|
    Comments on: PalmSource Acquired By ACCESS
ACCESS said in a release that it will make PalmSource a wholly owned subsidiary to expand applications for mobile phones.
Detailed Comment View (322 Total Comments)
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PIC is not responsible for them in any way. login or register for free in order to post comments.  RE: An 83% Premium???
Well, at least something better than WebPro & Blazer will likely come out of this!! Off to bed now...further ruminations on this in the morning! I wonder how long this has been in the works--looks like the Voice WAS right after all...but these guys came outta NOWHERE! I wonder what a move like this will do to Palm's Linux ramp-up? RE: An 83% Premium???PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 1:31:24 AM #
> I wonder how long this has been in the works--looks like the > Voice WAS right after all... Huh? Skippy predicted that PALM would buy PalmSource. He never once mentioned any other possible buyer. > but these guys came outta NOWHERE! Not, nowhere. That's where godzilla come from. These guys came from Tokyo. > I wonder what a move like this will do to Palm's Linux My SWAG: nothing. It takes a long time for corporate buy-outs to be approved by the respective boards, stock holders and regulators. Then it takes a time for the buy out to actually happen. Then the borged^wbought company has to be digested by the buying company. RE: An 83% Premium???
Ok, time to clarify: Voice said the PalmSource acquisition was IMMINENT. Weren't we just debating last weekend whether Monday was "this" week or "next week"? But, yes, I am aware that he--nor any of the other online pundits/oracles--never mentioned any other potential buyers other than Palm themselves. "Came outta nowhere"=the rumor mill didn't churn in the SLIGHTEST prior to this announcement hitting the wire. What have these guys done of recent note aside from the various Netfront products? They're not some spin-off, subsidiary, or even just deeply in cahoots with NTT DoCoMo, are they? The bell tolls for Palm.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 1:42:10 AM #
Well, at least something better than WebPro & Blazer will likely come out of this!! Off to bed now...further ruminations on this in the morning! I wonder how long this has been in the works--looks like the Voice WAS right after all...but these guys came outta NOWHERE! I wonder what a move like this will do to Palm's Linux ramp-up? hkklife, I was predicting Palm would be behind the takeout, since owning PalmOS is the only way Palm could ensure its longterm survival. I assume the price was too rich for Palm to counter with a white knight stock-for-stock move. And since - as I've posted before - Palm has its rights to PalmOS locked up anyway, in some ways it doesn't matter in the short term that they've now lost control of PalmOS. Ultimately, this means the end of Palm as a PalmOS company and the deal also seals Palm's fate, since it will not survive for long as Just Another WinMob Licensee. How tragic. TVoR
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: An 83% Premium???PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 1:54:09 AM #
> Voice said the PalmSource acquisition was IMMINENT. Skippy said it was anytime from now through the middle of next year. > Weren't we just debating last weekend whether Monday Actually, I mentioned several. I even expressed concern over skippy's possible anguish if someone other than Palm bought PalmSource. ;) You need a better rumor mill. ;) > What have these guys done of recent note aside from the nothing that i know about. > They're not some spin-off, subsidiary, or even just deeply Not as far as I can tell looking around tonight. They seem to be in a hurry, though. The press release on their site indicates that they intend to finish the merger before the end of December, which is incredibly fast for an international buy out. RE: An 83% Premium???PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 3:43:46 AM #
> And since - as I've posted before - Palm has its rights to > PalmOS locked up anyway I can't recall Skippy. Did you post that Palm has its right all locked up before or after you posted that ALL licenses would be VOID (your emphasis) if PalmSource was bought out. Is this how you get your great prediction success rate? By predicting enough outcomes that at least one of them has to be likely? Very droll, Skippy. > Had I theoretically bought 10,000 shares a week ago when the A week ago? Skippy, you've been trying to get a buyout rumor started ferever. Anyway, had you bought on the 2nd, (that's a week ago,) you'd have paid right around $10.60 a share. If you sold today, you'd have lost roughly $0.60 a share, so, not counting your fees, you'd have just lost $60,000. Now had you bought on 23 Aug and held out for the six months or so it'll take for you to sell to ACCESS _and_ the deal goes through, you'd gross $100K before short term capital gain taxes, less your trade fees. RE: An 83% Premium???
> Then the borged^wbought company has to be digested by the buying company. I'm not sure I like the sound of that... RE: An 83% Premium???Dr Opinion @ 9/9/2005 6:44:03 PM #
> "in some ways it doesn't matter in the short term that they've now lost control of PalmOS" The-Voice-of-Dumbness is apparently a m$ shill, and not the sharpest pencil in the pack to boot. Palm "lost control of the PalmOS" when they originally divested PalmSurce. That was the entire point! I mean, duh! :) RE: An 83% Premium???
DrOpinion - as the corpse gets colder, please tell us how it can get up dance. RE: An 83% Premium???The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 9:49:55 PM #
> And since - as I've posted before - Palm has its rights to > PalmOS locked up anyway I can't recall Skippy. Did you post that Palm has its right all locked up before or after you posted that ALL licenses would be VOID (your emphasis) if PalmSource was bought out. Actually, I posted links to (and analysis of) the 8-KA outlining how Palm was covering its a$$ in case PalmSource was sold to someone else. You need to go back and READ the threads in question before making more retarded statements like that, Marty. As usual your attempts to obfuscate are somewhat quaint in their child-like amateurishness. Mr. Fouts, as usual you're not making much sense. > Had I theoretically bought 10,000 shares a week ago when the A week ago? Skippy, you've been trying to get a buyout rumor started ferever. Anyway, had you bought on the 2nd, (that's a week ago,) you'd have paid right around $10.60 a share. If you sold today, you'd have lost roughly $0.60 a share, so, not counting your fees, you'd have just lost $60,000. Now had you bought on 23 Aug and held out for the six months or so it'll take for you to sell to ACCESS _and_ the deal goes through, you'd gross $100K before short term capital gain taxes, less your trade fees. More lies from Marty. Isn't that a surprise... And more bizarre Marty Math. Thanks for sharing, Bubba. Don't quit your day job. TVoR
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: An 83% Premium???The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 10:03:46 PM #
Is this how you get your great prediction success rate? By predicting enough outcomes that at least one of them has to be likely? Very droll, Skippy.
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: An 83% Premium???PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 10:07:24 PM #
>> I can't recall Skippy. Did you post that Palm has its right >> all locked up before or after you posted that ALL licenses w >> ould be VOID (your emphasis) if PalmSource was bought out. > Actually, I posted links to (and analysis of) the 8-KA Indeed you did Skippy. You posted it in the same thread that _you_ labeled with the claim that ALL licenses would be VOID if PalmSource was bought out. It was fun to watch you back pedal then. It's fun to watch you deny the back pedaling now.
Marty, Marty, Marty... Mendacity is your middle name.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 10:56:44 PM #
>> I can't recall Skippy. Did you post that Palm has its right >> all locked up before or after you posted that ALL licenses w >> ould be VOID (your emphasis) if PalmSource was bought out. > Actually, I posted links to (and analysis of) the 8-KA Indeed you did Skippy. You posted it in the same thread that _you_ labeled with the claim that ALL licenses would be VOID if PalmSource was bought out. It was fun to watch you back pedal then. It's fun to watch you deny the back pedaling now. Marty Fouts http://www.palminfocentre.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8042#111393 Marty, dearest: your FUD, misdirections and untruthfulness are now reaching toward epic proportions unseen here since the late Michael Mace. (You now DO know who Michael Mace is, right Marty? I believe you previously claimed to have no knowledge of who he was.) It's nice to see you at least finally admitting who you are. Did Dianne Hackborn biotchslap you until you agreed to stop your silly little "anonymous insider" charade? Keep posting more of your steady stream of drivel here, Mr. Fouts. And remember: we're not laughing WITH you, we're laughing AT you.
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: An 83% Premium???PenguinPowered @ 9/10/2005 1:35:15 AM #
Um, Nope, Skippy, got that wrong as well. It's Joseph. Thanks for playing, though. > Marty, dearest: your FUD, misdirections and untruthfulness Um, Skippy, you're confused again. All I did was point out, correctly, that you've claimed both that PalmSource licenses were voided if PalmSource was bought, _and_ that they weren't. That's not FUD, misdirection, nor untruthfulness. And no, I still have no idea who Michael Mace is; other than someone you seem to have a fetish for.
RE: An 83% Premium???The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/10/2005 7:20:44 AM #
It's reassuring to know that someone like you is helping develop PalmOS, Marty. Now I'll understand why it is that PalmOS 5 will ultimately be remembered as the platform's apogee.
With you on board, no doubt Apollo will soon be crash landing into the Sea of Red Ink. Take care, Marty.
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 
 Un****ingbelievable.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 1:25:40 AM #
I didn't believe this when I heard this on the weekend. This pretty much confirms that the PalmOS platform as we knew it is dead. White knight Palm was either asleep at the wheel or evidently has decided to become Just Another WinMob Licensee. While it's nice to hear PalmSource may be rescued by a company that might actually provide the necessary resources to accelerate PalmLinux development and make it into a viable smartphone OS by 2006, I'll believe it when I see it. I am truly speechless. P.S. Ka-Ching! 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: Un****ingbelievable.
Voice; Good to see you back & posting. I wouldn't want to have missed out on your insight as this trainwreck unfolds for anything!! Man, '06 is somehow shaping up to be even more grim than I anticipated it being. RE: Un****ingbelievable.chicken_tandoori @ 9/9/2005 1:43:58 AM #
actually voice... you said it before i even managed to log in. maybe this really is a good sign. better people replacing the clueless ones at PS. ha ha! RE: Un****ingbelievable.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 1:57:28 AM #
Voice; Good to see you back & posting. I wouldn't want to have missed out on your insight as this trainwreck unfolds for anything!! Man, '06 is somehow shaping up to be even more grim than I anticipated it being. Thanks, hkklife. I expected the buyout, but was certain Palm was going to be the winner, with another Handspring-style stock-for-stock move. I think Palm just got outflanked and has now lost control over the only thing that matters: PalmOS. While the bogus "split" of Palm a few years ago was a very clever move for reasons I've previously documented, that corporate gamesmanship has now come back to bite Palm in the a$$. When you think about how valuable a property PalmOS is (last time I checked, there weren't exactly a lot of PDA OSes out there with huge application libraries and developer communities), to allow PalmOS to be swiped by Access is a major blunder. TVoR 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: Un****ingbelievable.PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 1:57:56 AM #
> This pretty much confirms that the PalmOS platform as we knew > it is dead. Ah, good to see Skippy's still confused. This confirms no such thing. Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by 'as we knew it'. If you mean Garnet's dead, than we agree. > White knight Palm was either asleep at the wheel or evidently Maybe. Be patient. If they do, they're on a short road to a dead end. > While it's nice to hear PalmSource may be rescued by a Nah. Mergers take time. Although ACCESS' press release on their web site says they plan to finish merging by the end of December, that'd be very impressive speed for an international takeover. You can pretty much figure that ACCESS won't have much direct impact, other than to cause confusion among the PalmSource troops, until mid-late '06. > I am truly speechless. ;) RE: Un****ingbelievable.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 2:14:00 AM #
> This pretty much confirms that the PalmOS platform as we knew > it is dead. Ah, good to see Skippy's still confused. This confirms no such thing. Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by 'as we knew it'. If you mean Garnet's dead, than we agree. PalmOS 5 is toast. As a foundation for smartphones it's far too kludgy to be taken seriously. The value of PalmSource is in providing an (almost) turnkey OS for smartphones that already has a huge app library waiting to be leveraged (or more accurately, "3xpl0It3d"). Even though PalmLinux development is still in its infancy (I expect PalmLinux will not be ready for Prime Time for at least two more years) it still beats trying to create a platform from scratch. Maybe. > White knight Palm was either asleep at the wheel or evidently Maybe. Be patient. If they do, they're on a short road to a dead end. $325 million is $75 million more than I thought PalmSource would get. That price is (arguably) ridiculous, given how primitive PalmLinux currently is and that a lot can happen in the 2 years it will take to get PalmLinux to market. If Motorola or Nokia et. al. succeed in their Linux initiatives and get developer support (and if Java reaches its potential), PalmLinux may end up being the answer to a question no one is asking in 2007. [And no, Marty - Cobalt won't cut it for Palm in the interim as we wait for PalmLinux. WinMob Treos will signal the death of the PalmOS platform as we knew it.]
Nah. Mergers take time. Although ACCESS' press release on their web site says they plan to finish merging by the end of December, that'd be very impressive speed for an international takeover. You can pretty much figure that ACCESS won't have much direct impact, other than to cause confusion among the PalmSource troops, until mid-late '06. Again, PalmLinux in 2007 seems realistic, but with the competition not exactly standing still, I would not be surprised to find PalmLinux greeted by yawns and developer indifference in 2007. The release of a slew of Cobalt devices ASAP is needed to keep PalmOS app developers from letting the platform wither, but what I've seen of Cobalt running on real hardware has been disappointing - to put it mildly. > I am truly speechless. ;) Well, not really. TVoR
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: Un****ingbelievable.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 3:15:57 AM #
http://www.access.co.jp/press/050909.html 2005.09.09 ACCESS subsidiary company and United States PalmSource and Inc. With the news regarding merger
Corporation ACCESS (head office: The Tokyo Chiyoda Ku, Representative President: Arakawa Toru, below "ACCESS") and are its complete subsidiary company United States Apollo Merger Sub and Inc. which (Head office: Delaware state, below "Apollo Merger Sub"), Apollo Merger Sub for the American portable equipment is installed in the board of directors both of 2005 September 9th opening, and are the OS production major company PalmSource and Inc. which (Head office: California state, CEO: Because Patrick McVeigh and below "the PalmSource" or "object company") by the fact that it absorbs combines, the effect which designates PalmSource as the complete subsidiary company of ACCESS substantially it resolved respectively, as mentioned below we inform. Description As for ACCESS, PalmSource possesses by the to complete subsidiary company converting PalmSource substantially, the user interface which is superior, application, to take in the developer community, for the portable telephone those which can assure the substantial expansion of application we have expected. In addition, it includes to Linux based OS and Palm based application, it becomes possible to offer the total Turn Key solution as ACCESS furthermore we think that reduction of the terminal development cost in the terminal manufacturer by plus doing the customer basis in the portable terminal market which ACCESS possesses, in addition to the enlargement of the profit, becomes possible. In addition, the development team approximately 200 names of China MobileSoft think the thing which keeps bearing one end of strengthening and future Linux based software development of the Chinese resource of ACCESS. ACCESS, in order to achieve the above-mentioned purpose, PalmSource (NASDAQ presentation) 100% to acquire stock substantially. About Apollo Merger Sub This release ahead the inquiring which regards - Ahead inquiring of reporting authorized personnel - Ahead other inquiring
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 Google Japanese to English BETA.PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 3:28:42 AM #
jeez Skippy, if you're going to run a web page through Google's BETA Japanese to English translator, you should at least let people know you did that. RE: Un****ingbelievable.PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 3:29:50 AM #
> Even though PalmLinux development is still in its infancy (I > expect PalmLinux will not be ready for Prime Time for at > least two more years) it still beats trying to create a > platform from scratch. Maybe. two years? Very good. we'll get you in tune with the reality of software development yet, Skippy. > $325 million is $75 million more than I thought PalmSource $250M is twice their market cap of a few days ago. Even that's a hell of a premium for a software company. Maybe the dot-boom is back. > That price is (arguably) ridiculous, given how primitive IMO, ACCESS didn't pay that premium to get at PalmLinux. > If Motorola or Nokia et. al. succeed in their Linux Moto doesn't have a real Linux initiative. Nokia's the player to watch in the Linux phone space, as I've mentioned before. I'd have guessed Nokia before ACCESS, myself. > WinMob Treos will signal the death of the PalmOS platform as I'd imagine that PalmLinux is more likely to do that. About the only thing the WinMob Treo is going to signal is confusion on Palm's part. > Again, PalmLinux in 2007 seems realistic, but with the Eh, there's not much in the way of competition on the Linux front. TrollTech and MontaVista seem to have had a falling out and Moto's not making much headway (and doesn't seem to care that much.) Nokia _did_ get FCC approval for the 770, though. That'll be interesting to watch. > The release of a slew of Cobalt devices ASAP is needed to Well, there won't be any winmob treos in consumers hands in the next two quarters and there won't be any cobalt phones to speak of, especially in the us market. Nokia seems to be content to go slow with Linux, testing the water with a non-phone device. ACCESS/Apollo/the-company-soon-to-be-formerly-known-as-PalmSource or whatever it'll be called still has an open window. The question is, as it has been all along, whether or not they can get through it before it closes in '08. By the way, Skippy, I'm impressed. quite the balancing act you're doing here, trying to act as if you're still holding the same views you held all along. Glad you're back on form. Marty Fouts: were you always this slow?The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 10:07:51 PM #
jeez Skippy, if you're going to run a web page through Google's BETA Japanese to English translator, you should at least let people know you did that. What do you see when you go to the site I referenced in my previous post with the translation, Marty? (http://www.access.co.jp/press/050909.html) Your comments have gotten weaker and weaker with every post. Perhaps its time you beg Dianne Hackborn for some help in formulating cogent responses here. You're nothing but an embarassment to PalmSource - assuming you still will have a job in the near future. Please keep it up though, Marty - the presence of people like you in PalmSource is precisely why the company is floundering.
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: Un****ingbelievable.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 10:15:08 PM #
> Even though PalmLinux development is still in its infancy (I > expect PalmLinux will not be ready for Prime Time for at > least two more years) it still beats trying to create a > platform from scratch. Maybe. two years? Very good. we'll get you in tune with the reality of software development yet, Skippy. Marty, you need to get a clue. Please make some more of your smarmy posts for our viewing pleasure. > $325 million is $75 million more than I thought PalmSource $250M is twice their market cap of a few days ago. Even that's a hell of a premium for a software company. Maybe the dot-boom is back. PalmSource also has $100 million in cash + investments. And its cap was hovering around $150 million for quite a while before the recent tailspin. $250 million would have been a reasonable price. > That price is (arguably) ridiculous, given how primitive IMO, ACCESS didn't pay that premium to get at PalmLinux. Well, we all know exactly what your opinion is worth, Marty. > If Motorola or Nokia et. al. succeed in their Linux Moto doesn't have a real Linux initiative. Nokia's the player to watch in the Linux phone space, as I've mentioned before. I'd have guessed Nokia before ACCESS, myself. Motorola is playing the field and will probably stumble into a decent Linux platform sooner or later. This OS business isn't exactly rocket science. Nokia has been clever enough to start tapping the Open Source Movement right away while maintaining some control over its IP. Properly nurtured, Nokia will likely produce a stable Linux OS long before PalmLinux goes gold. Why pay for something you're confident you can do faster + cheaper yourself? > WinMob Treos will signal the death of the PalmOS platform as I'd imagine that PalmLinux is more likely to do that. About the only thing the WinMob Treo is going to signal is confusion on Palm's part. Let me simplify it so even you can understand, Marty: PalmOS Treo = Palm. Palm = the PalmOS platform. By transitive property, PalmOS Treo = the PalmOS platform. Cannibalize PalmOS Treo sales with Windows Mobile Treo sales and the PalmOS platform is dead, almost overnight. As developers sense the smell of death upon the PalmOS platform, they will abandon it in droves, converting to Windows Mobile. With PalmLinux at least two years from ditching its vaporware status, Cobalt DOA and PalmOS 5 a hacked-up, buggy deck of cards, it's Game Over for PalmOS. I realize the truth hurts, Marty, but you need to advance through the Grief Process and stop with the Denial, already. Oy.
Eh, there's not much in the way of competition on the Linux front. TrollTech and MontaVista seem to have had a falling out and Moto's not making much headway (and doesn't seem to care that much.) Nokia _did_ get FCC approval for the 770, though. That'll be interesting to watch. Care to bet who has a STABLE Linux phone OS out first, Marty? PalmSource, Motorola or Nokia. Put up or SHUT UP, Marty. What's that? Can't hear you, Marty. > The release of a slew of Cobalt devices ASAP is needed to Well, there won't be any winmob treos in consumers hands in the next two quarters and there won't be any cobalt phones to speak of, especially in the us market. Nokia seems to be content to go slow with Linux, testing the water with a non-phone device. Windows Mobile Treos will likely be available in a few months. PalmLinux devices won't be available for a few YEARS. Think about it, Mr. Fouts. ACCESS/Apollo/the-company-soon-to-be-formerly-known-as-PalmSource or whatever it'll be called still has an open window. The question is, as it has been all along, whether or not they can get through it before it closes in '08. Open window? Don't be delusional. If PalmLinux does not ship by 2006, it has no hope in He11 of making a dent in the marketplace. We will probably be filing PalmLinux away with Cobalt, BeOS, Copeland, OS/2 and all the other failures as OSes that "coulda, shoulda been a contenda". Pathetic. By the way, Skippy, I'm impressed. quite the balancing act you're doing here, trying to act as if you're still holding the same views you held all along. Glad you're back on form. As I said before, I make the predictions, back them up with evidence and don't run away if I'm proved to be wrong. Nothing I've said changes. Palm simply got outflanked and was dumb enough to lose control of PalmOS. I hope you and the other PalmSource codemonkeys finally learn how to produce good code QUICKLY, Marty. Time is about to run out. TVoR
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: Un****ingbelievable.PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 10:57:03 PM #
>> jeez Skippy, if you're going to run a web page through >> Google's BETA Japanese to English translator, you should at >> least let people know you did that. > What do you see when you go to the site I referenced in my The page you ran through Google, Skippy. Next time, credit Google for the translation. RE: Un****ingbelievable.PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 11:01:26 PM #
> Motorola is playing the field and will probably stumble into > a decent Linux platform sooner or later. Maybe. Bet you're not going to see where it comes from either. > This OS business isn't exactly rocket science. You're right, Skippy. I've done rocket science. OSes are much more fun. Harder, but more fun. > Nokia has been clever enough to start tapping the Open Not 'right away', Skippy. Nokia started to take advantage of open source fairly recently. IBM's been at it much longer, for instance. > Properly nurtured, Nokia will likely produce a stable Linux Unfortunately, _for you_, it appears to be rocket science. There's already a stable Linux for ARM, Skippy. Has been for some little time. Nokia, as you pointed out above, is taking advantage of it, not producing it. > PalmOS Treo = Palm. Palm = the PalmOS platform. By transitive Once again, Skippy proves math not to be his strong suit. No, Skippy, it's not even a good metaphor, let alone good math. > Cannibalize PalmOS Treo sales with Windows Mobile Treo sales So you've said. You've never offered a convincing argument for this, and you've made it clear you're not taking much into account, but you have, in fact, said that. First, winmob treo's at least six months off, as far as consumers are concerned. Second, palmOS treo sales aren't going to be 'canibalized' by winmob treo for months after that, even if they are, because there's the little detail of carrier acceptance. Third, PalmOS has a breather now that PalmSource has a new owner. > Care to bet who has a STABLE Linux phone OS out first, Marty? Poor Skippy, not paying attention again. PalmSource already has stable Linux phones on the market, in Asia, Skippy. Nokia doesn't. > Windows Mobile Treos will likely be available in a few not 'few months' Skippy. In consumers hands: not for at least six months, if they ever ship at all. (you really need to start scanning the fcc site, if you're going to make predictions of when phones ship.) > As I said before, I make the predictions, back them up with Except your predictions that I worked for Palm, that I was a consultant, that Palm would buy PalmSource in '06, that all palmos licenses would be voided if PalmSource got bought, ... sure. > I hope you and the other PalmSource codemonkeys finally learn Oh Skippy, you're far too funny. You still haven't figured it out, have you. I'm not a codemonkey Skippy. I'm not on anybody's schedule for turning out code. Even after I've said who I am, you don't get what I do. It's very very funny to see you make all these pronouncements about what's going to happen in OS land when you don't know anything about OS development. Please keep it up Skippy. Oh, about time running out? Didn't you hear, PalmSource has a buyer. Time just got extended.
RE: Un****ingbelievable.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 11:09:05 PM #
>> jeez Skippy, if you're going to run a web page through >> Google's BETA Japanese to English translator, you should at >> least let people know you did that. > What do you see when you go to the site I referenced in my The page you ran through Google, Skippy. Next time, credit Google for the translation. Marty Fouts
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: Un****ingbelievable.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 11:14:59 PM #
The page you ran through Google, Skippy. Next time, credit Google for the translation. Marty Fouts By the way, Marty the translation was by http://world.altavista.com/ - and links to the translated pages are not available. Boo Hoo Hoo! 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: Un****ingbelievable.The_Voice_of_Reason @ 1/14/2006 4:32:51 PM #
Your comments have gotten weaker and weaker with every post. Perhaps its time you beg Dianne Hackborn for some help in formulating cogent responses here. You're nothing but an embarassment to PalmSource - assuming you still will have a job in the near future. Please keep it up though, Marty - the presence of people like you in PalmSource is precisely why the company is floundering.
Oops.
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
Wonder why did Palm pass on it?
Surely Palmsource could have approach Palm, Inc. for a rival bid... wonder why Palm pass on it... Sure 83% premium may seem steep but it's like the lifeblood of your company... after all, it committed itself for is it five years to pay for the OS and just paid $30 million for the brand... and with Palmsource's throve of IT (Palm OS, BeOS, ChinaMobilesoft properties), I believe $300 million+ is kinda cheap... Surely Palm could raise that amount, what with the Treo sales going through the roof... At the very least, it could have use it's own stock as a leverage (part cash/part stock) deal... Hope, this will hasten and not delay 'Palm on Linux' launch... RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 2:15:56 AM #
It makes no sense for Palm to buy PalmSource. It certainly makes no sense for them to get into a bidding war. I doubt that the ACCESS buyout will have any impact one way or another on PalmLinux. RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?
Perhaps Palm's passing on PalmSource shows how rotten things are in the state of BEnmark? (how do ya like that one, Voice?) Maybe PoL isn't progressing as nicely as hoped...or, and I'm sticking to my guns on this one, they (Palm) REALLY are arrogant to think that a warmed over WinMob Treo is going to carry them back to the stratospheric heights last seen in the glory days of the Palm V. A 240*240 WinMob Treo for a flagship device, a series of Garnet devices on life support at the low end and PalmSource very quietly slipping out of their grasp. Not a great way to wrap up the year. RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?
Why would Palm buy PalmSource? That 83% premium was considered worth it for one reason and one reason alone: the market knows Palm OS for Linux will sell well to vendors other than Palm, particularly in the large Asian market. If Palm bought PalmSource it would throw cold water on future licensing plans of competing vendors who would be reluctant to tie their fortunes to a competitor. The value of the acquisition would be dissipated by the fact that the acquiring company was Palm.
RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?
At this point I don't know any more about this deal than all of you (we found out about it tonight when the press release went out), but I can offer some personal observations that might give some context in which to interpret it. Please note that I am not talking for PalmSource at all, these are entirely my personal opinions, and I am probably completely wrong. :) First, you need to understand what is currently going on in the mobile phone market. Currently most phone device manufacturers own both the software and hardware they are doing. They design the hardware and software together for the device. They will license some pieces of the software (maybe a realtime kernel from someone, probably a web browser from someone else like Access), but they are essentially putting these things together into a custom piece of software for the device. They may also hire someone else to do the software, but it is still the same thing: custom software for a device. As of today, the biggest piece of third party software that the hardware manufacturers license is the web browser -- that is in fact the single most complicated piece of software in most current phones. This is the market that Access is in. To give some perspective on it, another company I know of who does mobile device web browser software currently sells more copies of their software than Microsoft sells copies of Windows. This situation is starting to change, however. As the software for these devices becomes increasingly complex, it becomes harder and harder for the hardware manufacturers to do all of the software themselves. So they license more and more pieces of software, glueing them together, and trying to get all of these different pieces to work together is still a huge burden. As a result of this, the phone manufacturers are starting to realize that they need a software platform. This way someone else can take care of a lot of the really difficult software problems, allowing them to share the burden with others as well as easing integration issues by having some kind of common framework that others can write applications against. At the same time, the "mobile device web browser" market is becoming increasingly commoditized. They sell a ridiculous numbers of copies of the software, but the money they get per copy is also ridiculously low, and there is increasing competition in the space, including from open source. And if the hardware manufacturers are moving to a more platform-based software stack, just taking a free browser like Firefox and using that is now a much more viable approach, especially if the platform you are using is, say, Linux. So people are suddenly starting to realize that there may be a lot of money in a "mobile device platform", and the mobile phone world is shifting so that getting into that platform market is very attractive to someone like Access. At the same time, a software platform is much more valuable when it is not tied to a hardware manufacturer, since it has the opportunity to be on many more devices (unless that hardware manufacturer owns 80% of the market, like Apple does with MP3 players). This was, of course, one of the motivations for splitting Palm in the first place. Thus, if you are looking for buyers for a software platform, you probably won't get as much money from a hardware manufacturer since they won't see as much value in at. Not to mention that today most of them are not too sure they really want to be doing that kind of stuff anyway. Basically I think the handheld device market is currently similar, in this regard, to the PC market in the 80s. Remember that back then most hardware manufacturers also did their own software (Apple, Commodore, Atari, etc). As that software became more complicated, and the advantages of a platform (in having a common, consistent foundation for applications to use) became more pronounced, Microsoft came to dominate the market as a purely software company. We've known for a while at PalmSource that this is where the market was going to go, and have been trying to position ourselves to be able to take advantage of it. Clearly that hasn't so far been nearly as successful as we would have liked, and I think there are three main reasons for this: (1) we were too far ahead of the market; (2) the hardware manufacturers have learned some lessons from the PC market; and (3) we haven't had a phone-centric UI. So (1) is pretty self-explanatory. As much as we want to get into the mainstream of the phone market, today those phones are basically all written with custom RTOS kernels and custom and licensed software integrated on top. Though the software complexity has made this approach problematic for a while, that is what the hardware manufacturers are familiar with and so they have been dragging that approach as far as they could make it limp along. I think Motorola is probably farther along than most in getting away from this, in their current efforts with Linux. Which brings us to (2). The handset manufacturers know very well what Microsoft did to the PC hardware market, by having complete ownership of the platform: they utterly commoditized it. The PC business is now a very low-margin, utterly cost-sensitive market. The handset manufacturers don't want this to happen to them, and they are starting to think they have found a solution in the form of Linux. If they can have more control over the hardware, then they can customize it and otherwise differentiate their devices. The interest in Linux is driven much more by that kind of thinking than by, "oh look it's free as in beer!". As a result, the hardware people are quite suspicious of Microsoft. Though probably not as much as they are as Symbian -- who you'll recall is essentially owned by another hardware company they are competing with. And though they may be a little less suspicious of PalmSource, still (a) Cobalt was just as much of a lock-in as Microsoft software; and (b) PalmSource is much, much smaller than Microsoft. So maybe we could make promises that we wouldn't grow up to be big meanies like Microsoft, but it's difficult to make a business deal based on that. :) This situation is one of the significant reasons for us to switch to Linux, and so far I am pretty convinced that it is proving to be the right thing to do. On the technical side it's a lot more work on our part, but from a business perspective it has a lot of advantages. That leaves us with (3), which is probably not something I can say much about. :) I'll just say that, though a Treo kind of UI is fine for what it is, my person opinion is that it is -not- a phone, and that kind of UI is not going to fly in the bulk of the cell phone market. (Indeed, one of the licensees we talk with has made it clear to us that they don't consider the Treo to be a phone product; I believe they refer to it as a "mobile PDA".) So this is something that needs to be addressed, and is an ingredient in things like the CMS acquisition and the Rome UI that was mentioned at the last developer's conference.
RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 3:20:45 AM #
Perhaps Palm's passing on PalmSource shows how rotten things are in the state of BEnmark? (how do ya like that one, Voice?) Good one. Benhamou and the Holy Be Engineers are not worthy. Maybe PoL isn't progressing as nicely as hoped...or, and I'm sticking to my guns on this one, they (Palm) REALLY are arrogant to think that a warmed over WinMob Treo is going to carry them back to the stratospheric heights last seen in the glory days of the Palm V. A 240*240 WinMob Treo for a flagship device, a series of Garnet devices on life support at the low end and PalmSource very quietly slipping out of their grasp. Not a great way to wrap up the year. I believe Palm was simply outbid for PalmSource. The WinMob Treo is a done deal. Short term profits at the expense of undermining the PalmOS platform. I agree with you in that Palm's "strategy" is a recipe for disaster. TVoR 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: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 3:54:16 AM #
David, your arguments are well reasoned, but I think you've got the reason for the buyout wrong. I don't think it's PalmLinux that ACCESS was after, but rather, they were after access. (Sorry for the bad pun, it's late.) RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?PenguinPowered @ 9/9/2005 4:04:14 AM #
I guess if I'm going to argue with hackbod in public, I may as well come out of the closet. ;) In all of his guessing, Skippy did get one thing right besides the spelling of my name. I do, in fact, do Linux-ish things for PalmSource. ;) (I'm the NAND/filesystem guy.) Anyway, a correction, from history: The story of M$ dominating the market because they were a software company and hardware companies didn't want to be in that business anymore is a neatly wrapped package. Unfortunately, it's not what happened. It was IBM that established the dominance of the "PC" (upper case) over the personal computer -- purely as the act of a hardware company. They had the muscle to do their own software, and the PC was the only product in their line where they didn't. It was the IBM PC, and not M$'s OSes that caused all of the hadware vendors to do their thing. It was, in fact, the BIOS and desire for "exact PC compatibility" that put Intel and IBM in the forefront of the "personal computer revolution". Then IBM dropped the ball, and Microsoft picked it up and ran with it. It wasn't even M$'s ball. It was one they licensed from a company that did operating systems and then resold to IBM, and, eventually, all the PC clones. (Ironically, in more than 35 years of IBM watching, the PC is the only ball I've ever seen them really and truely drop.) I haven't done a line count on current browsers, but given that the Linux kernel contains nearly 50 megabytes of source code, I find it difficult to imagine that a browser, well, at least a competently written one, could be any bigger. I'm sure mozilla is. ;) Personally, I don't see the phone market at all like the PC market in the 80s, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is Linux. In the 80s, we were just figuring out the whole idea of portable OSes when the PC came along and set us back a few years. Now, highschool kids put together pretty competent "platforms". It's not like the 80s when only a handful of us were lucky enough to have the kind of money that allowed us to have the sort of workstations that are now routinely available off the shelf for a grand. None of this stuff is new any more. Well, not entirely true. The one thing that's new is that people are putting all this crap onto itty-bitty devices with no hard drives, crappy displays, horrible hardware UIs, and significant power demands. As far as Linux freeing up the hardware makers to innovate in the hardware: I know two things from first hand experience: 1) They do believe that A lot of people are playing in the "let's paste a UI on Linux and call it a cellphone OS" space. There are three credible efforts in this area. IMO, the two to watch are PalmSource and Maemo. (Yeah, I know, Maemo's not for phones -- yet) That said, I don't believe that PalmLinux is why Access is buying PalmSource. And no, as a grunt, I don't know any more about this than any of you. I just know what I read on Reuters.
RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?SeldomVisitor @ 9/9/2005 7:02:33 AM #
The premium being paid for PSRC seems...excessive. Very strange. [and an excellent example of why I hold no trading positions overnight nor have ever held a position in now UBER-volatile PSRC! Yow.] But for those saying PALM's now out of the picture with PalmOS that comentary by the CEO of PALM up above says they're still there - contracts can be changed... RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/9/2005 11:39:09 PM #
The premium being paid for PSRC seems...excessive. Very strange. [and an excellent example of why I hold no trading positions overnight nor have ever held a position in now UBER-volatile PSRC! Yow.] But for those saying PALM's now out of the picture with PalmOS that comentary by the CEO of PALM up above says they're still there - contracts can be changed... The price seems ridiculous, but perhaps not in a few possible scenarios: 1) Access-as-the-New-Palm theory: Access becomes a more intelligent Palm: contracts with HTC, etc and becomes a one-stop supplier of phones to carriers. Nice way to segue out of the browser business now that the power of future hardware will soon allow open source browsers to run acceptably, "Netscaping" Access' NetFront browser. Fly in the ointment: Palm's renegotiated contract with PalmSource allows them to keep their clutches on PalmOS for 5 more years. For the "one-stop supplier" idea to be effective a company needs (Apple-style) COMPLETE control over both OS and hardware. 2) Access-as-puppet theory: Access acquires PalmSource + runs it into the ground for the benefit of a shadowy Redmond-colored figure lurking in the background. 3) Access-as-a-better-Symbian theory: Great OS + huge app library + good developer community + fair developer tools; without overbearing spectre of Nokia trying to run the show = instant mobile platform IF packaged with ALL the ingredients (as I've previously suggested that PalmSource have rolled into PalmOS). It wouldn't take a lot of effort to make PalmOS into a killer mobile platform. PalmSource was too clueless to see this. A better-run company might have better luck. 4) Access-as-hostagetaker: I wonder if Palm would be willing to reconsider how badly it needs PalmOS and pay Access an extra premium to regain control of PalmOS now that Access has abducted it while Palm was sleeping?
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: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/10/2005 1:38:11 AM #
Perhaps Palm's passing on PalmSource shows how rotten things are in the state of BEnmark? (how do ya like that one, Voice?) Good one. Benhamou and the Holy Be Engineers are not worthy. Maybe PoL isn't progressing as nicely as hoped...or, and I'm sticking to my guns on this one, they (Palm) REALLY are arrogant to think that a warmed over WinMob Treo is going to carry them back to the stratospheric heights last seen in the glory days of the Palm V. A 240*240 WinMob Treo for a flagship device, a series of Garnet devices on life support at the low end and PalmSource very quietly slipping out of their grasp. Not a great way to wrap up the year. I believe Palm was simply outbid for PalmSource. The WinMob Treo is a done deal. Short term profits at the expense of undermining the PalmOS platform. I agree with you in that Palm's "strategy" is a recipe for disaster. TVoR
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 Beersy: Buy a vowelThe_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/10/2005 1:40:55 AM #
Why would Palm buy PalmSource? That 83% premium was considered worth it for one reason and one reason alone: the market knows Palm OS for Linux will sell well to vendors other than Palm, particularly in the large Asian market. If Palm bought PalmSource it would throw cold water on future licensing plans of competing vendors who would be reluctant to tie their fortunes to a competitor. The value of the acquisition would be dissipated by the fact that the acquiring company was Palm. Beersy, in case you haven't figured it out yet, the REAL money is in selling hardware to carriers. The mobile OS business is about to get pretty shaky as developmet of "free" Linux phone OSes continue. As others have said, "It's hard to compete with free". The way to compete is by providing carriers with COMPLETE solutions that painlessly give them product to offer to their customers: a proven industry-standard framework (Palm platform) + "free" open source OS underpinnings (ARMLinux) + slick hardware (HTC). Which is the better business model: Eking out a living selling copies of your mobile OS to cellphone hardware manufacturers at $5/copy, waiting for the day that they unceremoniously dump you for "free Linux" or selling a complete package (OS + hardware) to carriers for $25 - $50 profit/phone and maintaining complete control over the platform? It's not about making yourself attractive to hardware manufacturers - it's about making a platform you control (completely) attractive to CARRIERS. Now do you get it? The Treo 600 was a brilliant first step in making PalmOS a viable platform for carriers, but Palm was too lazy/stupid/underfunded to take this to the next level by giving carriers a full lineup of PalmOS smartphones and not-so-smarthones. Had Palm locked up ownership of PalmOS it could have been in the drivers' seat: in total control of an increasingly popular PalmOS platform available to carriers and also able to offer Windows Mobile hardware to anyone that wants it. As I posted before in this thread, there are a few potential reasons why Access would have outbid PalmSource. Whichever scenario is correct, the fact that Palm was outbid is NOT reassuring. Something's rotten in the state of Palm. TVoR 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: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?PenguinPowered @ 9/10/2005 2:03:14 AM #
> Fly in the ointment: Palm's renegotiated contract with > PalmSource allows them to keep their clutches on PalmOS for 5 > more years. For the "one-stop supplier" idea to be effective > a company needs (Apple-style) COMPLETE control over both OS > and hardware. You might want to tell Michael Dell that his business model doesn't work.
Try again, Marty. You can do better. Well, I hope you can...The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/10/2005 3:24:15 AM #
> Fly in the ointment: Palm's renegotiated contract with > PalmSource allows them to keep their clutches on PalmOS for 5 > more years. For the "one-stop supplier" idea to be effective > a company needs (Apple-style) COMPLETE control over both OS > and hardware. You might want to tell Michael Dell that his business model doesn't work. Marty Fouts Unfortunately, Dell is a unique case (as you are fully aware). Cutthroat marketing, just-in-time production, efficiency, good value/good quality (in the early days), economies of scale, favored status from suppliers, visionary leadership, merciless competitiveness, innovation, good timing and a little luck all helped make Dell become what it is today. Last I checked, Palm possessed none of these attributes other than a lot of luck (finding the original secret recipe with PalmOS + the Pilot form factor 10 years ago and then 2 years ago finding the Treo life raft that it is now clinging to so desperately). The odds of another Dell coming along in the World of Mobile Devices (WMD) is approximately ZERO. This is now a commodity market, just like computers are, Bubba. Try again, Marty. You can do better. I had such high hopes for you. Please don't disappoint me.
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 Deconstructing Dianne's DefenseThe_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/10/2005 6:49:59 AM #
At this point I don't know any more about this deal than all of you (we found out about it tonight when the press release went out), but I can offer some personal observations that might give some context in which to interpret it. Please note that I am not talking for PalmSource at all, these are entirely my personal opinions, and I am probably completely wrong. :) Nice to see you back here, DK. I was afraid you had run away for good after you got roughed up here a few months ago. ;-O First, you need to understand what is currently going on in the mobile phone market. Currently most phone device manufacturers own both the software and hardware they are doing. They design the hardware and software together for the device. They will license some pieces of the software (maybe a realtime kernel from someone, probably a web browser from someone else like Access), but they are essentially putting these things together into a custom piece of software for the device. They may also hire someone else to do the software, but it is still the same thing: custom software for a device. But things seem to be pretty commoditized and simple these days, DK. Between the different flavors of Symbian (including UIQ) and in the near future different flavors of Linux, designing a phone is largely about coming up with your unique hardware (like Motorola's RAZR) to differentiate your product and picking an off-the-shelf OS + apps. You also seem to gloss over the contribution that Java can and already does make in helping the whole phone software production step to be as painless as possible. Make your hardware, pick your Symbian/Linux/Windows Mobile OS, pick your Opera/NetFront browser, badda-boom badda-bing, presto-chango, pull your fancy new phone outta that hat/your a$$. As things get commoditized (desktop-style) the software part of development should become as "difficult" as it is in specifying Windows XP + a given BIOS for a vendor's particular shade-of-beige desktop. As of today, the biggest piece of third party software that the hardware manufacturers license is the web browser -- that is in fact the single most complicated piece of software in most current phones. This is the market that Access is in. To give some perspective on it, another company I know of who does mobile device web browser software currently sells more copies of their software than Microsoft sells copies of Windows. Yes, Opera kicks serious a$$. Too bad it isn't available for PalmOS (not including that de-cojoned proxy version that was recently quietly released into the wild a few weeks ago). This situation is starting to change, however. As the software for these devices becomes increasingly complex, it becomes harder and harder for the hardware manufacturers to do all of the software themselves. So they license more and more pieces of software, glueing them together, and trying to get all of these different pieces to work together is still a huge burden. I think you're exaggerating things more than just a tad, Mistress. As a result of this, the phone manufacturers are starting to realize that they need a software platform. This way someone else can take care of a lot of the really difficult software problems, allowing them to share the burden with others as well as easing integration issues by having some kind of common framework that others can write applications against. They already HAVE software platforms, DK! Ever heard of Symbian? And perhaps you may be familiar with a little OS known as Linux. And another one called Windows Mobile. The beauty of using major OSes on your phone is that you don't have to do a lot of the development work yourself AND you get a bunch of off-the-shelf software to choose from to add to your phone. Somehow you seem to be under the impression that PalmLinux is the only OS that will help simplify things for manufacturers. At the same time, the "mobile device web browser" market is becoming increasingly commoditized. They sell a ridiculous numbers of copies of the software, but the money they get per copy is also ridiculously low, and there is increasing competition in the space, including from open source. And if the hardware manufacturers are moving to a more platform-based software stack, just taking a free browser like Firefox and using that is now a much more viable approach, especially if the platform you are using is, say, Linux. Agree with you 100%. This is one plausible theory behind Access' shocking move to acquire PalmSource's decaying carcass. So people are suddenly starting to realize that there may be a lot of money in a "mobile device platform", and the mobile phone world is shifting so that getting into that platform market is very attractive to someone like Access. At the same time, a software platform is much more valuable when it is not tied to a hardware manufacturer, since it has the opportunity to be on many more devices (unless that hardware manufacturer owns 80% of the market, like Apple does with MP3 players). This was, of course, one of the motivations for splitting Palm in the first place. Yes, the Nokia connection is one of the knocks against Symbian. But Microsoft's Windows Mobile doesn't have this downside, does it, DK? Plus it has the Trusted By Billions Microsoft name on it. Plus it promises ever-increasing integration with other Microsoft products (like MS Exchange Server, for free "push" email). Hmmmmm... I wonder what the downside of Windows Mobile is for a manufacturer looking for a modern Plug and Play OS for mobile devices? Thus, if you are looking for buyers for a software platform, you probably won't get as much money from a hardware manufacturer since they won't see as much value in at. Not to mention that today most of them are not too sure they really want to be doing that kind of stuff anyway. Au contraire, Mistress. If you have a good, widely used OS like PalmOS, an intelligent hardware company (especially one with a history using said OS) would be wise to buy that OS to help leverage the sales of their hardware. The fact that Access would buy PalmSource instead of Palm, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, etc is truly amazing. The fact that Palm and the big cellphone manufactures balked at purchasing Palmsource suggest one of three things: 1) PalmOS is felt to have no future as a mobile OS. Call me crazy, but I'm not betting that "4" is correct. Basically I think the handheld device market is currently similar, in this regard, to the PC market in the 80s. Remember that back then most hardware manufacturers also did their own software (Apple, Commodore, Atari, etc). As that software became more complicated, and the advantages of a platform (in having a common, consistent foundation for applications to use) became more pronounced, Microsoft came to dominate the market as a purely software company. Ummmm...try again, Mistress. Again, we ALREADY have platforms for phones, DK. The current situation is more like the 90s with Windows, MacOS, Linux and OS/2. PalmLinux is analagous to... BeOS. ;-O The main questions right now are "Will one platform ultimately dominate the way Windows has in the desktop world?" and "Will an open source OS dominate in cellphones or will they fail to capture "Joe Sixpack" and "Betty Budweiser" the way Linux has failed in the desktop world? We've known for a while at PalmSource that this is where the market was going to go, and have been trying to position ourselves to be able to take advantage of it. Clearly that hasn't so far been nearly as successful as we would have liked, and I think there are three main reasons for this: (1) we were too far ahead of the market; (2) the hardware manufacturers have learned some lessons from the PC market; and (3) we haven't had a phone-centric UI. Too bad you wasted the past 4 years on that offal code named "Cobalt". So you think Cobalt "hasn't so far been nearly as successful as we would have liked"? Is that like saying, "The voyage of the Titanic hasn't so far nearly as successful as they would have liked"? News flash, DK: The Titanic SANK. And so did Cobalt. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, Kiddo... And Cobalt did not sink because "(1) we were too far ahead of the market; (2) the hardware manufacturers have learned some lessons from the PC market; and (3) we haven't had a phone-centric UI". It sank because it was a buggy, delayed, demanding (of developers + hardware manufacturers), slow OS that was fatally flawed by its choice of a proprietary non-multitasking kernel instead of a Unix variant. Period. Time for you to cut the B.S., Mistress. So (1) is pretty self-explanatory. As much as we want to get into the mainstream of the phone market, today those phones are basically all written with custom RTOS kernels and custom and licensed software integrated on top. Though the software complexity has made this approach problematic for a while, that is what the hardware manufacturers are familiar with and so they have been dragging that approach as far as they could make it limp along. I think Motorola is probably farther along than most in getting away from this, in their current efforts with Linux. Please stop blaming manufacturers. PalmSource failed to produce a stripped-down stable version of the Treo OS and market it successfully to manufacturers. Who's fault is that? Look in the mirror, DK. That's who's fault it is. Which brings us to (2). The handset manufacturers know very well what Microsoft did to the PC hardware market, by having complete ownership of the platform: they utterly commoditized it. The PC business is now a very low-margin, utterly cost-sensitive market. The handset manufacturers don't want this to happen to them, and they are starting to think they have found a solution in the form of Linux. If they can have more control over the hardware, then they can customize it and otherwise differentiate their devices. The interest in Linux is driven much more by that kind of thinking than by, "oh look it's free as in beer!". Nonsense. So now you're blaming Microsoft for PalmSource's failure? Who will you blame next? The Men In Black? In case you didn't notice, cellphones are ALREADY a commoditized market. Manufacturers make money selling stylish, expensive, gimmicky phones to fashion-conscious customers. Do you really think that Joe Sixpack or Betty Budweiser knows or even CARES what phone OS is running on their Motorola RAZR? Don't be silly. You could put the Newton OS (or - God forbid - BeOS) on a RAZR and people would still be lining up to buy it. Likewise, no one knows or cares what's running on that "free" phone they got for signing up with a 1 year contract. If the phone makes + receives calls, that's probably good enough. Yes, now that hgh speed data is coming from carriers features like MobiTV, video conferencing, Internet and email will be important, but unfortunately for PalmSource any modern OS should be able to handle these features with ease. As a result, the hardware people are quite suspicious of Microsoft. You're projecting again, DK. Though probably not as much as they are as Symbian -- who you'll recall is essentially owned by another hardware company they are competing with. True. And though they may be a little less suspicious of PalmSource, still (a) Cobalt was just as much of a lock-in as Microsoft software; and (b) PalmSource is much, much smaller than Microsoft. Wow. An honest assessment from a PalmSource employee. How refreshing. I hope Marty Fouts is taking notes... So maybe we could make promises that we wouldn't grow up to be big meanies like Microsoft, but it's difficult to make a business deal based on that. :) Ummmm... and I suppose PalmSource is all about "people helping people" rather than PROFIT, right Mistress? Excuse me while I unroll my eyes from the back of my head. This situation is one of the significant reasons for us to switch to Linux, and so far I am pretty convinced that it is proving to be the right thing to do. On the technical side it's a lot more work on our part, but from a business perspective it has a lot of advantages. Nice attempt at Michael Mace-style SPIN, DK. In reality, PalmSource was forced to throw Cobalt into the dumpster because it was an unsalvageable steaming heap of feces that no major licensee was willing to touch with a ten foot pole. Kinda hard to stay in business if no one is buying your core (and soon to be only) product, isn't it? That leaves us with (3), which is probably not something I can say much about. :) I'll just say that, though a Treo kind of UI is fine for what it is, my person opinion is that it is -not- a phone, and that kind of UI is not going to fly in the bulk of the cell phone market. (Indeed, one of the licensees we talk with has made it clear to us that they don't consider the Treo to be a phone product; I believe they refer to it as a "mobile PDA".) So this is something that needs to be addressed, and is an ingredient in things like the CMS acquisition and the Rome UI that was mentioned at the last developer's conference. B.S. The Treo 600 user interface is, quite frankly, BRILLIANT and could adapt well to use in more traditional cellphones as long as they have the D-Pad. I think you're (as usual) going to waste a LOT of time (which you DON'T have) chasing your tail with this Rome UI nonsense. PalmSource needs to learn the lesson Be and its engineers steadfastly refused to learn: Keep It Simple, Stupid. The D-Pad UI works very well as-is. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, why not have PalmSource spend their energy, time and engineering resources on something else? Like getting PalmLinux FINISHED and in the hands of users before you end up repeating the same nonsense we've seen with Copeland, BeOS and Cobalt.
Nice to see you convinced Marty Fouts to finally stop his sleazy charade of posting as a smarmy "anonymous insider". Even though I usually disagree with many of your statements, I truly appreciate your efforts to explain the inner workings of PalmOS and PalmSource (as you see it), Ms. Hackborn. I wish you well in all your future endeavors. TVoR
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: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?PenguinPowered @ 9/10/2005 5:13:26 PM #
Wow, Skippy, that's some of the funniest material you've posted to date. Since I've been chastised in the past for boring readers by 'goading' you to your usual childish behavior, I'll limit my comments to your technical naivete. First, Skippy, the PC business was already a cut throat commodity business when Michael Dell got into it, so your argument that there can't be a Dell in the phone business because it's a commodity cut throat business is no more than your usual misunderstanding of business. Second, Skippy, your numbers, as usual, are wrong. In this case, your numbers on profitability on software versus hardware. Ironic that a Microsoft fan such as yourself would get that one backwards. Third, Skippy, when you wrote "in the near future different flavors of Linux, designing a phone is largely about coming up with your unique hardware (like Motorola's RAZR) to differentiate your product and picking an off-the-shelf OS + apps." you wrote your funniest line ever. Thanks for reminding us that you have no insight at all into how the consumer electronics business operates. Poor Skippy, confused again. In a commoditized hardware market, product differentiation does _not_ come from "unique hardware". So either you're wrong and the hardware market isn't commoditized yet, or you're wrong about how one goes about designing a phone. (Actually, you're wrong about both, because, as usual, you lost the point in your attempt to oversimplify.) Since you're starting from a premise that far off base, it's no surprise that your arguments get farther and farther from reality, so we'll just leave it at pointing that out for now.
Come on, Marty. Is that the best you can do?The_Voice_of_Reason @ 9/10/2005 6:31:21 PM #
Ask DK for a little help again. (She seems to be a tad more eloquent - and a LOT more intelligent - than you are.) Tell her: The "safe word" is Java. ;-O TVoR 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: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?
PenguinPower wrote: A lot of people are playing in the "let's paste a UI on Linux and call it a cellphone OS" space. There are three credible efforts in this area. IMO, the two to watch are PalmSource and Maemo. Hey Marty, I'd enjoy reading your analysis of why you see PalmSource and Maemo as credible frameworks for mobile Linux and not QTopia.
RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?PenguinPowered @ 9/11/2005 8:56:54 PM #
It's not a particularly deep analysis: Nokia and PalmSource have a lot of experience with phones. PalmSource also has a lot of experience with PDAs. Trolltech's prior experience set consists of graphics libraries. They simply have a steeper learning curve to climb, imo. I would definitely placd Trolltech's chances above that of the open source community, but I see them as a distant third.
Who will control PalmOS in 2006? It will be...The_Voice_of_Reason @ 10/15/2005 4:20:46 PM #
Will Palm regain control of PalmOS? Will Motorola get it? Or Access? This soap opera will conclude in a few weeks. Don't miss the SHOCKING season finale! 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: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?
I think Palm will buy the IP to FrankenGarnet and the remnants of Cobalt for ~$120 mil(ish). Then they'll try and pursue a dual strategy of "FrankenGarnetbalt" (reworked, more stable, still single-tasking but with more Cobalt bits integrated) and their own Plinux solution. Think of Palm's own Linux as analogous to OS4 running 320*320 or Graffiti 2= good for only a few models as a stopgap solution until something better/more robust comes along from the good crew at Access. I cannot see what Moto would hope to gain aside from short-term attention and even more stumbling blocks on their way to becoming a leaner, meaner, more pfotiable company. Really, Motorola has had a very brief attention span as of late---"We're going into networking!---No, home theatre!--No, plasma screens!--No, MP3 players!--No, the Palm OS market!" as they've sought out "new" markets to play in.
RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?AdamaDBrown @ 10/16/2005 2:26:44 AM #
Don't miss the SHOCKING season finale! This isn't like the SciFi Channel deal where they advertise the "season finale" when it's really just the last episode before the fall hiatus, is it? 'Cause I hate that. RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?
Thanks, The Vat of Refuse - with your wacky humour, you should be writing sitcoms for the Fox network. Bozo. RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?
hkklife wrote: I think Palm will buy the IP to FrankenGarnet and the remnants of Cobalt for ~$120 mil(ish). Then they'll try and pursue a dual strategy of "FrankenGarnetbalt" (reworked, more stable, still single-tasking but with more Cobalt bits integrated) and their own Plinux solution. C'mon Chris, you know better than that! Palm has no reason to own Garnet. Leaving aside the question of why they would even want to get back into the business of writing and maintaining their own OS from the ground up, there is the fact that Garnet's RTOS cooperative multitasking architecture is slowly strangling them. They've publicly stated that they are going to ditch it as soon as Palm OS for Linux is ready and I'm amazed to hear you suggesting they should do anything different at this point. As for buying "the remnants of Cobalt," that doesn't make any sense either. It seems to me that all the reasons PalmSource had to turn away from Cobalt and put all their energies toward Palm Linux apply just as well to Palm. The only value Cobalt has at this point is that it's a good start on the middleware for a Linux platform. But why would either Access or Palm think it a good idea for there to be two Cobalt-based Linux platforms in the market? When you look at the outcome of the bidding war you need to remember: Palm could not expect the kind of licensing revenue that a software company like Access could from the Palm OS because prospective licensees would be reluctant to depend on Palm, a competitor, for their OS. We all saw how Motorola bailed from Symbian OS after Nokia bought a controlling interest and Palm knew very well that the same could happen to Palm OS if they reacquired it. This limited what they would be willing to bid. The main reason Palm wanted to buy PalmSource back wasn't that they needed to own PalmSource's IP or people, it's that they needed to keep competitor Motorola from owning PalmSource's IP and people. As I've said before, the high price that Access paid for PalmSource is very likely a sign that Palm helped Access make the acquisition once the bidding hit the point where it didn't make sense for Palm anymore. In other words, that price reflected not just the value to Access of owning PalmSource--it reflected the value to Palm of Access owing PalmSource. The help probably came in the form of advance license agreements paid in cash conditional on the success of the merger. Once Palm was assured that PalmSource was safe in the hands of a company they could deal with they had no further reason to want to buy pieces of the company. Believing otherwise is just some kind of wishful thinking--and IMO it's not even something people should wish for.
RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?
I wrote: C'mon Chris Oops. Sorry about the misspelling, Kris. RE: Wonder why did Palm pass on it?
But David, haven't they practically been writing & maintaining their own OS for the past ~3 years or so--even since they started hacking away at OS 5? Wouldn't it make sense to try to shore up Garnet somewhat as it's a capable OS for midrange and low-end handhelds. Say what you will but Palm completely OWNS the $200 and below end of the market. And the economies of scale will now finally permit them to play in the <$100 market. All of the reasons not to ignore their basic models. Also, what do you honestly propose/suggest/predict Palm's new releases throughout 2006 will be running? Or will '06 be just Treo and Mobile Manager releases? New blood is crucial in this industry, especially with a 2x per year product launch cycle. If the two new units are indeed the final Garnet models to be launched, what will carry Palm through '06? They will soon be in need of a new midrange PDA or two, a new POS Treo would be nice and the LifeDrive CERTAINLY needs some improvements if it's not dropped. Do you think they can coast through another year on FrankenGarnet 5.4.9? The matter of what Palm NEEDS to sell NEW product is now a far more pressing concern than the fate of the OS as it is, as you said, in the hands of an "ally". Prior to the acquisition by Access, I figured the deathwatch was on PalmSource. Now Palm is on shaky ground with (confirmed) plans for continued Garnet rehases and a WinMob Treo on a single carrier (for the time being). That won't be enough to get them through '06 intact, will it? |
ACCESS Inc, a Tokyo-based company that develops mobile Internet software, said it will acquire 
They're either the dumbest people in the world or the smartest people in the world.
-----
ACCESS to Extend Leadership in Mobile Device Software with Acquisition of PalmSource
Friday September 9, 12:30 am ET
Acquisition Broadens ACCESS Product Portfolio
TOKYO, Japan and SUNNYVALE, Calif., Sept. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- ACCESS Co., Ltd., (Tokyo Stock Exchange: 4813), a global provider of mobile content delivery and Internet access software, and PalmSource, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSRC - News), provider of Palm OS, a leading operating system powering next generation phones and mobile devices, today announced they have signed a definitive agreement for ACCESS to acquire PalmSource in an all-cash transaction valued at USD $18.50 per share of PalmSource common stock , or approximately USD $324.3 million (approximately 35.9 billion). ACCESS' USD $18.50 per share offer represents an 83% premium for PalmSource stockholders based on the market closing price of USD $10.09 on September 8, 2005.