precisely when and why Palm will be folding PalmSource back into the company. When it happens will your excuse be "But it was just a white knight move"? And what will you say when licensing of PalmOS to other companies is stopped? Have you yet prepared an explanation for how the Reunification of Palm will be viewed by former PalmSource and palmOne investors that lost their shirts in Benhamou's little shell game? It will be interesting to see if Palm walks away from the inevitable lawsuits with Benhamou's trademark smirk intact.

Palm's got no reason to buy PalmSource back. Either PalmSource is on track, in which case Palm's better off sharing the costs with other licensees, or they're not, in which case Palm's better off waiting for the bankruptcy and buying the IP at the firesale. (Provided they even have to do that. License contracts often have indemnity clauses that cover that case. Wouldn't surprise me if Palm gets PalmOS royalty free if PalmSource goes belly up.)

As I indicated before, besides the (inevitably-cloned) Treo 600/650 shell, Palm has NOTHING of value to sustain its business model. Shortterm it will cash in with the Windows Mobile Treos, but as "Just Another WinMob Licensee", it will quickly be in rough shape. Other JAWLs will eventually provide better hardware than Palm both cheaper and faster due to economies of scale and greater resources. Palm has been on a shoestring budget for years and lacks the money needed to make money. Were it not for the Treo 600, Palm might already have gone bankrupt by now.

Palm needs to return to the position Apple is in again: in control of both hardware and OS. Like a hobo desperately trying to get out of town before the sherrif throws their sorry a$$ in jail, Palm is hoping to get on the PalmLinux train while no one is looking. That train has barely left the station and is not even close to being up to speed yet. But it's all Palm has got. PalmOS is what Palm needs to make themselves unique in a market of Windows Mobile and Linux clones. But it's hard to be unique if any two bit Asian ODM willing to cough up a couple million $$$ can become a PalmOS licensee.

Even if you add in the 20M$ number you made up for how much extra PalmSource ought to spend, they still don't run out of money in 3q '06. (6*12, Skippy, is 72. That leaves them another 75M to spend on 'accelerating if they thought here was any reason.)

It *was* funny to see you pull 20M out of the air and then make the mistake of including 'overtime' in your description of cost. It's pretty obvious that whether you're a power user or not, Skippy, you don't understand the cost structure of computer software development.

As I've said repeatedly, the Fall 2006 bankruptcy scenario is predicated upon expected burn rates from PalmSource ramping up OS development aiming for a STABLE release of PalmLinux in 2006. If PalmSource chose to turn off the electricity, fire all but a dozen engineers and set up shop in Gassée's Garage, they might last 20 years, but in the end they would have no product of use to potential customers. If you choose to pretend to not understand this, be my guest. And I'll stand by my "$20 million" for expenses like hiring a few Linux Gurus to oversee several new codemonkey chaingangs, arranging the licensing of some core apps that PalmSource appears to be incapable of coding for themselves, etc.

If you disagree that it would take around $150 million to take PalmLinux from its current pre-pre-pre-pre-alpha stage to stable, shipping mobile OS within a year, why don't you post how much you feel it would cost, Marty? No doubt someone with your "vast" experience could give a ballpark figure. No doubt that figure would be pretty close to the $140 - 150 million I estimated. And no doubt you won't have the cojones to post your estimate for "PalmLinux 2006". That's OK, Marty. I FEEL your pain.

You're not even consistent in your arguments about PaluxOS's chances. You can't have it be both as bad as Cobalt, implying that Palm would never use it and have it good enough in a couple of years (IE, the window in which PalmSource said they'd deliver it) that it'd be worth Palm buying the company for.

Actually I'm always consistant. Only your interpretations vary. I can't control how your mind twists even the most straightforward of sentences. PalmLinux as it stands today (well, actually one month ago) is a "rough sketch" filled with a bunch of "palceholders that will be fleshed out later". Just because it isn't even yet beta-worthy doesn't mean the concepts are bad or that it will fail. Properly-executed and developed with adequate resources, it might eventually be a pretty decent OS. Maybe. But compatibility with legacy PalmOS apps is the key here and the proof will be in the pudding. Take away the PalmOS library and PalmLinux is about as noteworthy as the Coleco Adam's OS.

You've yet to explain why PalmSource, or anyone, for that matter would pay me to 'astroturf' by writing that I though PalmLinux was PalmSource's last chance. Kind of inconvenient for your theory of 'astroturfing', eh skippy?

I would think it's pretty obvious what your're doing here, Marty. You're here for the same reason so many of your people were trotted out to the various Palm sites/forums a couple months ago. Ask Ms. Hackborne and she'll let you in on the secret. (Secret only to people named Marty...) Nice attempt at deflection, though. [I occasionally say something negative about WinMob so people won't realize that my posts actually originate from within a compound in Redmond, Washington... Heil Bill!]

I'd dig up the quotes where you made the various guesses about my relationship with Palm and PalmSource, but you and I both know what they were and no one else cares.

Don't go getting lazy on me now, Marty.

Right now you're just guessing I'm "involved with their Linux effort" because I picked a Linux related handle here and because I've written a few knowledgable things about Linux on ARM. I suppose you could be vaguer than "involved with", but I can't imagine how.

Nice guess, Marty. Keep reaching. A more straightforward way of saying what you just did would have been: "Excuse me, TVoR. Could you please tell me how you knew who I was?" I actually would have told you.

You should spend less time guessing who other people are and what they do and more time double checking your arithmetic before you post.

If you say so, Marty. But I'm feeling a lot of negative energy from you right now. Don't be a hater. Take care.

TVoR




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
Rome @ 8/23/2005 10:10:19 AM # Q
"??? Do you know what the following 5 companies have in common with Palmsource???

- Dell
- Cisco
- Berkshire Hathaway
- Intuit
- Electronic Arts

They're all successful, well-managed companies with high quality, shipping product?"


High quality product and Dell in the same sentence:))

No, the one thing that the above 5 companies have in common with Palmsource is that none of them pays a dividend. Contrary to your implication, a non-dividend paying stock does not always mean a low-quality stock, and vice versa. There are many other reasons to knock Palmsource's financial performance, but lack of dividend is not one of them.


RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/23/2005 3:26:45 PM # Q
Lot of window there Skippy.

Hope you don't mind if I only comment on the tiny amount of new info you brought up.

> I've explained precisely when and why Palm will be folding
> PalmSource back into the company.

Well, except your "why" doesn't take into account that Palm has already agreed to wait longer than that; doesn't explain how Palm would be able to accelerate development if they did reabsorb PalmSource; doesn't correct the errors in your arithmetic; and doesn't explain why Palm would want to reabsorb if they get the IP for cheap when PalmSource goes belly up.

An explanation has to be at least plausible before anyone will take it seriously Skippy.

> When it happens will your excuse be "But it was just a white
> knight move"?

If it happens, it will be a white knight move only in a scenario along the lines I described, Skippy. You know, the ones that are commonly accepted as white knight moves. Let me spell it out for you. Palm buying PalmSource only qualifies as a white knight buy out if Palm does so after another company makes a bid for PalmSource that PalmSource doesn't want to accept.

> Palm needs to return to the position Apple is in again: in
> control of both hardware and OS.

As an aside Skippy, Apple's no more in control of the hardware than it ever was. It's just substituted Intel as its CPU vendor.

> I'll stand by my "$20 million" for expenses like hiring a few
> Linux Gurus to oversee several new codemonkey chaingangs,

A bit of advice, Skippy. You already demonstrated that you don't know anything about how software development is paid for when you mentioned "overtime". You don't need to further undermine your credibility with sentences like the above, in which you betray you don't even know what "Linux Gurus" do.

And yes, Skippy, I can do a better job of estimating costs than your wild number in the wind. And no Skippy, I don't respond to juvenile remarks about cojones. But it doesn't matter, since even using your estimates, PalmSource won't run out of money as early as you claimed.

> Just because [PalmOS] isn't even yet beta-worthy doesn't mean
> the concepts are bad or that it will fail.

That's right Skippy. That's why your doom'n'gloom scenario makes no sense, as pointed out above. PalmSource is on a schedule that Palm agreed to. There's no reason for them to accelerate it.

> A more straightforward way of saying what you just did would
> have been: "Excuse me, TVoR. Could you please tell me how you
> knew who I was?" I actually would have told you.

If you knew what I do, Skippy, you wouldn't have spent all that effort guessing, your latest guess wouldn't be as vague as "involved in their Linux effort", and you wouldn't be trying to change the subject rather than crispen your guess.

Skippy, Skippy, Skippy. Bad arithmetic, implausible explanations, multiple dumb comments about software development costs, little birdies inside PalmSource that can't even tell you what I do, and fantasies about plots to bilk shareholders. You're not doing much for your credibility. You'd better hope you're wrong in thinking we have an audience for this exchange and you and I are the only ones paying attention at this point.


There you are! I thought we'd lost you, Marty
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/23/2005 4:07:31 PM # Q
I hadn't heard from you in a while and was starting to worry about you, Marty.

Lot of window there Skippy.

Hope you don't mind if I only comment on the tiny amount of new info you brought up.

> I've explained precisely when and why Palm will be folding
> PalmSource back into the company.

Well, except your "why" doesn't take into account that Palm has already agreed to wait longer than that; doesn't explain how Palm would be able to accelerate development if they did reabsorb PalmSource; doesn't correct the errors in your arithmetic; and doesn't explain why Palm would want to reabsorb if they get the IP for cheap when PalmSource goes belly up.

An explanation has to be at least plausible before anyone will take it seriously Skippy.

Marty, as I said before, PalmLinux Treos in 2007 are Palm's last chance of staying solvent. If anyone else has access to PalmLinux Palm will be unable to compete. That $30 million "gift" to PalmSource is presumably earmarked towards accelerating PalmLinux development. As soon as Palm purchases PalmSource we'll likely hear that PalmLinux is (miraculously!) Ready For Prime Time. Since you insist on pretending to not understand the numbers re: PalmSource's burn rate it seems pointless explaining it to you. READ the thread again and then keep denying what you know to be true. If Palm was to go bankrupt, what's to prevent say, Microsoft from stepping in and buying PalmOS just to take it away from Palm? Somehow I think they could outbid Palm. Of course the "anticompetitive" can of worms might negate such a possibility. All things considered, the Palm takeout is the safest way to go and will likely happen sometime in 2006.

> When it happens will your excuse be "But it was just a white
> knight move"?

If it happens, it will be a white knight move only in a scenario along the lines I described, Skippy. You know, the ones that are commonly accepted as white knight moves. Let me spell it out for you. Palm buying PalmSource only qualifies as a white knight buy out if Palm does so after another company makes a bid for PalmSource that PalmSource doesn't want to accept.

And no doubt PalmSource will be sure to accept whatever Palm offers, since the Reunification will be "to ensure the future of the platform".

> Palm needs to return to the position Apple is in again: in
> control of both hardware and OS.

As an aside Skippy, Apple's no more in control of the hardware than it ever was. It's just substituted Intel as its CPU vendor.

"... in control of the hardware..." as in being the only company selling it. Apple killed off the Mac clones because it realized that people wanting Mac SOFTWARE would not keep paying through the nose to get Apple HARDWARE if a cheaper alternative existed. But I'm sure you were already aware of what I was implying.

> I'll stand by my "$20 million" for expenses like hiring a few
> Linux Gurus to oversee several new codemonkey chaingangs,

A bit of advice, Skippy. You already demonstrated that you don't know anything about how software development is paid for when you mentioned "overtime". You don't need to further undermine your credibility with sentences like the above, in which you betray you don't even know what "Linux Gurus" do.

And yes, Skippy, I can do a better job of estimating costs than your wild number in the wind. And no Skippy, I don't respond to juvenile remarks about cojones. But it doesn't matter, since even using your estimates, PalmSource won't run out of money as early as you claimed.

Oh my, Marty! I'm starting to feel a lot of negative energy from you again. If you want to talk about credibility, I'd suggest first you look in the mirror. Do you now realize how badly your little Astroturfing stunt here has backfired? Please post some more.

> Just because [PalmOS] isn't even yet beta-worthy doesn't mean
> the concepts are bad or that it will fail.

That's right Skippy. That's why your doom'n'gloom scenario makes no sense, as pointed out above. PalmSource is on a schedule that Palm agreed to. There's no reason for them to accelerate it.

Palm needs a STABLE PalmLinux ASAP. To suggest otherwise is a laughably specious arguement. [But exactly what we would expect to hear from you.]

> A more straightforward way of saying what you just did would
> have been: "Excuse me, TVoR. Could you please tell me how you
> knew who I was?" I actually would have told you.

If you knew what I do, Skippy, you wouldn't have spent all that effort guessing, your latest guess wouldn't be as vague as "involved in their Linux effort", and you wouldn't be trying to change the subject rather than crispen your guess.

The "guess" was plenty crisp from the first time I exposed who you are, Marty. You want me to "crispen" you some more? If you got any crispier you'd be burnt toast, Marty. Is that what you want?

Skippy, Skippy, Skippy. Bad arithmetic, implausible explanations, multiple dumb comments about software development costs, little birdies inside PalmSource that can't even tell you what I do, and fantasies about plots to bilk shareholders. You're not doing much for your credibility. You'd better hope you're wrong in thinking we have an audience for this exchange and you and I are the only ones paying attention at this point.

No Marty, I hope everyone reading this thread posts a link to it on EVERY Palm site around the Internet. I hope everyone learns what is going on at Palm and gets the chance to hear first hand the words of wisdom of one of its more "special" employees: Marty Fouts.

By the way, don't try to have Palm threaten Ryan and make him delete the thread.


TVoR

- Key figure in PalmGate exposé
- Author
- Palm guru
- Linux lover
- Fly on the wall




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 8/23/2005 11:33:51 PM # Q
> I hadn't heard from you in a while and was starting to worry
> about you, Marty.

How sweet. Please try not to be concerned if you don't hear from me for a day or two, Skippy. The intarweb is not a very high priority, and the shriller you become the less amusing you are.

> PalmLinux Treos in 2007 are Palm's last chance of staying
> solvent. If anyone else has access to PalmLinux Palm will be
> unable to compete. That $30 million "gift" to PalmSource is
> presumably earmarked towards accelerating PalmLinux
> development.

Skippy? That's certainly not how you were pitching things in the two recent "670" threads, where you wrote, among other things "Unfortunately, Cobalt's failure ultimately has triggered the demise of the PalmOS platform." In case you forgot, Skippy, PalmLinux is just Cobalt with a Linux kernel.

> If Palm was to go bankrupt, what's to prevent say, Microsoft
> from stepping in and buying PalmOS just to take it away from
> Palm?

If Palm went bankrupt, Skippy, why would Palm want PalmOS?

But assuming you meant "if PalmSource was to go bankrupt", the answer is pretty obvious, you even mentioned it yourself.

>> If you knew what I do, Skippy, you wouldn't have spent all
>> that effort guessing, your latest guess wouldn't be as vague
>> as "involved in their Linux effort", and you wouldn't be
>> trying to change the subject rather than crispen your guess.

> [a bunch of gratuitous nonsense]

Well, a lot of noise, but Skippy? You still haven't guessed anything cripser than "involved in their Linux effort."

> I hope everyone learns what is going on at Palm and gets the
> chance to hear first hand the words of wisdom of one of its
> more "special" employees: Marty Fouts.

Boy Skippy, when you get confused you get very very confused. I don't work for Palm, Skippy. Never have. Not an investor in Palm. Never was. Don't own any of their stock. Never have.
I think you may have just tossed the last shred of credibility you had here, Skippy.

Now you're not even guessing the same company in two different posts. "crisper" means more detail, Skippy, not contradictory detail.

Let's face it, Skippy. You don't know who I am. You've guessed that I work for or otherwise have financial interest in both Palm and PalmSource. You've made several contradictory guesses about what I do. You've guessed me as either a consultant to or an employee of PalmSource.



Panic on the streets of London...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/24/2005 10:47:03 PM # Q
> I hadn't heard from you in a while and was starting to worry
> about you, Marty.

How sweet. Please try not to be concerned if you don't hear from me for a day or two, Skippy. The intarweb is not a very high priority, and the shriller you become the less amusing you are.

You're welcome, Marty. I was this close to sending the police out to your place to check on you to make sure you hadn't "fallen and couldn't get up".

> PalmLinux Treos in 2007 are Palm's last chance of staying
> solvent. If anyone else has access to PalmLinux Palm will be
> unable to compete. That $30 million "gift" to PalmSource is
> presumably earmarked towards accelerating PalmLinux
> development.

Skippy? That's certainly not how you were pitching things in the two recent "670" threads, where you wrote, among other things "Unfortunately, Cobalt's failure ultimately has triggered the demise of the PalmOS platform." In case you forgot, Skippy, PalmLinux is just Cobalt with a Linux kernel.

Let's see now: 2004 and 2005 were supposed to be Cobalt's coming of age. Instead they are the Lost Years. During this time Cobalt has been Missing (Killed?) In Action and PalmSource has coincidentally both lost over 50% of its market share and seen most of its licensees abandon the PalmOS platform. Sony, Tapwave, Samsung, AlphaSmart, Kyocera, Lenovo, Fossil, Garmin. All gone. Who's left besides Palm? http://www.palmsource.com/partners/licensee.html
I don't know what your defnition is for "demise of the PalmOS platform", but most balanced observers would probably say that that is what we're now witnessing.

> If Palm was to go bankrupt, what's to prevent say, Microsoft
> from stepping in and buying PalmOS just to take it away from
> Palm?

If Palm went bankrupt, Skippy, why would Palm want PalmOS?

But assuming you meant "if PalmSource was to go bankrupt", the answer is pretty obvious, you even mentioned it yourself.

Yes, I meant PalmSource [I keep forgetting that they REALLY, REALLY, I SWEAR are separate companies like Michael Mace has claimed in the past]. Palm could not risk losing PalmSource through a bankruptcy sale. They realize they have NO longterm future an being Just Another WinMob Licensee. Would you care to suggest otherwise?

>> If you knew what I do, Skippy, you wouldn't have spent all
>> that effort guessing, your latest guess wouldn't be as vague
>> as "involved in their Linux effort", and you wouldn't be
>> trying to change the subject rather than crispen your guess.

> The "guess" was plenty crisp from the first time I exposed who you are, Marty. You want me to "crispen" you some more? If you got any crispier you'd be burnt toast, Marty. Is that what you want?

Well, a lot of noise, but Skippy? You still haven't guessed anything cripser than "involved in their Linux effort."

Oh, Marty. Don't be upset. And you thought you could be so clever and anonymously slip into Palminfocenter and start taking shots at those who have been spreading the word about the Ugly Truth about Palm/PalmSource. And then... BOOM! It all blows up in your face. Dis the hairs in your nose get singed? Good.

> I hope everyone learns what is going on at Palm and gets the
> chance to hear first hand the words of wisdom of one of its
> more "special" employees: Marty Fouts.

Boy Skippy, when you get confused you get very very confused. I don't work for Palm, Skippy. Never have. Not an investor in Palm. Never was. Don't own any of their stock. Never have.
I think you may have just tossed the last shred of credibility you had here, Skippy.

Now you're not even guessing the same company in two different posts. "crisper" means more detail, Skippy, not contradictory detail.

Let's face it, Skippy. You don't know who I am. You've guessed that I work for or otherwise have financial interest in both Palm and PalmSource. You've made several contradictory guesses about what I do. You've guessed me as either a consultant to or an employee of PalmSource.

You seem to getting more and more panicky these days, Marty. I wonder why...

Your turn again.

TVoR




------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

Awesome! Bagged # 111111 as well!
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 8/24/2005 11:16:09 PM # Q
"Thanks for contributing, Yours was the 111111 comment posted to PIC."

Do I win a LifeDrive, Ryan?

I'd like to thank the "Little People" that made this all possible: Mike Cane, BubbaSteve, Surur, Marty Fouts, svrontis... I couldn't have done it without your support. Shalom.


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm Economy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

Marty, please don't go! This is my favorite PIC thread EVER!
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/2/2005 1:32:00 AM # Q
Since my original reply was apparently deleted:


> So now the kernel is the entire OS? All Riiiiiiiiiiighty then.

Nope. Guess that's why PalmSource is using more from the open source community than just the kernel.

Yeah, I'm sure the open source community is going to do 99.92% of PalmSource's work for them and ship rock solid drivers, stacks, etc in addition to maintaining/updating the Linux kernel. I hear some Linux codemonkeys have volunteered to also wash your car twice a week. Congratulations. All PalmSource has to do now is figure out how to get PalmOS running on Linux and maintain backwards compatibility. Should be a piece of cake for you clever guys. You could probably even cut back on how many people are working on this and focus most of your resource on that fabouous "Rome" project. Or better yet, send all of PalmSource's engineers to work on Jeff Hawkins' pseudoPSIence moneypit.

Keep trying to spin things as hard as you can, Marty. You've got NOTHING to lose now.

>> You asserted that PalmSource would run out of money in
>> calendar 3q 06. Upon inspection, it turned out that you had
>> calculated incorrectly. Even using your numbers ($150m
>> available, 6m/month burn rate,) they don't run out of money
>> at that point. (150/6 is 25, Skippy.)

> You need to read this thread over again. I hope for your sake
> you don't believe what you've just posted.

You've got it backwards, there Skippy. You're the one who made the claim that PalmSource would be out of money in 3q '06, based on bad assumptions and worse arithmetic. I merely pointed out the simple errors you had made.

Keep avoiding the posts selectively, Marty. I've said (repeatedly) thet PalmSource will run out of money if they are on a development schedule that will produce a SHIPPING PalmLinux in 2006. If they go into full hibernation mode instead and development continues at a crawl, they could last 10 years or more. But no one will care, because PalmOS will be obsolete. Keep trying to obfuscate, Marty.

> If PalmSource delivers "on the announced schedule", there
> will be no one waiting to sign for the package. As was the
> case with Cobalt, PalmLinux will be Returned To Sender.

You keep saying that Skippy, but, you keep failing to account for Palm and LG. As you say, we shall just have to see how this plays out.

Palm is already accounted for: they will soon be BUYING PalmSource. LG has licensed PalmOS. Did anything in their contract say specifically that they are only going to ship PalmLinux? What if LG primarily wants some of the China MobileSoft OSes?

> PalmOS 5 is still useful and PalmOS 7 will likely be
> serviceable in a couple years.

"A couple" Skippy? Meaning _two_? Meaning you agree with PalmSource that PaluxOS will be "servicable" on their schedule? So why, exactly is it that Palm signed up to wait "a couple years" but they'll suddenly change their mind half way through and buy PalmSource back, even though you think they'll get a servicable OS then?

And whatever happened to your argument that if PalmSource didn't deliver in a year the market would abandon them? You're trying to cover both sides, there Skippy.

Palm will soon ship Windows Mobile Treos to provide themselves a lifeboat they hope will keep the company on life support until PalmLinux can debut + give Palm SOMETHING to differentiate themselves from the rest of the Windows Mobile pack. The rest of the market has almost completely abandoned PalmOS already. Perhaps you need to get out of that cave, Marty. Ironically, the few remaining licenses will likely be summarily terminated as soon as Palm takes over PalmOS.

>> Oh, and you keep guessing who I am and what I do. That's
>> definitely generated a lot of laughs, keep at it.

> Guessing? I don't think so. But maybe if you claim I'm
> guessing enough times someone here might actually believe you.

Yes, Skippy, guessing. You guessed at one time or another that I had a financial interest in Palm, that I was a contractor, that I was working of "fixing PalmOS", that I'd been a PalmSource employee long enough to know who Michael Mace was, that someone was paying me to post here, and other equally erroneous things. You also tried, by innuendo and clumsy probing several other ideas such as hinting that I worked for Dianne Hackborn, or worked on the PalmLinux demo at the DevCon. That's a batting average that'd get an MLB player sent to the minors, Skippy.

It also doesn't do much to establish the credibility of your supposed "sources" at PalmSource. But so much you claim to know from those sources is so easily countered with evidence from the public record, one wonders if they ever existed.

Keep up the fantasy world you live in Marty. The only one making those claims appears to be...you.

Perhaps I have no "sources" at PalmSource. Or perhaps I do. Believe whatever you NEED to believe, Marty. These days it's hard to keep ANYTHING from becoming "evidence from the public record". Or from becoming "evidence from the private record".


TVoR

P.S. What's happened to you, Marty? The quality of your posts has rapidly declined since your dramatic debut on Palminfocenter...


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 9/2/2005 7:28:36 AM # Q
But Skippy, you're just repeating yourself. Why should I bother to respond yet again to the same-old same-old?

Besides, I'm hearing much more interesting rumors about who is going to buy PalmSource, when, and why, from people who do have real contacts in the industry, Skippy. They're just rumors, so I won't repeat them, but if they turn out to be true, you're going to be very surprised.

But since you miss me so much, Skippy, I'm going to recap one last time. If you can't come up with anything new to add, we're done here.

Fact:

* Engineers don't cost companies $100K in the valley.
* Linux gurus aren't managers. (By the way, Skippy, rule of thumb in the valley is that engineers cost a company 2.5 times their base salary. Too bad you missed my point, as $250K/engineer works in _favor_ of your burn rate theory. On the other hand, it makes your "30million" price tag look pretty skimpy. all up, 300 engineers for a year cost more like 80 million than 30 million.)
* Even if PalmSource had to spend the $30 million you still had your math wrong and they wouldn't run out of money in '06.
* Palm buying PalmSource back isn't going to provide the 'magic bullet' that you think they need to make PaluxOS better quicker, so that's no reason for Palm to make the buy.
* Throwing 30, er, you "meant" 300 engineers at PaluxOS isn't going to deliver it any faster.
* The "Linux" part of "PalmLinux" is already working, and already available as open source.

Prediction:

* It's Friday and nobody bought PalmSource this week.
* Palm's not going to buy PalmSource. At most, they'll pick up assets at fire sales prices at the bankruptcy in a couple of years
* If there's a win-mobile treo, it won't be in the hands of consumers this year, and probably not in 1st quarter next, either. (You should check the FCC's web site. They're the best source of predicting the earliest that new telephones will hit the US market.)
* PalmSource will be late getting PaluxOS to market.
* There's no cancellation-at-buyout clause in PalmSource licenses.
* Both Palm and LG intended to ship PalmLinux based phones when they licensed this time. Only the fates now know if either ever will.

Oh, and Skippy? You did get _one_ thing right. The name you keep bandying about _is_ spelled "Fouts". I was talking with Dan Fouts on the phone this afternoon, and he says he's always happy when people spell his family name correctly.

So, it's your turn. If you wanna hear back from me again, you're gonna have to say something entertaining enough to respond to.

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/2/2005 8:27:49 PM # Q
But Skippy, you're just repeating yourself. Why should I bother to respond yet again to the same-old same-old?

Good one. Make sure to tuck that tail in between your legs as you run and hide, Marty.

Besides, I'm hearing much more interesting rumors about who is going to buy PalmSource, when, and why, from people who do have real contacts in the industry, Skippy. They're just rumors, so I won't repeat them, but if they turn out to be true, you're going to be very surprised.

If the scenario I have outlined does not happen over the next few months, I will be surprised. Palm would not be clueless enough to let someone else control PalmOS, since that would seal their fate. I'll be proven right (again) soon enough.

But since you miss me so much, Skippy, I'm going to recap one last time. If you can't come up with anything new to add, we're done here.

Fact:

* Engineers don't cost companies $100K in the valley.
* Linux gurus aren't managers. (By the way, Skippy, rule of thumb in the valley is that engineers cost a company 2.5 times their base salary. Too bad you missed my point, as $250K/engineer works in _favor_ of your burn rate theory. On the other hand, it makes your "30million" price tag look pretty skimpy. all up, 300 engineers for a year cost more like 80 million than 30 million.)
* Even if PalmSource had to spend the $30 million you still had your math wrong and they wouldn't run out of money in '06.
* Palm buying PalmSource back isn't going to provide the 'magic bullet' that you think they need to make PaluxOS better quicker, so that's no reason for Palm to make the buy.
* Throwing 30, er, you "meant" 300 engineers at PaluxOS isn't going to deliver it any faster.
* The "Linux" part of "PalmLinux" is already working, and already available as open source.

Real fact:

* Much of Palm's engineering is now done by (near) slave labor in China. How much do Chinese engineers get paid, Marty? Ummmmm... Hint: it's a little less than $100,000/year.

* The term "guru" was used in the traditional sense of the word as defined by Webster's Dictionary. It obviously means something else to you.

* I said before that vet care, feces cleanup, bananas, etc will double the cost of codemonkey salaries.

* You need you check your math. Again. And re-read the thread. Again.

* Palm buying PalmSource back is not (mainly) about speeding up PalmLinux development. It's about regaining control of the OS. Palm is about to "HandEra" all of its competitors with the PalmSource takeout. For obvious reasons, Palm has no hope of longterm survival without having complete control of PalmOS. The equally obvious answer is to regain control the way Apple did in the 90s.

* Increasing engineering resources would have delivered PalmLinux a LOOOOONG time ago. Simple math, Marty. But then again, you've shown us you have difficulty with simple math.

* Linux works? Wow. Thanks for the news flash. Too bad it's the INTEGRATION of Linux with PalmOS that is the problem. And too bad that it will take at LEAST another 2 years to achieve the goal of a stable PalmLinux.


Prediction:

* It's Friday and nobody bought PalmSource this week.
* Palm's not going to buy PalmSource. At most, they'll pick up assets at fire sales prices at the bankruptcy in a couple of years
* If there's a win-mobile treo, it won't be in the hands of consumers this year, and probably not in 1st quarter next, either. (You should check the FCC's web site. They're the best source of predicting the earliest that new telephones will hit the US market.)
* PalmSource will be late getting PaluxOS to market.
* There's no cancellation-at-buyout clause in PalmSource licenses.
* Both Palm and LG intended to ship PalmLinux based phones when they licensed this time. Only the fates now know if either ever will.

Real fact;

* Yes, we're still waiting for the announcement of the inevitable.

* No, Palm WILL buy PalmSource.

* A Windows Mobile Treo will probably be out by January, 2006 at the latest. And unless a company is truly clueless, it requests that the FCC suppresses info until devices are announced. Do you reallythink companies don't realize that everyone is seaching the FCC site every day looking for clues?

Oh, and Skippy? You did get _one_ thing right. The name you keep bandying about _is_ spelled "Fouts". I was talking with Dan Fouts on the phone this afternoon, and he says he's always happy when people spell his family name correctly.

Wow. The Two Faces of Marty? Sounds like it will make a good movie... I wonder who will play The Voice of Reason? Might I suggest Martha Stewart?

So, it's your turn. If you wanna hear back from me again, you're gonna have to say something entertaining enough to respond to.

And with a puff of smoke, Marty (Fouts) was gone...

TVoR, Inc.


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™
The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
hackbod @ 9/6/2005 2:31:13 PM # Q
"A little bird told me Dianne is waving BuhBye! to PalmSource."

As usual, the voices in your head are completely disconnected with reality. I currently have no plans to leave.

Btw this isn't the first time you have posted a comment like this -- see http://palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7823#107176 for example. So, I guess you are going to just keep posting this little bit of "information" every now and then until it happens to come true? Typical junk from TVoR.


--
Dianne
PalmSource Software Frameworks Engineer

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/10/2005 3:43:28 PM # Q
"A little bird told me Dianne is waving BuhBye! to PalmSource."

As usual, the voices in your head are completely disconnected with reality. I currently have no plans to leave

Rumor has it that you are planning to leave PalmSource in December and already had an interview at Sun. Are you now denying this?

------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

How PalmSource is REALLY doing: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8026#110958

VOR was right about Marty, is he right again?
sr4 @ 9/10/2005 4:37:56 PM # Q

The outing of Mr Fouts (against his persistent protestations for weeks) has given VOR major credibility in my eyes. I guess Dianne (who was not even in the Access acquisition loop) will be leaving PSRC soon, like many other developers who do not see themselves being trumped up web page designers.

Surur

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 9/10/2005 6:04:28 PM # Q
Actually, Surur, you need to read more carefully.

I never disputed Skippy's claim that I was Marty Fouts. All I ever did was deny the various guesses he made wrong about my relationship with Palm (sorry, skippy don't now, never have worked for them;) PalmSource (sorry, skippy, don't now, never have invested in them;) my type of employment (sorry skippy, don't now, never have been a consultant to either of them,) my involvement in the devcon palmlinux demo (sorry skippy, had nothing to do with it,) and what I do for PalmSource.

Actually, given the number of things he guessed _wrong_ about me, I'd think that would have shaken not strengthened your faith in his credibility.

But if that hadn't, given the number of things he's gotten wrong in our exchanges, like his claim that PalmsSource licenses were voided if PalmSource got bought, that programmers cost out at $100K, that Palm would buy PalmSource in '06, PalmSource's burn rate, cash on hand, and so forth, I would think that you'd have realized by now that Skippy often guesses, but more often wildly speculates.

Of all his faux paus, my favorite, though, was his description fo "Linux Gurus" as managers of software developers.

Skippy's good for a laugh, but you're a bright enough lad not to take him seriously.


Marty Fouts
Lead Linux Lizard
PalmSource Core Technology Department

Marty, Marty, Marty...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/10/2005 6:19:35 PM # Q
You have NO idea how many people have been laughing at you for the past few weeks. You really don't. Thanks for playing.

Take care.

TVoR

------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

How PalmSource is REALLY doing: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8026#110958

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 9/10/2005 6:27:23 PM # Q
jeez skippy, don't you read the forums?

they're not laughing at me, they're whining because i'm boring.

what do they expect when you're the only material here to work with? Your tantrums just aren't a good source of material. Please go back to making your lofty proclamations, like the one you made a mere two weeks ago:

> [Palm] will be buying PalmSource and are preparing for this
> eventuality, since ultimately Palm will be throwing all of
> their eggs into the PalmLinux basket. [...] PalmSource may be
> ripe for a takeover within a couple months. Then Palm throws
> everything they have into PalmLinux.

Now that's material that one can work with.



Marty Fouts
Lead Linux Lizard
PalmSource Core Technology Department

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/10/2005 7:16:08 PM # Q
Please go back to making your lofty proclamations, like the one you made a mere two weeks ago:

> [Palm] will be buying PalmSource and are preparing for this
> eventuality, since ultimately Palm will be throwing all of
> their eggs into the PalmLinux basket. [...] PalmSource may be
> ripe for a takeover within a couple months. Then Palm throws
> everything they have into PalmLinux.

Had my prediction come true, the PalmOS platform might actually have had a chance of surviving. Now...?

------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

How PalmSource is REALLY doing: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8026#110958

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
twrock @ 9/10/2005 8:51:45 PM # Q
You have NO idea how many people have been laughing at you for the past few weeks. You really don't. Thanks for playing.

Take care.

TVoR
Ok, since you keep insisting on making grandiose proclamations no matter what the topic, no matter what the evidence suggests, and no matter whether or not you are proven wrong after "time has told", let me at least set the record straight concerning what I thought about the PenguinPowered/TVOR exchanges. Of course YMMV and I'm sure you will promptly claim that "everyone but me" agrees with you. I'm sure you know this because along with you superior powers of deduction, you are have incredible powers to read minds and even leap tall buildings in a single bound.

I was not laughing at PenguinPowered at any time.

I was laughing at you early on in the exchanges. You are so easily goaded into throwing childish tantrums. You are so predictable. You are so grandiose.

After a short period of time, I got tired and bored of the exchanges. Particularly, I couldn't bring myself to read through your constant regurgitations of your elaborate theories. It just got old. And you couldn't even figure out how to stay out of the obvious goading PP was doing.

TVOR, a major tenant of your conspiracy theory just went down the tubes. You were wrong. Simple and plain. That might really be a problem for you because in your little fantasy world, you are never wrong. You need to grow up and deal with it. Or you can spin.

You know what would come as a surprise to me at this point? To see you write "I was wrong" without adding all sorts of spin to it to show how you were "really right" all along. And besides, Surur is already starting the spin for you. It shouldn't be too hard to keep it twirling. Problem is spin gets you further away from the truth, and you will eventually run out of momentum.

http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8042#111429



I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 9/10/2005 8:58:28 PM # Q
Now, Skippy? Now the stock market is validating the guess of Access that PalmSource is worth $18.50 per share, and PalmSource has the breathing room it needs to complete on the schedule it set out at DevCon.

Now another one of your predictions turns out to have been as off base as your prediction of a WinMob phone in consumer's hands this year is going to be.

Now we wait and see what happens once PaluxOS is done.



Marty Fouts
Lead Linux Lizard
PalmSource Core Technology Department

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
twrock @ 9/10/2005 9:32:30 PM # Q
Surur wrote: The outing of Mr Fouts ....
Back while it was "happening" some people seemed to think this mattered. Personally, knowing what Mr. Fouts position is lends credibility to him in my eyes. I don't really care if TVOR is handy with his internet browser. Fouts has direct knowledge and access concerning many of the issues to which he speaks.

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."
VOR confirmed to have a mole in PSRC...
sr4 @ 9/11/2005 4:07:17 AM # Q

I'm pretty handy with google, and I did not find any link between Penguinpowered and mr Fouts. This confirms to me that VOR has/had inside connections. This lends credence to his other theories. Of course even insiders did not know Access was going to buy PSRC, so clearly a lot of VOR's statements or theories and extrapolations, but what he knows clearly do not come from researching public information.

Why do you think Ryan tolerates him so? He clearly knows who he is.

Surur

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
twrock @ 9/11/2005 5:53:07 AM # Q
Surur, he has claimed insider information for a long time. What's new? I did not mean to imply that he knew who PP was from a web search (although, did you try "martin" instead of "marty"; it's the usual abbreviation). I was just making a connection with the "Google is your friend" line he's used plenty of times.

Much the same as my not really caring who PenguinPowered was back when TVOR was making it his primary issue, neither do I care who TVOR is at this point, who he has inside PalmSource, and what kind of games are being played behind the scenes at PIC. I posted above just to make the point that recent events have resulted in less credibility for TVOR and more for PP in my estimation. Obviously you thought differently.

If TVOR does really have a mole, then he's not doing too well at making use of the information he is being fed. You give him too much credit. Hey, just think what you could do with that kind of insider information.

We have discussed Ryan's tolerance for TVOR elsewhere. It's probably an example of "both/and", not one or the other.

"Does ANYONE not realize that Palm will buy PalmSource?" The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/4/2005 4:11:35 PM
PalmSource Acquired By ACCESS Posted By: Ryan on Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:57:19 PM

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
twrock @ 9/11/2005 9:57:20 AM # Q
Surur, FYI, yes, a search for palmsource and martin will get you to him. Granted it's pretty far in, but it's possible. Of course it is a whole lot easier to ask your mole. But then again, if the information was from someone on the inside, how come didn't he get "everything" right about him? Hmm..., TVOR was fairly defensive once about someone's wisecrack about a janitor. Maybe that's why the information isn't so good.

Ok, I admit it; you got me curious for a moment there. ... Moment's up.

"Does ANYONE not realize that Palm will buy PalmSource?" The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/4/2005 4:11:35 PM
PalmSource Acquired By ACCESS Posted By: Ryan on Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:57:19 PM

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
sr4 @ 9/11/2005 10:58:14 AM # Q

Its wasn't connecting Martin Fouts with PalmSource. It was connecting PenguinPowered with Martin Fouts. I tried, even after 30 min of hard googling was unable to make a definitive connection. I still cant, accept links to this website. If you have I would like to see a link. Remember VOR knew (or thought he knew) who he was almost immediately.

Anyway, I'm not saying VOR is God, I'm just saying I'm giving him as much credibility as Martin or Diane, as he seems to know the inside of PSRC, and does not have an interest in making things appear better than they are. He certainly has miles more credibility than e.g. Jeff Kirvin. I would suggest he is an ex-developer for PSRC who left/got sacked 2-3 years ago (probably when Be joined ;) )

Surur

The Voice of Reason comes out of the closet...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/11/2005 5:27:22 PM # Q
If TVOR does really have a mole, then he's not doing too well at making use of the information he is being fed. You give him too much credit. Hey, just think what you could do with that kind of insider information.

twrock, you have NO idea how funny your statement is. Really. If you look at my posts and when I stopped posting last week prior to the announcement of the Access deal, you would have a little clue about whether or not I have any inside "sources". And also whether or not I would ever do anything to try and damage PalmSource.

I would suggest he is an ex-developer for PSRC who left/got sacked 2-3 years ago (probably when Be joined ;) )

No, Surur - I never worked for PalmSource. My constant digs at the Holy Be Engineers are driven by knowledge that their arrival at Palm was both disruptive and has caused a LOT of the problem PalmSource now finds itself in. Ask around and you'll see why the HoBeEn are universally despised/derided by longtime Palm employees.

I will not post who I am or how much I know or how I know it - isn't it more fun that way? Everyone keeps looking for clues in the messages. Is Paul Dead?

Here's a clue for you all: The joker was Paul. I am the EggMan. I am the Walrus.

Take care.

TVoR



------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

How PalmSource is REALLY doing: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8026#110958

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 9/11/2005 6:15:10 PM # Q
> Its wasn't connecting Martin Fouts with PalmSource. It was
> connecting PenguinPowered with Martin Fouts.

Skippy once offered to explain how he did that. You might ask him. Maybe he'll tell you.

> I tried, even after 30 min of hard googling was unable to
> make a definitive connection. I still cant, accept links to
> this website. If you have I would like to see a link.
> Remember VOR knew (or thought he knew) who he was almost
> immediately.

The problem with this as a theory is that Skippy "outted" me before anyone at PalmSource knew I was posting here. In fact, at the point he first guessed who I was, I had told no one who PenguinPowered was. I never did tell anyone at PalmSource.

It's the first time I've ever used a pseudonym, and I wasn't particularly careful. (I registered using an email address with my name in it, in a domain I own, for example.) So it's likely I just did something naive in setting up the account that leaked out and Skippy noticed.

> Anyway, I'm not saying VOR is God, I'm just saying I'm giving
> him as much credibility as Martin or Diane, as he seems to
> know the inside of PSRC, and does not have an interest in
> making things appear better than they are.

But he doesn't. He guessed wrong about which company I worked for, whether I was an employee or a contractor, who my manager at PalmSource is, and what I do. We played 20 questions over that, with him making guesses and me having quite a bit of fun denying the ones he got wrong.

He got a lot else wrong, about what was going on at the demo, the story about NVFS, who would buy PalmSource and when, and so forth.

Lefty, I'm sure, is in stitches over the idea of _me_ making things appear better than they are. I know I am.

On the other hand, Skippy's certainly got a vested interest in making things seem worse than they are. You can see it in his spin posts, and when he makes outrageously incorrect claims like his silly comment that all licenses would be voided if we got bought.

He's also demonstrated woeful ignorance of the software development process.

> I would suggest he is an ex-developer for PSRC who left/got
> sacked 2-3 years ago (probably when Be joined ;) )

He claims otherwise. Although the age of much of his "inside information" is consistent with him having lost touch with any contact he may have had at Palm at about that time.

But see, here's the key difference between me and Skippy: I don't ask you to accept my arguments based on my "credibility". I lay them out as well as I can and you get to examine them and decide for yourself.

Well, that and Skippy likes to throw tantrums whereas I can't stop poking trolls with sharp sticks.

For those playing along at home, here's my case, and I haven't changed it in the entire time I've been playing here:

The Palm/PalmSource software development team had a lot of successes over the years. Then they stumbled badly over Cobalt. Then they brought in new managers and decided to go with a different strategy on how to do development and what to develop.

They've laid out a road map. It has a schedule on it. Licensees have signed up for that road map on that schedule. Access, looked at that information and bought the company.

I've said before, and I still believe, that PalmSource has exactly one more chance. Either it executes and PalmLinux becomes the Linux to goto for mobile devices, or it's done.

Failing would make me sad. It would break my thirty year track record: Everything I've ever done has shipped and been used; and when commercial, made money.

But it wouldn't be the end of my life or my professional career. I was developing operating systems before PalmOS existed. If we fail at this, I'll develop them for someone else.

Skippy can argue all he wants that PaluxOS should be done sooner than it will be, but it's the licensees, and not Skippy who pony up the bucks, and they signed up knowing the schedule.
Frankly, my money's on the people who are paying for it over the loud mouths on a web forum.

Skippy can argue all he wants that Palm not buying PalmSource is the end of Palm. I don't know how that will turn out, and only time and the market can tell.

Skippy can argue all he wants about how PalmSource should go about developing software, but frankly, Skippy has no credibility when it comes to the development process, as he has amply demonstrated time and again.



Marty Fouts
Lead Linux Lizard
PalmSource Core Technology Department

POS 5 for another two years?
sr4 @ 9/11/2005 6:55:40 PM # Q

Fair enough, but except for Kirvin (http://www.maximumgeek.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1512&p=), most people do not think the current POS situation is sustainable for a two years wait.

Some-one else would have eaten PalmOS's lunch by then.

Surur

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 9/11/2005 7:14:29 PM # Q
If there were already a viable Linux based operating system for pda-phone combinations, I'd say things are looking pretty hopeless. But there really isn't one. The real players, as far as I can tell, in no particular order are:

1) The Open Source Community. There's a lot of motion in that direction, and the folk over at handhelds.org believe they've got the momentum. Of course, they don't do schedules, so there's no predicting when or if they'd ever get a telephony product out.

2) MontaVista/TrollTech. But they seem to have had a falling out, and neither alone is capable of what both together might have managed.

3) Nokia/Maemo. They're taking a go-slow approach, though. But frankly, my money's on _maemo_ as the most likely competitor.

4) PalmSource. Plenty of previous PDA experience. More PDA/phone experience than the others. Late out of the gate.

I'm sure there are other players, but those are the ones to take seriously, in my opinion.

Now if we were making a head-to-head play against Microsoft, it would be suicide. I hope the management team is smarter than that. But if we're playing for position as number one among Linux mobile devices, then I think it's a race between Maemo and us, and I think that Nokia's go slow approach on Maemo gives us the breathing room to be able to make up being late.

I held that opinion before I heard about the Access offer. I still hold it.

So that brings us back to the bottom line:

We've got one more change to get this right. If we graft the best of PalmOS onto Linux and we hit our schedules, we're going to come out in Linux phone space in a competitive posture.

If we blow the schedule by too much or we screw up on the execution, then we're done. Access' offering price plus our licensees signing up for the schedule tells me that they at least are betting that we'll make the schedule and deliver the product we've promised.

/me sits back and waits for skippy to distort what i just wrote


Marty Fouts
Lead Linux Lizard
PalmSource Core Technology Department

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
twrock @ 9/11/2005 7:54:22 PM # Q
Sorry Surur, let me explain it in detail.
PenguinPowered's profile lists his name as "marty". Typically "marty" is short for "Martin". One has reason to suspect this person works for PalmSource (or just really hopes he does so that he will be supposedly discreditted). Type "palmsource martin" into Google (no quotes). You will find all the connection you need on about page 5. I didn't use "PenguinPowered" because that was an obvious pseudonym, and I suspected it would get anywhere except links to PalmInforcenter.
I'm not saying it's what TVOR did, just that it is possible.

Regarding "motivation", TVOR continues to call every post by everyone who has any connection to PalmSource into question because of their "potential" motivation. Please be fair in recognizing the TVOR has his own motivation as well. If anyone assumes he only has the Palm community's best interest in mind, they are being naive. If TVOR tries to claim otherwise, he is either self-deceived or full of b.s.


_______________________
"Does ANYONE not realize that Palm will buy PalmSource?" The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/4/2005 4:11:35 PM
PalmSource Acquired By ACCESS Posted By: Ryan on Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:57:19 PM

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
twrock @ 9/11/2005 8:15:31 PM # Q
Skippy once offered to explain how he did that. You might ask him. Maybe he'll tell you.

You may be right. Since I really didn't care at the time about TVOR's "precious" outing of Mr. Fouts, I didn't linger on it and at my age, that means I forgot. Some of those posts by him were deleted (thankfully), so I'm not sure the info is there anymore.

Regarding whether or not he'd tell us, I don't put much stock in what TVOR tells us anymore.

Next time you want to keep it truly anonymous, try something like Blindnet (if they are still around). And of course, don't use your real first name. ;-)


_______________________
"Does ANYONE not realize that Palm will buy PalmSource?" The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/4/2005 4:11:35 PM
PalmSource Acquired By ACCESS Posted By: Ryan on Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:57:19 PM

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
stonemirror @ 9/11/2005 10:39:51 PM # Q
The Voice of Unfounded Assertions suggests, "Ask around and you'll see why the HoBeEn are universally despised/derided by longtime Palm employees."

Ask me: I can tell you it's a boatload of nonsense. I am fortunate enough to have a roughly equal mix of "longtime Palm employees" (some of the longest-time, in fact), ex-Be employees and post-Be acquisition hires working in my department. If any of 'em "universally despise" any others of 'em, then they're doing an excellent job of hiding it from me while giving every appearance of working together productively and diligently.

I don't particularly care who you are; I'm slightly curious about whether you have any other diversions beyond cooking up increasingly sketchy conspiracy theories about PalmSource, though.

Love,

Lefty (the Great and Terrible)
Minister of Fun (or Else!), PalmSource Core Technologies

To my old pal, Marty:
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/11/2005 10:44:08 PM # Q
But he doesn't. He guessed wrong about which company I worked for, whether I was an employee or a contractor, who my manager at PalmSource is, and what I do. We played 20 questions over that, with him making guesses and me having quite a bit of fun denying the ones he got wrong.

Wrong, Marty. Go back and READ the original posts and see for yourself. And I never claimed DK was your manager, only that she needed to get you in line (since your ranting here was making PalmSource look bad).

He got a lot else wrong, about what was going on at the demo, the story about NVFS, who would buy PalmSource and when, and so forth.

You are right in that I had initially thought that Palm was behind most of the NVFS code. And I was wrong about Palm buying PalmSource - not because Palm didn't need to but because they lost out on the bidding like the MORONS they are.

On the other hand, Skippy's certainly got a vested interest in making things seem worse than they are. You can see it in his spin posts, and when he makes outrageously incorrect claims like his silly comment that all licenses would be voided if we got bought.

Again, you're wrong. A few here have suggested I was shorting the stock. Do you REALLY think me exposing PalmSource's mistakes here at Palminfocenter would affect stock prices? Please. And my post title about the licenses getting voiding was slight hyperbole for effect, but otherwise true - PalmSource getting sold leads to the licensee getting hung out to dry. That's how I (and several others) interpret the Palm contract I had exposed here a couple weeks ago.

He's also demonstrated woeful ignorance of the software development process.

I stand by what I said was needed to bring PalmLinux to market in 2006. But now with the Access buyout, this is all academic.

> I would suggest he is an ex-developer for PSRC who left/got
> sacked 2-3 years ago (probably when Be joined ;) )

He claims otherwise. Although the age of much of his "inside information" is consistent with him having lost touch with any contact he may have had at Palm at about that time.

But see, here's the key difference between me and Skippy: I don't ask you to accept my arguments based on my "credibility". I lay them out as well as I can and you get to examine them and decide for yourself.

I have never worked for Palm. And I have NEVER asked anyone "to accept my arguments based on my "credibility". I lay them out as well as I can and you get to examine them and decide for yourself".

Well, that and Skippy likes to throw tantrums whereas I can't stop poking trolls with sharp sticks.

Tantrums, Marty? Guess again. The only one being poked on=ver the past three weeks is YOU, but you're just too slow to realize it.

For those playing along at home, here's my case, and I haven't changed it in the entire time I've been playing here:

The Palm/PalmSource software development team had a lot of successes over the years. Then they stumbled badly over Cobalt. Then they brought in new managers and decided to go with a different strategy on how to do development and what to develop.

They've laid out a road map. It has a schedule on it. Licensees have signed up for that road map on that schedule. Access, looked at that information and bought the company.

I've said before, and I still believe, that PalmSource has exactly one more chance. Either it executes and PalmLinux becomes the Linux to goto for mobile devices, or it's done.

Finally something truthful from you, Marty. You're making progress.

Failing would make me sad. It would break my thirty year track record: Everything I've ever done has shipped and been used; and when commercial, made money.

But it wouldn't be the end of my life or my professional career. I was developing operating systems before PalmOS existed. If we fail at this, I'll develop them for someone else.

You sound like a mercenary, Marty. It's sad that PalmOS is in the hands of a mercenary.

Skippy can argue all he wants that PaluxOS should be done sooner than it will be, but it's the licensees, and not Skippy who pony up the bucks, and they signed up knowing the schedule.
Frankly, my money's on the people who are paying for it over the loud mouths on a web forum.

Except when your schedule slips it will bring lead to the death of PalmOS as a PDA platform (assuming Access hasn't already planned to kill off PalmOS as a PDA platform...)

Skippy can argue all he wants that Palm not buying PalmSource is the end of Palm. I don't know how that will turn out, and only time and the market can tell.

Indeed. Access turning PalmLinux into NetFrontLinux will kill a platform I've enjoyed using for the past 10 years. That's a shame, but no doubt others will come along to fill the void left by PalmOS. Microsoft must be laughing their heads off right now. Yet another competitor surrenders a market to Microsoft without even firing a shot... Pathetic.

Skippy can argue all he wants about how PalmSource should go about developing software, but frankly, Skippy has no credibility when it comes to the development process, as he has amply demonstrated time and again.

Marty Fouts
Lead Linux Lizard
PalmSource Core Technology Department

Whatever you say, Marty. Whatever.

TVoR


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 9/11/2005 11:28:07 PM # Q
> You are right in that I had initially thought that Palm was
> behind most of the NVFS code. And I was wrong about Palm
> buying PalmSource

Very good, Skippy. You are starting to sound nearly like an adult. You were also wrong about licenses being voided, the cost of an engineer, the amount of cash PalmSource had on hand, the cost of your 30(0) engineers, and what "Linux Gurus" do.

> Again, you're wrong. A few here have suggested I was shorting
> the stock. Do you REALLY think me exposing PalmSource's
> mistakes here at Palminfocenter would affect stock prices?

I wouldn't know, I've never seen you do that. What you do here certainly would not have. But, Skippy, if you believe as negatively about Palm and PalmSource as you claim to here, then it's easy to believe you shorted and lost money.

> And my post title about the licenses getting voiding was
> slight hyperbole for effect, but otherwise true - PalmSource
> getting sold leads to the licensee getting hung out to dry.

Um, no, Skippy, it wasn't "slight hyperbole." It was flat out wrong. Or, as Lefty pointed out, it was you being duplicatous, again. Either way, it doesn't make you particularly credible.

> That's how I (and several others) interpret the Palm contract
> I had exposed here a couple weeks ago.

You "exposed"? It's in an SEC filing that's posted on PalmSource's web site. And we can add law to the list of things you don't know much about, if that's how you read that contract. Do yourself a favor, Skippy, and go talk to a lawyer who's familiar with software licensing.

> I stand by what I said was needed to bring PalmLinux to
> market in 2006. But now with the Access buyout, this is all
> academic.

I've done this for a long time, Skippy. This will not be the first time I've taken on a project of this magnitude. It's not even the biggest project I've taken on of this sort. But don't take my word for it. Mistakes like that are well documented.

Fred Brooks was right, and you're proposal was to do exactly what had failed the first time IBM tried to get OS-360 back on schedule, and failed every time anyone has tried it in the 40 years since. You can't turn a two year project into a one year project six months into it by throwing a lot of people at it. You throw a lot of people at it and you get a three year project.

> Tantrums, Marty? Guess again. The only one being poked on=ver
> the past three weeks is YOU, but you're just too slow to
> realize it.

Ah, Skippy, there you go again. Making statements that the record easily verifies as wrong. You throw tantrums Skippy, and you're very easy to provoke. It's hillarious to watch you post three, four, as many as seven times, the same stuff, getting shriller each time. You come off like a teenager living in his parent's basement, trying to get attention from the adults.

And no, Skippy, I'm not slow. Even little kids are swift enough to figure out that all the name calling and insulting was an attempt to provoke. Sort of on the level of the third grade playground, but that seems to be about your speed.

> Finally something truthful from you, Marty. You're making
> progress.

A word of advice Skippy: don't imitate me. You're not very good at it and everyone else finds my style boring. If you must imitate someone here, imitate Lefty -- he's entertaining and not just poking at the troll. Also, Skippy, stop using "truthful" to mean "something Skippy agrees with". That's not what the word means.

> You sound like a mercenary, Marty. It's sad that PalmOS is in
> the hands of a mercenary.

Nah, the mercenaries are the ones who make things happen. But no, I'm not a mercenary. PalmSource can't afford me as a mercenary. I'm a professional, and I've been around for a long time. When I started, it was "IBM and the seven dwarfs". The dwarfs got replaced by the minicomputer vendors. They went the way of all good things and now the PC vendors are in ascendency. The PC's run is ending and mobile devices are the NextBigThing(tm). I expect to be around after that's over with as well. That's not being a mercenary, that's being pragmatic.

> Except when your schedule slips it will bring lead to the
> death of PalmOS as a PDA platform (assuming Access hasn't
> already planned to kill off PalmOS as a PDA platform...)

Why would _you_ care? You're on record as saying the PDA is dead. If the PDA is dead, it's platform isn't of any interest. Anyway, to me, as a technologist, a PDA's a phone without a telephony transceiver. It's just no big deal to support both from an OS perspective.

> Indeed. Access turning PalmLinux into NetFrontLinux will kill
> a platform I've enjoyed using for the past 10 years. That's a
> shame, but no doubt others will come along to fill the void
> left by PalmOS.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, Skippy? The only thing that might kill the PDA OS platform is the death of the PDA itself, which makes the platform rather a moot point.

Anyway, you're in here demanding all kinds of features. You can't have PalmOS 3 and all kinds of features. When you change an operating system, you give something up for everything you get. (Ask anyone who has any familiarity with both Unix Research Edition 6 and Linux 2.6)

> Microsoft must be laughing their heads off right now. Yet
> another competitor surrenders a market to Microsoft without
> even firing a shot... Pathetic.

Jeez Skippy, you are a big fan of conspiracies. But no, no one has surrendered a market to Microsoft. I'm pretty sure we're still here and someone is about to pay a pretty chunk of change for us.

You'd be wrong a lot less often if you spent less time playing "worst case scenario" and more time trying to actually understand all this stuff you keep making pronouncements about.



Marty Fouts
Lead Linux Lizard
PalmSource Core Technology Department

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
stonemirror @ 9/12/2005 1:25:34 AM # Q
...imitate Lefty...

Well, easier said than done, really...

Love,

Lefty (the Great and Terrible)
Minister of Fun (or Else!), PalmSource Core Technologies

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
stonemirror @ 9/12/2005 2:00:57 PM # Q
The outing of Mr Fouts (against his persistent protestations for weeks) has given VOR major credibility in my eyes.

From all appearances, the notion that turning Linux into a single-threaded operating system (or, alternately, one which could make applications written for a single threaded OS "multitask") had "major credibility" in your eyes.

I guess Dianne (who was not even in the Access acquisition loop) will be leaving PSRC soon, like many other developers who do not see themselves being trumped up web page designers.

Evidently Dianne's "leaving PSRC" is going to come as a big surprise to Dianne, at least. Are you thinking that if you repeat it enough, it'll come true? As with the likelihood of our becoming "trumped up web page designers", you're showing every sign of taking your own tenuous fantasies much too seriously—insisting that you're right in the face of reality proving you wrong is what insane people do.

Love,

Lefty (the Great and Terrible)
Minister of Fun (or Else!), PalmSource Core Technologies

What ever happened to Marty Fouts + David Schlesinger?
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 10/15/2005 2:51:03 PM # Q
A) Returned to the primordial ooze from whence they came

B) Wrist-slapped/biotchslapped into submission by their masters

C) Edumacated by Dianne Hackborn

D) Leapt from the San Mateo Bridge

E) All of the above


You decide.

------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823

RE: PalmSource JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 2/15/2006 1:27:36 AM # Q
a) Marty Fouts was escorted from the building.

b) Dianne Hackborn was escorted from the building.

c) PalmSource was bought by Access.

d) PalmSource was split off from Palm.

e) Palm was sold to US Robotics.

------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 2/15/2006 3:11:08 AM # Q
Um, Skippy? don't you ever get tired of trolling?

Nobody got escorted from the building. It is, however, hillarious that you didn't know about Hackborn until tonight, obviously still don't know who else has left, and yet are pretending to know about emails being sent at the exec level.

Like I said, an amazingly rich fantasy life you have, especially for someone living in its parents basement, but the real world just doesn't run like an r crumb comix.

kthxbye


May You Live in Interesting Times

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 2/15/2006 3:58:41 AM # Q
They all DEAD!

Get a clue, Marty. PalmSource imploded last Fall when a dozen codemonkeys gave notice. Funny how RATS sense when a ship is sinking...

As I said before, she was allegedly interviewing a LONG time ago. Too bad you didn't make the cut at Google. Better luck next time. (And given how long you last at jobs, there WILL soon be a next time.)

Take care.

TVoR

------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
PenguinPowered @ 2/15/2006 12:17:39 PM # Q
Keep guessing Skippy, you'll get it right eventually.



May You Live in Interesting Times

RE: Palm JUMPED THE SHARK when...
The_Voice_of_Reason @ 2/15/2006 11:18:21 PM # Q
Thanks, Marty.

Take care.


------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823

Reply to this comment
Start a New Comment Thread Top