Comments on: Palm Report Hints at Uncertainty Over Next Gen OS
Article Comments
(147 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.
RE: I see some positives in this.
Access is never going to sell off its IP and lose the last remaining licensee in their stable. From Access's perspective it makes zero business sense, as they would gain nothing in the process...and lose everything.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: I see some positives in this.
Alot of the time if a product isn't make a huge sum of money and doesn't look like it will be in the near future (and since Access isn't further developing Palm OS it probably won't be making them much more money) the company that owns it tries to pawn it off some somebody else. In this case Access would be able to gain a large amount of money quickly (and generally companies will take a large sum of money now as opposed to smaller amounts of money over many years) and Palm Inc. would gain control of Palm OS again.
This would be a good time to sell off Palm OS to Palm Inc. since Palm Inc. is (apparently) interested in buying and Palm OS probably won't be making a whole lot of money for Access anymore. I highly doubt they plan on getting more licensees for Palm OS in the near future.
RE: I see some positives in this.
The only hope for Palm is to get on a new version of PalmOS, pronto. If they don't snap up ALP or the entire Palm division of Access, they are screwed. There is absolutely nothing I've seen the development group in Palm do that works. If it's an OS by them that I have to buy, I'll simply go elsewhere, because it will be a disaster. They only reason I put up with what they've done with Garnet is in the hope that the next device will have a new OS from PalmSource.
But Palm seems determined to destroy themselves, it's time to look at other alternatives.
RE: I see some positives in this.
While I understand how the proprietary driver model created serious business problems for licensees, I was actually pretty pleased with the way Cobalt utilized the domain mechanism in the ARM processor to allow for faster context-switching--something Linux can't do to the detriment of its multitasking performance. And while Cobalt's object-oriented architecture initially added a lot of overhead that wouldn't have shown much of a corresponding payoff to users at the beginning, PalmSource planned to expose more of that object orientation to developers over time which would have made the platform increasingly powerful and attractive to developers. Cobalt had some critical flaws, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that moving to Linux from Cobalt doesn't come without a cost.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
This is a high stakes game of "chicken" (all a result of the idiotic scam Palm pulled when they "spun off" PalmSource):
1) Palm is PalmSource/Access' only significant remaining licensee.
2) PalmOS is effectively now a lame duck OS.
3) Besides the income from Palm's license, PalmOS is otherwise more or less worthless to Access. (Don't let the last minute addition of PACE to Access' bizarre modular ALP-OS fool you - the only benefit of PACE is to lure PalmOS faithful into the clutches of ALP-OS, keeping the faithful sheep PalmOS devotees quiet while plans are quietly made to EOL PalmOS)
4) SOME money from for worthless IP is better than NO money if they were to jump to Windows Mobile exclusively. The only question is how hard can Access squeeze its Golden Goose before Goosey either croaks or flies away to the Windows Mobile pond.
5) Palm needs a proprietary OS to differentiate itself from other smartphone sellers.
6) Palm lacks the $$$ to compete mano a mano with the likes of Nokia et. al. (new phones every six months, etc.).
7) Palm cannot differentiate itself enough to survive as JAWL (Just Another WindowsMobile Licensee).
8) Between PACE, Cobalt and PalmLinux, there should (barely) be enough viable code to cobble together a simple, functional next-generation PalmOS.
9) The smartphone market could evaporate at ANY moment.
10) Palm has run out of time - the Grim Reaper (Sony Ericsson, Nokis, Motorola, LG, Samsung) has arrived.
(From the May 2005 8K)
"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."
With PalmSource being sold, Palm can also exercise its options on PalmOS for $10 million/year for 2010 and 2011.
StyleTap Platform raises some interesting issues. Would a version of Windows Mobile with a more advanced release of Styletap Platform (emulating PalmOS) be legal? If it is, Palm could fu*k Access, get out of its licensing agreement, throw its resources behind a single platform, achieve differentiation from other Windows Mobile licensees and retain legacy PalmOS customers - all in one fell swoop. Windows Mobile + PalmOS-style PIM + StyleTap Platform + tabbed launcher + OS customizations (Wisbar, Resco apps, etc) = the safest, most pragmatic solution for Palm right now. (Assuming ripping off PACE is legal. If PACE emulation is not kosher Palm should simply give up on PalmOS ASAP and try to shine the feces known as Windows Mobile as best as they can. Any way you slice it, without control over PalmOS Palm is likely a dead company walking.)
________________________________________________________________________________
I previously suggested the "Access as (PalmOS) hostage taker" theory to explain the insane price Access had paid for PalmSource.
http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111669
While Access obviously recognized PalmOS could be unloaded to Palm (or even Motorola) at a later date - perhaps even for a profit - the $325 million price still seems absurd (even considering the China Mobilesoft wildcard).
So the question boils down to "How much is Palm willing to pay Access to regain control of PalmOS + if they don't pay, what is Palm's long term OS strategy?
Of course, Palm may survive a few other ways besides buying back PalmOS:
- Windows Mobile
- Proprietary in house Palm-developed OS
- Getting bought out/merging
- Continuing to license PalmOS + develop/hack it in-house for the next 5 years.
- Winning state lottery
[Above taken from various posts to the http://www.palminfocenter.com/comments/8817/#123811 thread]
I expect Access will more or less sell PalmOS to Palm (or grant an exclusive license allowing Palm rights to any changes to the OS made by Palm)within a few months. I don't see Access turning down tens of millions for an otherwise USELESS intellectual property.
TVoR
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
If palm does get the IP from palmsource then the spin off was a success. Remember that the PSRC division was losing money. There is no way the brass at Palm Solutions & hand didn't look at PSRCs work and laugh. They also cringed at the though of putting anymore money towards cobalt or a lame group working on linux.
Remember the PSRC raised additional money (from sony? cant remember or other investors) to help with development costs. That way Palm got to see if they palmlinux/cobalt hack experiment would work at no additional cost. Palm showed profits in the meantime. Other people put up to pay PSRC's bill.
If palm had taken the core (of garnet) away from PSRC immediately, no one would have bought the deal and invested money in PSRc. Thus palm let them go, and hoped they would pull it off and succeed. Yet however investors pushed PSRC to produce, they couldnt so had to sell.
Palm was not going to overpay for PSRC, they had no need of CMS' products. Palm's bottom line feature phone can use some variant of Garnet (PIMs) on linux (where u can't install software).
This is what Access has to know . . . Palm will close up shop on Garnet and Palm OS if they have. They can release their linux product without traidtional Palm PIMs and can move forward with their WM strategy as needed. I think that the Vodafone leaks could be communicating that to Access now . . . as it looks like a winning device. Only the US wants Palm OS.
My question now. . . what kind of game is Access playing by announcing their ALP showing about 1 week before the 10k news would be put out? Who is going to want it if palm doesnt take it? I'll argue that no one will use it. I forget who but there is a major carrier or cell manufacturer in China that owns a majority of access and this may have been their way of getting CMS (well that kinda sounds crazy, but oh well).
Either way: Palm sits with a WM strategy, Palm OS garnet for non 3g phones (except for cdma). Really the Palm OS is only their strategy for the US. I think that your $200 million number is too high . . . what palm is buying is simply going to be IP. No employees, no building, nothing else. At this point palm is probably telling Access either you sell us what we want (IP) or we are totally moving away. We are not going to lease anymore. If we cant work it out we will release garnet devices for the time but will very quickly move to our linux and WM strategy . . . as there will be no incentive for us to stay with Garnet. Worst case we will license package styletap with WM as a last resort or even buy styletap (styletap's creators will look like geniuses if they get bought by palm for predicting the future)
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
I disagree with 90 percent of your stuff
You May indeed be on to something here.
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
Let me put it this way. . . if Palm's not going to license ALP, then why keep working to hook palm os up to it. No one else will care, especially in China. I would just complicate the device and leave people confused as to "What's this here for?" So in essence it would just be wasted development and money.
It will be interesting to hear from those who attend the conference to see what is actually there.
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
I concur, that's good stuff.. But, for much less than they paid, Access will not only be giving away key Palm OS ownership, but would be sowing the seeds for a MobiLinuxPalmOS rival.
Why would they sink $300M+ and then take much le$$ (assumed) than that to raise up the main OS competitor? I can't see Access selling.
Pat Horne
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
With standard PDAs dying, I see the three way battle between some flavor of Plinux, WinMob, and Symbian as very disappointing. I had the one of the last POS 5 models (Zire 72) and the FrankenOS was not so good. I now use a Toshiba e800--The hardware is lovely, the software's a blast, the Operating System is a pain in the .....--. The reviews of the few Symbian models that are getting to full PDA functionality (Nokia 770, 9300, SonyErickson 900s) tell the same tale of slow, dysfunctional, PAINFUL.
So, even if this story does go somewhere, I am betting that it won't go where I want to go. It won't end in a stable, quick, powerful OS that allows me to do what your TH55 does. I was too mad at Sony and their proprietary memory stick debacle to buy one, but I am beginning to wish I had bought several. Nothing since has come close.
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
Too late. Even if by some miracle or hardball bargaining position Palm did indeed manage to convince Access to relinquish control of its IP to them for incorporation into a new Palm branded OS...the move would be moot. Such a platform would take yet another two years for Palm to fully develop an entirely new OS, with bits and pieces of Garnet/Cobalt code mixed in, and pressed into hardware.
In the meantime PalmOS has faded into irrelevance, Windows Mobile has become the leader among data centric (convergence) mobile platforms, and third party developers have moved on to other platforms that have a clear future. So what does Palm gain in the end? They have their own proprietary OS, and come full circle back to their roots.
The only clear advantage I see that gaining full control of PalmOS development gives them the ability to jurisdict development direction, and enable great flexibility and customization into its design. But given the above point I just made it remains a futile attempt and wasted strategy. Not to mention a costly one, as I seriously doubt Access is going to give away PalmOS IP for free. Palm could end up paying several hundred million for Garnet/Cobalt. They can't afford to incur such costs, unless some major suitor acquires Palm and then IP from Access.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
Foo - Agreed.
The only new Palms that you kids will be able to buy in the not-so-distant future will be WINMOB Treos. That's it. Game, Set, Match - MSFT.
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
I dont think this Palm go it alone, strategy just now came up.
They had a plan all along and are now implementing it.
Soon as Access bought Palmsource, Palm knew it wasnt going to work. They likely never complained about the violations of the agreement before and let them pile up to make the case for a breach of contract. Now they dont have to pay for an OS they will never use. Why pay for your competition?
Actually the plan even preceeds the sale.
Once Palm failed to buy Palmsource out, and knew their were higher bidders, it went after the name. At that point it knew there was at least the possibility they would need to go it alone.
Thus they have had lots of time to develop its alternate OS.
This bold move of ending the agreemant with Palmsource implies to me that they may be far closer to release than we think.
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
If palm does get the IP from palmsource then the spin off was a success. Remember that the PSRC division was losing money. There is no way the brass at Palm Solutions & hand didn't look at PSRCs work and laugh. They also cringed at the though of putting anymore money towards cobalt or a lame group working on linux.
Actually, the spinoff WAS initially a success, but not for the reasons you state. The PalmSource IPO generated hundreds of millions of $$$ from what was an utterly incompetent part of Palm. Lead into Gold. Benhamou and the other alchemists at Palm have done their Enron tutors proud.
Remember the PSRC raised additional money (from sony? cant remember or other investors) to help with development costs.
Sony paid a paltry $20 million for a 6% share of PalmSource in 2002 (http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=4331) but ultimately bailed out on the platform when it became obvious that PalmSource was incompetent and could not be relied upon to deliver an OS for the type of products Sony was planning. If you look at how much independent hacking of PalmOS Sony did over the years in order to add features Palm/PalmSource was incapable of including it becomes obvious that Sony and other licensees were getting next to nothing for their licensing fees. (Sony's designs are currently being recycled in the VAIO UX50 Windows device, but most of their PalmOS R&D ultimately was wasted after a sea of empty promises and slipped deadlines from PalmSource.)
That way Palm got to see if they palmlinux/cobalt hack experiment would work at no additional cost. Palm showed profits in the meantime. Other people put up to pay PSRC's bill.
Wrong. Palm was actually counting on Cobalt and had to scramble when it proved to be a massive dud. If you're familiar with Palm's product line since 2003 you'd realize that these devices were never intended to be running a hacked-up FrankenPalmOS basd on buggy old PalmOS 5 code. Palm simply did what it could to try and compensate for PalmSource's failure. Most of PalmSource's money has been derived from Palm. Sony etc haven't funded much of PalmSource for a LONG time.
If palm had taken the core (of garnet) away from PSRC immediately, no one would have bought the deal and invested money in PSRc. Thus palm let them go, and hoped they would pull it off and succeed. Yet however investors pushed PSRC to produce, they couldnt so had to sell.
I think you're confused about the timeline. Palm spun off PalmSource to make a quick buck, fully intending to fold the company back into Palm a few years later. If you look closely at the PalmSource business model (look at how much they got per license) it's obvious that PalmSource would NEVER survive as an independent company. It was just a matter of time before they would be back with Palm.
Palm was not going to overpay for PSRC, they had no need of CMS' products. Palm's bottom line feature phone can use some variant of Garnet (PIMs) on linux (where u can't install software).
Palm was SHOCKED to see Access push the price as far as it went. Palm had put a poison pill into their PalmSource contract that would have scared off most sane companies. (Palm would get rights to the OS no matter who bought it. There was also special wording designed to scare off Microsoft in case they dared run afoul of monopoly laws by trying to buy Palm and killing it off.
This is what Access has to know . . . Palm will close up shop on Garnet and Palm OS if they have. They can release their linux product without traidtional Palm PIMs and can move forward with their WM strategy as needed. I think that the Vodafone leaks could be communicating that to Access now . . . as it looks like a winning device. Only the US wants Palm OS.
At least that's what Palm will tell Access. If Palm is smart they had already planned for the possibility of losing PalmOS and the day they spun off PalmSource and have alternate OSes ready and waiting. We'll see soon enough if Palm is smart.
My question now. . . what kind of game is Access playing by announcing their ALP showing about 1 week before the 10k news would be put out? Who is going to want it if palm doesnt take it? I'll argue that no one will use it. I forget who but there is a major carrier or cell manufacturer in China that owns a majority of access and this may have been their way of getting CMS (well that kinda sounds crazy, but oh well).
PalmOS (actually PACE) is an afterthought for ALP-OS. Kinda like adding chrome wheel and a spoiler to a car: might improve the sales, but completely unnecessary.
Either way: Palm sits with a WM strategy, Palm OS garnet for non 3g phones (except for cdma). Really the Palm OS is only their strategy for the US.
Windows Mobile makes the most sense in the long run unless Palm IS CERTAIN that PalmLinux will be both completed and rock solid by 2007 AND they will own PalmLinux. If anything can't be guaranteed then betting the company's future on a vaporware OS would be insane.
I think that your $200 million number is too high . . . what palm is buying is simply going to be IP. No employees, no building, nothing else. At this point palm is probably telling Access either you sell us what we want (IP) or we are totally moving away. We are not going to lease anymore. If we cant work it out we will release garnet devices for the time but will very quickly move to our linux and WM strategy . . . as there will be no incentive for us to stay with Garnet. Worst case we will license package styletap with WM as a last resort or even buy styletap (styletap's creators will look like geniuses if they get bought by palm for predicting the future)
If Palm has no solid contingency plan for a new OS, $200 million seems fair and is a LOT more than Access would get from anyone except Motorola. If Palm is prepared NOW to move the whole works to Windows Mobile they really don't need PalmOS since they already have a cheap licensing agreement to buy only the number of licenses they want until 2011. If Palm is looking to buy PACE so they can build it into Windows Mobile (or to be allowed to include a StyleTap Platform clone without threat of lawsuits) then $100 million may be reasonable. It will be interesting to see who blinks first (Palm Vs.Access) and if Palm walks away from the table how long before they reveal their long term OS plans. And here's a newsflash: There are no remaining PalmSource employees worth hiring!
TVoR
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
Palm still has a contract with Access and they're still paying royalties for using Access' IP, in the form of Garnet.
May You Live in Interesting Times
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
If I was Colligan, I'd be asking these questions:
1. What do the majority of our customers (Enterprise and carriers) want? FrankenGarnet? WM? Something else?
2. How much longer can Palm Inc. cobble/patch FrankenGarnet together to do what it needs to do to compete with other device OSs?
3. How much additionally does it cost for Palm, Inc. to support two OS's? Could palm Inc. focus on ONE OS and redirect the "saved" R&D dollars into competing better with that one OS?
4. What will the sales revenue/margins/profits/stakeholders impact be if Palm shiiit-cans FrankenGarnet for all new future Treos and simply uses WM? Short term? Longer Term?
5. If Palm Inc. does switch to exclusively selling WM Treos, will the long term effect be a commoditization of the Treo along with all of the other WM phones where the unique differential (PalmOS) is now gone and will that ultimately destroy sales? Can Palm add enough value to WM to make the Treo unique and yet still keep prices competitive and yet still keep margins favorable?
6. Does Palm Inc. have the time or the resources to build a new proprietary OS from scratch? Should it even be done even if it can?
7. Is ALPO a viable option for the future in part or whole?
8. How can I get the stock price up so I can dump all my stock options and grants and get out of this rat race like Hawkins did?
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
If by "counting on" you meant "didn't have an alternative to but never liked", then yes, they were "counting on" Cobalt.
I was only at PSRC for the end of the "Cobalt blues" but people who were there for the whole thing say that Palm never liked Cobalt, never wanted it, and only went along because it was the only PalmOS option available.
The problem with all of the 'what will Palm do now' scenarios is that Palm is not a software company, and hiring up to 130 linux programmers doesn't make you one.
I have no idea what Palm is up to now, but it would insane for them to think that they could become a player in embedded Linux development. So I suspect that's what they're up to.
At this point, Palm's best bet is to reimplement their PIM aps to the winmobile APIs and try to differentiate at the application layer. Otherwise, they're either
a) just another winmob player and aren't big enough to play in that pond
or
b) are the nth in an infinite series of embedded linux wannabes.
May You Live in Interesting Times
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
I disagree with 90 percent of your stuff
You May indeed be on to something here.
Everything I write is THE "best stuff". Be honest: deep down you know you agree with 100% of what I say...
"My question now. . . what kind of game is Access playing by announcing their ALP showing about 1 week before the 10k news would be put out? Who is going to want it if palm doesnt take it?"
Let me put it this way. . . if Palm's not going to license ALP, then why keep working to hook palm os up to it. No one else will care, especially in China. I would just complicate the device and leave people confused as to "What's this here for?" So in essence it would just be wasted development and money.
Looking at how modular ALP-OS appears to be, adding PalmOS support through PACE is a relatively trivial undertaking. I wouldn't be surprised to see that versions of ALP-OS without PalmOS could be specified as easily as you specify options at a car dealership. If a company as small as StyleTap can produce StyleTap Platform for next to nothing, Access should have no problems given the fact that they have the source code to PACE.
VR,
I concur, that's good stuff.. But, for much less than they paid, Access will not only be giving away key Palm OS ownership, but would be sowing the seeds for a MobiLinuxPalmOS rival.
Why would they sink $300M+ and then take much le$$ (assumed) than that to raise up the main OS competitor? I can't see Access selling.
Thanks, Rev. I don't think Palm and Access are direct competitors. Access seems to be going after the "global (especially in Asia) smart dumbphone" market while Palm will likely try to keep carving out a niche in the smartphone market primarily in the USA.
After seeing how quickly Access scuttled PalmOS development it's obvious (assuming they did due diligence) that they never intended to keep PalmOS alive. Marty is right about China MobileSoft being the key, but I believe potential profits from the sale of PalmOS to Palm or Motorola (essentially "flipping" PalmOS) made the deal workable.
Well stated TVOR, but what is the bottom line? Will Palm get the original code from Access for $1 a copy? Will they get rights to the whole thing? Will Access and Palm each get rights to it and put that skin (or emulator) of the old Palm OS on top of a new Linux base?
With standard PDAs dying, I see the three way battle between some flavor of Plinux, WinMob, and Symbian as very disappointing. I had the one of the last POS 5 models (Zire 72) and the FrankenOS was not so good. I now use a Toshiba e800--The hardware is lovely, the software's a blast, the Operating System is a pain in the .....--. The reviews of the few Symbian models that are getting to full PDA functionality (Nokia 770, 9300, SonyErickson 900s) tell the same tale of slow, dysfunctional, PAINFUL.
So, even if this story does go somewhere, I am betting that it won't go where I want to go. It won't end in a stable, quick, powerful OS that allows me to do what your TH55 does. I was too mad at Sony and their proprietary memory stick debacle to buy one, but I am beginning to wish I had bought several. Nothing since has come close.
Thanks, TR. I think Palm wants it all - just so Access couldn't dilute the perceived value of Palm's PalmOS devices by making ALP-OS (featuring PalmOS compatibility) available on cheap featurephones. Realistically, Palm should only try a KISS strategy: graft PACE onto Windows Mobile and be done with it. Reviving Cobalt, conjuring up an in-house PalmLinux, etc. are voodoo strategies best left unexplored now that the company has no room for further errors in execution.
I STILL think PalmOS blended with Windows Mobile would be the premiere mobile OS, offering the Palm name, app library and history along with the safety of choosing a Microsoft standard. Licensees would get the best of both worlds, Palm would benefit from Microsoft doing all of the heavy lifting and best of all: the code to create "PalmWindows Mobile™" ALREADY EXISTS. Palm cannot afford a third vaporware OS.
When I realized that Cobalt was dead I assumed PalmOS was in trouble and started stocking up on devices. I'm glad I did. My CLIE VZ90, UX50 and TH55 along with my Samsung i500 are the last good pure PalmOS devices ever made. These devices do everything I need from a PDA, so even if Palm OS disappeared tomorrow I would not be affected.
>>>>> "We are going to have to play hardball with those dumba$$es at Access so we can cherrypick the parts of PalmSource IP we need to create a Palm-branded "PalmLinux™"
Too late. Even if by some miracle or hardball bargaining position Palm did indeed manage to convince Access to relinquish control of its IP to them for incorporation into a new Palm branded OS...the move would be moot. Such a platform would take yet another two years for Palm to fully develop an entirely new OS, with bits and pieces of Garnet/Cobalt code mixed in, and pressed into hardware.
Wrong, Kent. I don't think Palm is dumb enough to try to create PalmLinux from scratch so late in the game. "Windows Mobile featuring PalmOS" (courtesy of PACE) for the high end and a VERY SIMPLE Linux distro with Palm PIM for the low end is a safe, easy to implement strategy. Both of those OSes could ship on REAL devices in less than 6 months if given the green light today.
In the meantime PalmOS has faded into irrelevance, Windows Mobile has become the leader among data centric (convergence) mobile platforms, and third party developers have moved on to other platforms that have a clear future. So what does Palm gain in the end? They have their own proprietary OS, and come full circle back to their roots.
PalmOS has faded not because it's a bad OS but simply because of mismanagement. The fact that Handspring's hacked PalmOS STILL works better than anything else on the market suggests PalmOS is not yet irrelevant. With a little foundation work (broadband support, cleaned up telephony) and a fresh coat of paint (complete set of apps including backup/tabbed launcher/security/remote device deletion/Office-compatible suite/email/MP3 + video/SMS and IM clients/file manager/etc.) even PalmOS 5 could soldier on as "PalmOS Classic™" for another year or two.
The only clear advantage I see that gaining full control of PalmOS development gives them the ability to jurisdict development direction, and enable great flexibility and customization into its design.
You missed the BIGGEST advantage, Kent: the ability to differentiate Palm's devices from the hordes of others coming to market. Palm as a brand still has great name recognition and a lot of goodwill built up from its days as the best known PDA company over the past decade. The Treo one-handed UI is also the best UI I've ever seen in ANY mobile device besides the (much more simplistic) Apple iPod scroll wheel.
But given the above point I just made it remains a futile attempt and wasted strategy. Not to mention a costly one, as I seriously doubt Access is going to give away PalmOS IP for free. Palm could end up paying several hundred million for Garnet/Cobalt. They can't afford to incur such costs, unless some major suitor acquires Palm and then IP from Access.
$200 million for all PalmOS IP is fair. But if ALP-OS actually ships in the next year with PACE on board, PalmOS will truly be worthless to Palm at that time, as any two bit company willing to license ALP-OS from Access could crank out cheap handsets and become a Palm competitor.
The legality of Palm including a SytleTap Platform clone in their Windows Mobile devices should ultimately decide whether or not Palm pays whatever Access is demanding for the rights to PalmOS.
It should never have come to this...
TVoR
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
The reason it failed has much more to do with the willingness of Palm to innovate, or rather lack thereof.
At one point they also feared losing control of the plumbing and decided it was better to
Cobalt was a PS thing but Palm was the only one realistically able to build and sell a device. Without their leadership collapse of Cobalt was inevitable.
--------------------------
Hey Admin: Why do we have to keep two profiles?
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
The network is the computer.
Don't forget now!
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
That is flat out untrue. Cobalt was never adopted by any PalmSource licensee for legitimate reasons...it was garbage. Not a single Cobalt-based hardware device ever shipped. And the only vendor who did display a working prototype (Oswin) failed to generate support among hardware OEMs to mass produce such a device. Anyone who stil believes that Cobalt was a wonderful OS that Palm shamefully withheld from us has their head up their @ss. If you don't believe me download the Cobalt simulator from PalmSource's website and test it out for yourself. It's crap.
Palm didn't want it. Developers showed no interest in it. And despite Garnet's antiquated state, we're all better off without Cobalt.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
i want to see some answers to my questions #1-8 above.
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
Gee, writing an OS is hard work. DAMN!
Once Palm failed to buy Palmsource out, and knew their were higher bidders, it went after the name. At that point it knew there was at least the possibility they would need to go it alone.
Thus they have had lots of time to develop its alternate OS.
This bold move of ending the agreemant with Palmsource implies to me that they may be far closer to release than we think.
Guess again, brah. Look up when Palm "bought"
the Palm name from Cousin PalmSource.
And sorry, but Palm does not have the codemonkey power to develop a decent OS in 5 YEARS much less 1 or 2 years. If creating a mobile OS was easy PalmSource's Cobalt would not have been a catastrophe, PalmLinux would not have been vaporware, Motorola's phones would not be crippled by a HIDEOUS OS (HideOS?), Nokia's 770 would already have have telephony completed, Sony Ericsson would not have needed 3 years to get their OS polished...
>>>Palm was actually counting on Cobalt and had to scramble when it proved to be a massive dud.
If by "counting on" you meant "didn't have an alternative to but never liked", then yes, they were "counting on" Cobalt.
Indeed. That's what happens when you get stuck with a few dozen Holy Be Engineers from "Gassée's Gang" and have to put them to work and then lose the ability to control what those pie-in-the-sky dumba$$es do because you've spun off the company and can't reign them in once they lose sight of the "big picture" and start trying to recreate their "glory days" from when Be could have become the next MacOS.
I was only at PSRC for the end of the "Cobalt blues" but people who were there for the whole thing say that Palm never liked Cobalt, never wanted it, and only went along because it was the only PalmOS option available.
That can't be true. Dianne Hackborn says Cobalt was the best thing since sliced bread! I'm not hearing you, Marty. La La La! La La La!
The problem with all of the 'what will Palm do now' scenarios is that Palm is not a software company, and hiring up to 130 linux programmers doesn't make you one.
Which is precisely why Windows Mobile + StyleTap Platform makes the most sense. By the way, Palm likes to think of themselves as overflowing with software "engineers" and codemonkey goodness...
I have no idea what Palm is up to now, but it would insane for them to think that they could become a player in embedded Linux development. So I suspect that's what they're up to.
No time for that as a primary OS, but Linux + Palm PIM should be easy enought to whip together.
At this point, Palm's best bet is to reimplement their PIM aps to the winmobile APIs and try to differentiate at the application layer.
Yes.
Otherwise, they're either
a) just another winmob player and aren't big enough to play in that pond
Yes
or
b) are the nth in an infinite series of embedded linux wannabes.
When you say nth do you mean "last"?
TVoR
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
Do you think that Palm should focus on Smartphones and get out of the PDA business?
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
That much is a given. The bottom is falling out of the PDA business right out from under Palm's feet, as it is for the rest of the industry. We can count the number of months Dell will remain in this segment on one hand now. At the rate of decline it won't be much longer before the breakers kick in, where the amount of revenues generated from traditional PDAs literally doesn't match the bill of sales from hardware development.
Smartphones are the answer, but the problem is that Palm isn't innovating fast enough. The 700 series is already outmatched by the competition and yet Palm hasn't completed its product rollout. An exmaple of a formula for success: Apple dominates the space it competes in and still remains far ahead of its nearest competitor. Conversely, the GSM Treo 700s haven't even begun rolling off the assembly lines and already they are yesterdays news. Right now the Motorola Q is THE most coveted smartphone North America, followed distantly by the Nokia E61. Treo 700? What's that? Don't believe me? Look at this chart that tracks weekly interest among handset vendors. Look where Palm is at...
http://www.competenews.info/vantage2.jpg
Unless and until Palm moves the ball forward with some exciting new products, they have no hope of even keeping up with the lead dogs in this pack, let alone outpacing them.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
>Right now the Motorola Q is THE most coveted smartphone North America
my anecdotal evidence supports this. a buddy of mine who i hadn't seen in a while showed up with this Q and when i asked why he chose it, he pointed to my treo 650 and said "i can't carry around a big phone like that." and the Q got all the oooohs and ahhhs from the rest of our gang over drinks (including me). pictures do not do it justice. Motorola is on a roll.
-----
"We'll sell more RAZRs this year than Apple will iPods." - Ed Zander, CEO Motorola
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/31/magazines/fortune/razr_greatteams_fortune/index.htm
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
I hope that is the case, but my gut tells me that the future will be a UMPC running Windows. Hey, when Jeff Kirvin trades in his Treo for a WinMob smartphonehe you gotta wonder...
"Many men stumble across the truth, but most manage to pick themselves up
and continue as if nothing had happened."
- Winston Churchill
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
PDA market booming? you must have been hallucenating, silly. now stop sniffing that glue with your Radio Shack comrades.
Resources are finite, and shareholders demand a return on their investment. If you want to stay in business, you focus on where the demand is. The trend is clear.
-----
Canalys has just released their Q2 2006 worldwide smart mobile device research report on the smartphone and handheld device shipments. The latest research from Canalys highlights the continuing shift from handhelds to converged devices. Overall year-on-year market growth of all smart mobile devices was largely unchanged from the previous two quarters at 55%, but converged device shipments (smart phones and wireless handhelds) rose 73%, while handhelds continued to slide, down 33% compared to the same period one year ago.
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
1. Smartphones aren't the entire market, and not even close to it.
2. I still fail to see how adding a wireless connection to a handheld computer makes it no longer a handheld computer. Adding a cellular radio doesn't magically change the form factor, OS, composition, or baseline usage of a PDA in such a way as to make it no longer a data device.
Palm must know all this. Right?
One thing not really mentioned here is that Palm may be further along the curve with a Palm OS II (or an API layer to ride on WinMob) implementation than we think.
I've wondered about that too. I don't think Palm is run by idiots nor are they blind; everything that's being discussed here in this thread has surely already been discussed in their boardrooms, and hopefully a long time ago. (One would hope.)
When they announced the Treo 700w, what surprised me most was not that they'd finally decide to tip their toes in the Microsoft pond (don't drink from it), but that they'd already been working on it for two years.
What other secret projects have they been brewing? Is one about to come to the boil? Their silence on their future OS plans is extremely annoying.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall at Palm...
Tim
I apologise for any and all emoticons that appear in my posts. You may shoot them on sight.
Treo 270 ---> Treo 650
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
The percentage share is more than a little distorted by the fact that Nokia has significantly boosted the shipments of their quasi-smartphone S60 devices.
If the characterization of S60 as a "quasi-smartphone" platform ever made sense I think it doesn't make sense today. If you haven't picked up an S60 3rd edition phone like the E61 or N80 you should do so before you keep repeating this tired refrain. Or admit that you don't consider BlackBerries and MS Smartphone devices like the Q to be smartphones either (S60 3ed blows those away).
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
Beyond that evidence, we have the activity (or rather inactivity) of the few remaining players in this space as ultimate proof. HP has stated they see traditional PDAs as dead market, and plan on shifting to smarphones. Dell hasn't produced any new model in what...two years now? And will likely soon exit this space just as they did with DAP. Palm meanwhile hasn't released a single new handheld model all year, and is unlikely to do so. Your assertion that PDAs are somehow a booming underground success is flat out silly.
As per your statement about Symbian S60...David said it best, it's time you take a close look at the latest wave of S60 third edition devices. Because this ain't your grandma's Nokia featurephone OS anymore. Devices like the E61 and N90 are in every way a rich smartphone environment. One that effectively trumps RIM and Windows Mobile Smartphone (not PPC). The E61 is among the very best Smartphones on the market today. It's embedded web browser (based on Apple's Safari rendering engine, WebKit) is hands down the best, and certainly most innovative, mobile browser in the industry. It makes Blazer, NetFront, and Pocket IE look like sad caricatures.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
As far as I know, there were no 'violations', and the contract hasn't been 'breached'. What there were is completion milestones in the contract with cash payouts attached. The milestones were missed, so the payouts don't happen.
Palm still has a contract with Access and they're still paying royalties for using Access' IP, in the form of Garnet.
If there were completion milestones in the contract and PalmSource didn't meet them on time, then they breached their contract. That is the definition of breach of contract...not complying with the terms of the agreement.
Brent
Palm Vx -----> LONG WAIT -----> Palm T|X
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
A few points:
1) Traditional smartphones (think Treo) are an endangered species. Featurephones and low end semi-smartphones (running variants of Windows + Symbian + Linux) are already cannibalilizing this market. This is already becoming a commodity market, much to Palm's chagrin.
2) Real Windows™ tablet and micro laptop devices are the future, the goal being a CLIE TH55 or UX50-sized device running Windows with few compromises.
3) Traditional PDAs must evolve upmarket + into new niches to survive. Always-on connectivity, multimedia and remote access to desktop applications are the key. Yes clever PalmOS powerusers can already do a lot of these things by selecting the right third party apps, but Palm must deliver this right out of the box. NOW. The only problem is they waited too long. With traditional laptops now available for $500 and UMPCs already evolving rapidly, the raison d'etre for the "nouveau PDA" is evaporating as quickly as a vaporware SD peripheral in the desert sun. Low price is not enough to sell these devices. Any way you slice it, Palm is screwed unless they find a buyer this quarter. Bringing a well known individual on bord in an effort to legitimize Palm's position would be a smart way to help polish the fading paint prior to a sale, wouldn't it? I wonder what happened to the exec PalmSource promoted prior to their sale? Is McVeigh available? ;-O
TVoR
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
If the device market diversifies as I expect, you and several thousand others like you will probably get your wish. But the idea that micro-laptop devices running desktop Windows is "where the market is going" as a whole is just proof that you need to spend some time with normal people. The PC itself will die before that happens.
Any vision of mobile computing that suggests it will become mainstream because a vendor delivers all the right software out of the box is wrong, too. Even you don't believe it, TVoR. Slap yourself around a bit, please.
Outside a few basic things that already ship on Palm devices, 90% of the software people will use will be stuff that 90% of everyone else will have no interest in. If no vendor succeeds in making discovery and personalization through software easy enough to enable that kind of software market (and someone will) I doubt mobile computing will ever become truly mainstream. Personalization is the killer app for mobile.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
Maybe for the small niche of psycho-ward help desks, but not for the real world of business.
It has to be POCKETABLE, silly.
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
Whatever, Beersy. Bottom line is everyone knew PalmSource couldn't deliver and now Palm is off the hook for some trivial amounts (that Palm) likely will be paying anyway.
But the idea that micro-laptop devices running desktop Windows is "where the market is going" as a whole is just proof that you need to spend some time with normal people. The PC itself will die before that happens.
I didn't say desktops and laptops were going the way of the dodo. Just traditional non-connected PDAs. UMPCs are the next wave.
Even you don't believe it, TVoR. Slap yourself around a bit, please.
Only DK gets to do that
TVoR
;-O
Geeko: Your (padded) room is ready...
Geeko, I realize that a UX50 doesn't slip into your Spandex leotards and leopardskin jumpsuit, but some of us wear looser clothing.
T
V
oR
You've never used a UMPC, have you?
There might be a decent market for UMPCs some years from now but not the UX50-sized ones you describe. You're in a very small minority for wanting a desktop OS running on a PDA-sized device. Windows would be unusable on a 3 1/2" screen. Even if you could read the fonts (which most people couldn't) parallax from the thickness of the glass as well as the tiniest miscalibration of the digitizer would make it very difficult to operate with a stylus. I even find this frustrating on my super-sized Tablet PC, which has a screen probably 12 times the size of the device you're talking about.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
look around you. everyone predisposed to use a PDA is using treos, blackberries, sidekicks, Q's, etc. instead.
nobody is carrying two devices anymore. this should be obvious to all.
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
I've met dozens of people who carry BlackBerries and I think there was maybe one who didn't carry a separate cell phone. So, I'd leave that one off your list, Gekko. The other counter-example to your one-device convergence theory is phones and BT headsets. That two-device combo is not just mainstream, it's actually popular now.
Some trends combine two devices into one, others split one device into two.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
according to Jeff KONvin, Windows Vista will scale down to handheld size and be everywhere and Windows Mobile will go away.
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
If the characterization of S60 as a "quasi-smartphone" platform ever made sense I think it doesn't make sense today.
My running grudge against Symbian is that it's basically one big cheat. How many S60 devices are sold as "smartphones," rather than simply as feature phones? Most people who own one, if you asked them what OS their phone runs, would stare at you blankly. If you lower the definition of "smartphone" to be any phone with software expandability, then almost every Java based phone in existence is a "smartphone." The way I see it, to be a smartphone, it has to walk like one, and talk like one. Models like the E61 are an obvious exception, but most S60 devices still aren't sold as anything more than fancy feature phones.
As for the Blackberries, no, I don't really consider them "smartphones." To my mind, most of them are wireless handhelds, handheld communicators, whatever term you like, but something that is not a phone so much as a wireless data device. Kind of the opposite of Symbian. Same goes for the Motorola Q.
Yes, I quote the numbers which look at the WHOLE market. Sue me. It's my view that if you look at the big picture, you will realize that smartphones, wireless handhelds, and non-wireless handhelds are all still PDAs. The functions don't change that radically when you install a cellular radio. Drawing narrow black-and-white lines that lump the Treos and Wizards in with $25 camera phones from Radio Shack doesn't do any of the devices justice.
I prefer look at the mobile computing market as a whole, with cellular-enabled devices on a gradient from predominantly phone-oriented like the Cingular 2125 to almost exclusively data side, like most Blackberries, the iPaq phones, etcetera. Viewed this way, you'll notice that more people are buying smart devices than ever before. And it's not to have their address book on their phone--they can do that with any phone nowadays. I'd wager that it's the PDA capabilities, such as internet access, that drive the demand.
Foo wrote:
Every study I have see which disseminates the two categories show conclusively that non-cellular PDA sales continue their sharp decline on a quarterly basis. Even Palm's own earnings report shows this.
And Palm has been producing lackluster devices with an intermittent success for some years now. It's no surprise that their stock in trade isn't compelling enough to bring in new buyers.
Beyond that evidence, we have the activity (or rather inactivity) of the few remaining players in this space as ultimate proof. HP has stated they see traditional PDAs as dead market, and plan on shifting to smarphones.
And HP has also, coincidentally, been producing crap. A fact which I have ranted mightily about. Not to mention the fact that that one HP executive did not predict the death of PDAs, they predicted the death of "pen based computing." I suppose that also covers their often delayed and stunningly lackluster attempts at Pocket PC phones, and their tablet PCs as well. That's the problem with overly broad prophetic statements--they're usually either an attempt at damage control, or else trying to appear brilliant and visionary.
Dell hasn't produced any new model in what...two years now?
Try ten months.
Palm meanwhile hasn't released a single new handheld model all year, and is unlikely to do so. Your assertion that PDAs are somehow a booming underground success is flat out silly.
Even if you subtract the purer smartphones, I think that you would still be surprised to see how many units of the "dead" devices are being sold. Reminds me of 2002, when everybody said that CompactFlash was dead. Oops.
The E61 is among the very best Smartphones on the market today. It's embedded web browser (based on Apple's Safari rendering engine, WebKit) is hands down the best, and certainly most innovative, mobile browser in the industry. It makes Blazer, NetFront, and Pocket IE look like sad caricatures.
Have you tried Opera? I have a hard time imagining anything better than Opera. The real one, not Opera Mini, though Mini is alright too.
And frankly, I agree with TVOR--pure smartphones are living on borrowed time. In the not too distant future, their market is going to become overcrowded, and they're going to have to either become low-margin devices to compete with advanced feature phones or else suffer extinction. What WILL survive is data devices like the Blackberry, etcetera--devices whose computing functions can't be replicated so easily. In other words, the stronger stand alone PDAs.
The smart device spectrum
As the market grows it's hard to tell how consumers are categorizing things. For example the Q is taking off like crazy, but how much is taking from the Treo and how much is it enlarging the pie and carving out its own segment? Feature list comparisons don't tell you. You'd have to survey thousands of users to get an idea and even then I'm not sure if you'd know some truth that would hold up 6 - 12 months later.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
This is gonna get VERY ugly, starting with Palm's current financial quarter (which will be a DISASTER - you heard it here first, kiddies). If you like the Treo, try to remember it how it was in its prime - not as the busted-up embarassment it's about to become.
TVoR
RE: Palm's position explained: (Voice is a dumbass)
Palm are perfectly clear about what's going on: "We are presently in negotiations with PalmSource to [blah- blah- our- lawyers- told- us- to- say- this- blah]"
They are negotiating. That is all.
(1) ALP isn't shipping yet.
(2) ACCESS would dearly like to have Palm on board.
(3) Palm would dearly like to be onboard with a new wince-beater OS, but they don't want to pay.
So they're both just posing around.
Palm ships a device with wince. Why bother? Wince is sh1te and dying, and everyone knows it. Well, it creates the impression that Palm have options, even though they'd rather eat dirt than ship another wince box.
Palm drops hints they're developing their own OS. Why would they bother? As a device manufacturer they can't possibly develop a new world-beating OS in-house for less than they could license ALP, an OS based on Linux that runs almost all Palm apps *today*.
It's just positioning. Wait and see how the negotiations pan out. There's no story till then.
Just the wince shills and their FUD. :)
Oh yeah, rumor has it voice-of-dumbness bought in at $165 a share, and he's still holding. Smart move, brainiac. :)
http://www.spinoffadvisors.com/articles/smartmoney030200.htm
------
"People who like M$ products tend to be insecure crowd-following newbies lacking in experience and imagination."
Jeff Kirvin/Dr Opinion/Fat Bastard: did you take your meds today?
Kirvin thanks for continuing to play the court jester. You are truly an incredible buffoon. If Windows Mobile is dying, why are its sales going up. And why are Palm's falling furter and further behind the competition every month? Hmmmmm?
Dance for me some more, Jeffy. Dance, Dough Boy!
TVoR
RE: Palm's position explained: (Colligan on his knees?)
All?
I do not remember - ever - reading about a company's negotiations with another company for a license in a financial document. As far as I can remember, each such license was announced post-facto with all the negotiation-posturing unrevealed.
This is the FIRST time I've read "We're still negotiating".
No kidding - don't remember ever reading such a thing about any company in a financial document.
Sony is to blame.
They are the suckers who whined and got Palm Inc. to split into PalmSource and PalmOne. Then Sony stopped licensing. I hate Sony. Be it over this or their predilection for DRM. Scumbags.
Anyways, Palm Inc. (like I have been saying for years) has to fully remerge and regain control of Palm OS. It is SO close. In addition, Palm has to revitalize its handheld sales (go see my advice on Brighthand on how to make the best TX|2 possible).
The big problem here is Access. I somehow suspect they did not pay 350 000 000$ to just let Palm Inc. buy Palm OS rights for a fraction of that. I think Palm Inc. is going to have to make its own Palm OS, a new Palm OS with OS 4 and 5 transparent compatiblity. I get the feeling that Access is going to fight legally to stop Palm Inc. from copying the famous Palm OS PIM, Palm Desktop, Hotsync, etc. sigh. If it comes to that, Palm might just have to make a brand new OS, a new GUI and hope the developer community sits down and writes a whole new generation of applications. Besides, they cannot do worse than the ultra shitty Windows Mobile. God forbid is Palm Inc. converts 100% to WM and I am forced to follow. :(
RE: Sony is to blame.
Can someone explain to me why Access paid 350$M for Palm OS to then just drop it and make ALP?
Would it now have been cheaper to hire a whole arm of top programmers off the street? What the hell was so valuable at PalmSource? Did they buy it to kill off Palm Inc. in the market and let competitors free reign? Did they plan to sell Cobalt for real and Palm Inc. twisted their arm into making ALP, only to now again reject that?
And how come ALP was initially supposed to be Palm OS but with a Linux kernel and then it turned into MAX with maybe a slow Ghost Palm OS 68K only emulator?
What the hell is going on here?! This is lunacy. Nothing makes sense.
RE: Sony is to blame.
ALP was never supposed to be "PalmOS but with a Linux kernel." That's what 'PalmLinux' was supposed to be -- before the Access purchase. ALP was supposed to be Access' telephony platform to complement their buisness plan.
May You Live in Interesting Times
RE: Sony is to blame.
No. Palm is to blame for selling their soul to them, when they knew the CLIEs were not even a blip on Sony's radar screen. The day I heard the news, I pondered ... so 1/2 of Palm is now going to compete with M$? They just plain took the wrong approach.
Pat Horne
RE: Sony is to blame.
blames Sony??? what a simpleton view. who says canadians aren't a bright peoples...
RE: Sony is to blame.
Not us Americanses, who grammar know about.
RE: Sony is to blame.
i learned to read some. i read the bible quite a bit. i can't understand all of it, but I reckon i understand a good deal of it.. the bible says two men ought not lay together. but I don't reckon the Good Lord would send anybody like you to Hades....
Bible thumpin', heinie humpin Geeko
Does it say anything in there about two women? Just wondering. No reason.
RE: Sony is to blame.
working graveyard shift at the help desk must be very frustrating. good luck with that.
Poor Little Geeko and his bruised heinie
Don't worry, little fella. I'm sure you'll get used to it. Practice makes perfect.
TVoR
RE: Sony is to blame.
The bible also says that there was once a 99-year-old dude who God told to go circumcise himself, his sons and his slaves, which he went and did that day without any apparent difficulty. Um, yeah, I'm sure they all aquiesced to that...
The bible is full of crazy shit that makes no sense at all. It is a nice guideline for playing nice with other people and being humble about yourself. Beyond that, it's a completely untrustworthy document that people really need to keep at arm's length.
(OT, I know, but I couldn't help myself. Sorry for any offense caused.)
Tim
I apologise for any and all emoticons that appear in my posts. You may shoot them on sight.
Treo 270 ---> Treo 650
RE: Sony is to blame.
Slow news day, sheesh.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
New PIC contest*: Guess how many bruises on Geeko's heinie!
CORRECTION: Geeko's bruised heine.
*This contest is open only to people who sign up for a Palminfocenter User Name today just to enter the contest and will never be heard from again.
The bible is full of crazy shit that makes no sense at all. It is a nice guideline for playing nice with other people and being humble about yourself. Beyond that, it's a completely untrustworthy document that people really need to keep at arm's length.
Amen, Brother! Gotta love the story on Ruth. And what's the deal with all the slaves and the way women are treated like crap throughout the Bible? Is that God's Way? Allah be praised!
Sister TVoR
RE: Sony is to blame.
Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P
Village People™ Special Edition Treo 650 contest!
"Ribbed" - for Goatse Geeko's pleasure...
Personally autographed by your mistress (or master) of choice...and it includes a plastic Treo "jobsite" ruggedized case in hardhat yellow.
Where's Dianne when I NEED her?
Come on, Geeko:
Y... M... C... A...
Y... M... C... A...
Y... M... C... A...
RE: Sony is to blame.
Ivan
Yeah..
Palm OS II
That would instantly put an end to the madness, it would free Palm Inc. from outside control, it would save them hundreds of millions from not buying ALP or Cobalt or Garnet rights from Access, it would reassure investors, it would reassure the developer community, it would reassure the hardcore consumers like myself.
A better name would be
Palm OS Unity
It would be symbolic to mark the end of the painful (and expensive!) struggle to re-unite PalmOne, PalmSource, PalmOS and most of the Palm creators.
I am hereby not putting a patent on the name "Palm OS Unity" and graciously give it away to Palm Inc. IF and ONLY IF they continue to make cool Palm OS devices like the Palm TX. ... and try new screen technologies like OLED. ;-)
RE: Yeah..
Dont worry people, Palm has a master plan that is brilliant.
Hints.
1. Colligan has said that splitting the company was a mistake, that its better to control hardware AND software to make a better product.
2. Palm wanted to buy it back and failed.
3. They buy the name only.
4. Hired tons of Linux people
5. They go into partnership with MS.
6. Both Garnet AND WinMobile need tweaking to do what Palm needs it to do
7. They have zero relationship with Access.
8. Now they end the agreement, basically rejecting Access future OS.
What each point means?
1,2. Since they view the split was a mistake, how is that fixed? Buy it back. If that fails, obviously you create your own. Heck they dont know if Access will sell again, perhap to someone who want exclusivity. Its a scary position to be so dependent on another company. They want control of its own OS. They said it and tried to buy it.
3. ALP is not developing Garnet, or Cobalt. It is doing Linux with Garnet compatability. Palm can do basically the same thing. What do they need Access for?
Significance of buying the name just before Access bought Palmsource?
Soon:
Access will release an OS which will run Garnet apps.
Palm will release an OS which will run Garnet Apps.
Only ONE will be PalmOS.
They stole back the OS for the price of a name.
Legal? Illegal? Thats what lawyers are for, no doubt there will be litigation, but as long as Palm uses its own code, I dont see how Access can win.
4. This is so obvious, I wont bother explaining the significance of this.
5. MS was never the long term answer, It is a transitional tool. If things get ugly it is a safety net. Furthermore it gets the names "Palm" and "treo" into markets that Garnet cannot penetrate due to its limitations. This answers the question of why Palm willingly spoke of Garnets limitations compared with winmobile.
Once PalmII is released it will be championed as having both Winmobiles power, and PalmOS ease of use.
They will intoduce THIS PalmOS into Europe, after having established it brand there.
6. The tweaking of both Garnet and WinMob highlights another reason that they never again want to rely on someone else to build their OS. They know that by designing both the OS and the hardware they can build better devices period.
7,8. Again isnt this obvious? They have no future with Accessm, and frankly dont need em.
And remember people "Palm" is the party that has "filed for divorce" here.
So many are assuming that this is something horrible for Palm.
Then why even "if" they dont like what Access has done are they doing it if they are in any way dependent on them?
One more point- Timing
Access just now introducing PalmOS developers to its OS.
Now we find out Palms not on board?
I say this first public hint of discord, is not without purpose people.
How much work will a developer put into an OS with no confirmed company on board.
There was at least the assumption that Palm was interested.
This is deliberate sabotage.
RE: One more point- Timing
This is interesting.
Surur
They said I only argued for the sake of arguing, but after an hour I convinced them they were wrong...
Hey!! I made associate writer at PDA247. Come see my nattering over there!!
http;//www.clieuk.co.uk/wm.shtml
RE: One more point- Timing
1. Sell a PPC model to show they don't need POS
2. Watch the schedule run out and the basic contractual payments lapse.
3. Make sure they have complete controlof the name "Palm".
4. Cast public doubt on their even wanting either the OS or a contract to install the OS on their products.
5. Make it at least look like they can produce their own Linux OS to compete with Access's Linux based OS.
If I were Access, I would be wondering what in the world I ever thought made PS a good buy at $320 million.
RE: One more point- Timing
Since they never cared about PalmOS, the only thing they're seeing as a result of the missed milestones is a small setback due to a small revenue loss.
They may, in fact, see no revenue loss, if, as someone else pointed out, Palm sells enough units to exceed the minimums, anyway.
May You Live in Interesting Times
Blind Man's Bluff
1) Are Palm are bluffing?
2) What do they have to gain from bluffing?
3) Could they have a Linux-based OS of their own in late development?
4) Are they priming Access for a round of hard-nosed price negotiations?
5) Does Palm see any value in buying back the Garnet IP?
6) Could Palm bw looking to wind down development and become an attractive buyout proposition for one of the big fish?
7) Might MS be interested in acquiring Palm, in order to bring its failing PDA business in-house (in much the same way as it will be handling the Zune media player)?
8) Is Palm just posturing to maintain it's inflated share prices?
9) Has Palm been gearing up for something ground-breaking - let's face it, Palm's normal October/April launch windows have been rather strange in recent times?!?
10) Palm's third business is ready for prime-time and it has nothing to do with those nasty LifeDrive thing-a-me-jobbies! Further to this - this new class of device will render PDAs, SmartPhones and toilet-paper obselete. World peace will prevail and MS Vista will be permanently canned in a gesture of multi-lateral harmony which signals the pointlessness of manipulating a word document mapped to a 3d surface on some nVidia storage heater (model 7950GTX).
Hands up, who honestly foresaw this previse move from Palm?
It certainly sends a message out - I just don't think the meaning of the message is any clearer to us than Dolphin-language at this point.
KultiVator
RE: Blind Man's Bluff
Please forgive the typos above!
KV
RE: Blind Man's Bluff
2) N/A
3) They could, but they probably don't, at least not in late development
4) No
5) Doesn't matter, Access isn't selling, only leasing
6) Yes
7) No
8) No
9) No
10) There is no 3rd business
*raises hand*
May You Live in Interesting Times
RE: Blind Man's Bluff
Well...there sure had better be or a gajillion land sharks will EASILY find their shareholder for the class-action suits to rapidly follow.
When the CTO says there's a third business, there's a third business.
Or else.
RE: I can see! Ican see!
1) Are Palm are bluffing?
Probably. Palm cannot survive as JAWL (Just Another WindowsMobile Licensee) and can't afford to have Access commoditize the PalmOS by including it in ALP-OS. If Access won't sell PalmOS, Palm will just keep hacking PalmOS 5 (Garnet) until it blows up and start using Windows Mobile in more and more of its devices (especially GSM smartphones).
2) What do they have to gain from bluffing?
- Lower price on purchase of PalmOS IP.
- Undermines ALP-OS
- Keeping everyone guessing could allow Palm to negotiate a better rate from Microsoft for Windows Mobile + to possibly be allowed to customize Windows Mobile with a PalmOS emulator.
3) Could they have a Linux-based OS of their own in late development?
Not a full-featured, stable, functional one. But I would be shocked if Palm does not currently have a simple featurephone OS that has PalmOS-style PIM undergoing final testing.
4) Are they priming Access for a round of hard-nosed price negotiations?
Yes. Palm is still pouting over getting blindsided and losing PalmOS, but at this point what Access does with PalmOS may decide Palm's fate. How "hard-nosed" Palm gets depends of where they stand on the idea of switching to Windows Mobile.
5) Does Palm see any value in buying back the Garnet IP?
Yes. Remember, that's PRECISELY what they tried to do last year and failed. That's also what Palm is trying to do now.
6) Could Palm bw looking to wind down development and become an attractive buyout proposition for one of the big fish?
Palm is actively trying to get bought out, much as PalmSource did a year ago. Palm is in waaaaay ove its head trying to compete with the likes of Nokia, Motorola, LG, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, etc.
7) Might MS be interested in acquiring Palm, in order to bring its failing PDA business in-house (in much the same way as it will be handling the Zune media player)?
No. Microsoft was already repeatedly sodomized by the DoJ for supposed anticompetitive practices. It will stay FAR away from doing anything that could be misconstrued as trying to achieve a monopoly position in a market.
8) Is Palm just posturing to maintain it's inflated share prices?
No. It's trying to stay alive long enough to get bought out by XXXXXX.
9) Has Palm been gearing up for something ground-breaking - let's face it, Palm's normal October/April launch windows have been rather strange in recent times?!?
No. Palm shot its wad when the Vx was released. This company is utterly bereft of new ideas.
10) Palm's third business is ready for prime-time and it has nothing to do with those nasty LifeDrive thing-a-me-jobbies! Further to this - this new class of device will render PDAs, SmartPhones and toilet-paper obselete. World peace will prevail and MS Vista will be permanently canned in a gesture of multi-lateral harmony which signals the pointlessness of manipulating a word document mapped to a 3d surface on some nVidia storage heater (model 7950GTX).
Hawkins' dream of an ultra-connected Palmtop has already been made obsolete: by the Nokia 770 on the low end and the new class of Windows tablets (UMPC) on the high end. A 3 year old European CLIE TH55 with a dozen well-selected apps is a LOT bolder and more useful than ANYTHING you'll see coming out of Palm in the next 6 months.
Hands up, who honestly foresaw this previse move from Palm?
As if they had any other choice?
TVoR
RE: Blind Man's Bluff
RE: Blind Man's Bluff
Riddle: When is a CTO not a CTO?
Answer: When he's Jeff Hawkins.
The thing about Hawkins is that, as far as his position at Palm is concerned, he does not exist. His position within the company is purely a token one. He neither calls the shots nor has any influence or say in product development. Those duties fall to his subordinates, namely Mike Farese, who actually fulfill his role. Interestingly enough, you'll notice that Hawkins is no longer listed as CTO on Palm's website, but instead is listed informally as "Founder". My guess is it won't be much longer before Hawkins formally bids adieu to Palm.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: Blind Man's Bluff
> listed as CTO on Palm's website, but instead is listed informally
> as "Founder".
Yow!!!
That is a VERY new development - in fact, it may date to when I went looking for the BoD members when I noticed that Coleman got some stock options - feeble synapses say Hawkins was at that time still listed as CTO (strangely, PALM doesn't HAVE a list of BoD members at this point in time over at their site...though they REFERENCE the page themselves...hmmm...I wonder if Donna Dubinsky is still there...).
RE: Blind Man's Bluff
RE: Blind Man's Bluff
== "Jeff brings nearly 20 years of technical expertise to
== his role as Palm's chief technology officer..."
-- http://www.palm.com/us/company/corporate/executive.html
But if you go here instead:
-- http://investor.palm.com/management.cfm
he is not listed...
How weird.
So...is he or isn't he?
Giggle.
I guess a company that references a BoD web page but doesn't actually have one (anymore) can say Hawkins is or is not part of the executive/management depending on where ya look, eh?
Not a problem!
One more point- Timing
Access just now introducing PalmOS developers to its OS.
Now we find out Palms not on board?
I say this first public hint of discord, is not without purpose people.
How much work will a developer put into an OS with no confirmed company on board.
There was at least the assumption that Palm was interested.
This is deliberate sabotage.
RE: One more point- Timing
How much do you think Access cares about PalmOS developers?
There was at least the assumption that Palm was interested.
Even though Palm never claimed to be interested.
This is deliberate sabotage.
Nah. It's failure by a vendor to deliver software. PSRC wouldn't have made the milestones even if Access hadn't bought them, and Access couldn't have done anything timely enough to fix that.
May You Live in Interesting Times
Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
Funny with Wind River assisting PalmSource in its efforts to develop ALPO, just released the latest version of their own embedded Linux for Smartphones...
"Wind River also is releasing version 1.3 of several products, including its Platform for Consumer Devices, Linux Edition. That version is specifically designed for smart phones--feature-rich models that often have full keyboards and relatively large memory and processing power."
Chew on this...all told PalmSource has, or rather had, three companies simultaneously assisting in the development of ALPO; Wind River, MontaVista, Palm, plus whatever has-been developers are still left at PalmSource from the Cobalt debacle. And yet they still can't get their dog food OS out the door. Meanwhile Wind River's mobile OS is out the door and ready be adopted...searching the ocean for enemy subs. Too bad PalmOS got torpedoed.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
Maybe they were all brought on in '06, after all the Linux talent had left PalmSource?
May You Live in Interesting Times
A little trouble with your facts, there, Kent
Chew on this...all told PalmSource has, or rather had, three companies simultaneously assisting in the development of ALPO; Wind River, MontaVista, Palm, plus whatever has-been developers are still left at PalmSource from the Cobalt debacle. And yet they still can't get their dog food OS out the door. Meanwhile Wind River's mobile OS is out the door and ready be adopted...searching the ocean for enemy subs. Too bad PalmOS got torpedoed.
I don't recall ever hearing that Wind River was working with PalmSource, except that there was some talk about maybe licensing some developer tools from them a year ago. (I do recall a rumor that WindRiver was working with Palm on a Linux phone platform. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of?)
MontaVista is just one of a number of Linux vendors that licensees could turn to for a kernel and drivers that ALP could run on. The fact that there was an early demo of the PalmSource middleware running on a MontaVista kernel didn't mean MontaVista helped them develop it.
As for Palm OS getting torpedoed, I'd love to hear your explanation on that one. Oh yeah, I forget. By your definition of Palm OS, any modern successor to it is its "death." Such a strange perspective coming from a Mac OSX user like yourself.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
Bottom line
What will be news will be the first company that comes out with a Linux phone platform that has the usability and openness of the Palm OS. It's a significant challenge that no has has met yet.
PalmSource is still one of the best contenders to grab that brass ring, in my mind. 2007 will not be too late.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
Time to do some surfing!
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
Maybe they were all brought on in '06, after all the Linux talent had left PalmSource?"
According to this press release, MontaVista come on board in 2005...
http://www.palmsource.com/press/2005/080905_montavista.html
It was appears I was confusing Palm with PalmSource with regards to Wind River. After doing a bit of searching I found that it was Palm whom was rumored to be partnering with Wind River, not PSource. My bad.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
From the page you gave the link to:
Partnering with MontaVista will enable faster time to market for our mutual customers who want to deliver compelling, cost effective Linux-based mobile phone solutions."
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
PALM has cash - rumor is (or at least Me-Too Media poop) that PALM is in acquisition-mode. How much would a windriver et al cost?
Palm is not going to buy Wind River. Or let's put it this way: if Palm is buying Wind River, then Palm's "Third Business" is not just far out in left field--it's up in the stands buying beer and hotdogs.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
MontaVista may have "come on board", but they never participated in PalmLinux development. Nor was there ever a demo on a MontaVista kernel.
Prior to the Hier demo of ALP, all of the external demos were on TI reference boards, using kernels from the open source community, with changes from CMS or made inhouse by myself and others. All of the above-kernel work was done by PSRC sunnyvale, except the telephony stack was done by PSRC france. The Hier demo was put together after I left, but I would assume that it was CMS's kernel, possibly with Sunnyvale mods, as CMS already had mfone running on Hier hardware at that point.
There are a lot of rumors about which third parties were involved with which parts of the development that are wrong, but NDAs prevent me from commenting on most of them.
May You Live in Interesting Times
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
I'm surprised no one has started the rumor that Marvell is going to buy Palm, yet. . .
i <3 the irony
May You Live in Interesting Times
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
Hey, at least Stan Lee would make for a more proactive CTO than Jeff Hawkins. Coming next week...the Treo 700w/SE (Spiderman Edition). Oooh, my Spidey sense is tingling already.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
Hawkins doesn't need to be CTO
As far as I'm concerned Hawkins' greatest contribution was in providing the DNA for Palm. Others can now build on that achievement and he can play the role of the éminence grise or "spiritual" leader/spokesman. I really don't see a problem.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Hawkins doesn't need to be CTO
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
On the contrary, I doubt Hawkins ever truly was CTO. He was clearly put in that symbolic position purely for his "DNA" as you put it. His presence lent greater credibility to the company (he is afterall renowned inventor of the PalmPilot), just as Apple added Al Gore to its board of directors for appearances. I could say more on that but I'll just let it lay there on the floor. ;-)
From the very beginning Hawkins subordinates have filled his role. His recently retitling to "Founder" indicates that a formal departure is in the works.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
Hawkins hit the [G] spot. Again. And again. Yeah Babyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Cum on, Beersy. Did a Good idea from Hawkins not splatter all over the PDA market?
-Because you asked for it
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
He was. Someone I know who had a cube very near his office in the early days describes Hawkins as 'the guy who had to say no' to the crazier ideas.
A CTO's job involves both going out on a ledge and making sure not to take the next step.
May You Live in Interesting Times
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
By "early days" do you mean the "GRiD/Zoomer" days of 1990-1992 or the nascent Palm Computing/Pilot days of 1993-1996?
I think Hawkins learned a great deal in that half-decade. Without the lessons learned from the Zoomer debacle the Pilot wouldn't have been anywhere as resolutionary is it actually was.
Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
May You Live in Interesting Times
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
You know it's a small thing, but those little lies really make you look like you're full of shiitake.
Don't worry, though. It was pretty obvious even before this.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
And thanks for your criticisms. Coming from a man of your stature, one cannot help but be humbled.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: Linux: proudly sinking submarines and PalmSource
Sincerity isn't a strong suit for you, either, is it? :-) Ok, sorry, I'll lighten up.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
Question 5
TVOR Said:
Yes. Remember, that's PRECISELY what they tried to do last year and failed. That's also what Palm is trying to do now
Why waste the money?
Palm has the name.
It appears to be developing its own Linux based OS.
From the ground up exactly what Palm wants, not something they have to tweak.
What do they need with Access stuff?
They already own "PalmOS" not Access.
Access owns "Garnet."
RE: Question 5
What prevents them from doing similar with their own LinuxOS.
What do they need Garnet For?
RE: Question 5
It's one thing for StyleTap to develop a clean-room emulator (without having access to the source code). It's another legal matter altogether for a company that's intimately familiar with the source code to say "we don't need your IP anymore" and then use that knowledge to duplicate PACE. Which is why I imagine they probably have a contract with PalmSource that prevents them from doing just that. Which is also probably why they are having to negotiate with PalmSource for "extended rights to develop and distribute" Palm OS.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Question 5
Sure it might look bad given Palm/Source's history, but the courts aren't about looking bad (hopefully), they're about what you can prove. I imagine it's perfectly within Palm's capability to develop their own clean-room emulator, and if it isn't they could just buy StyleTap. If they can do so without using Access' IP, then Access wouldn't have a leg to stand on, except the threat of a long, bitter and extremely expensive court case. I imagine that's what is stopping them. But if it came down to the crunch, I reckon they'd get away with it.
Tim
I apologise for any and all emoticons that appear in my posts. You may shoot them on sight.
Treo 270 ---> Treo 650
RE: PDA's
Smartphones are never going to supplant traditional phones, but well-equipped handhelds could take out a large chunk of the multimedia market. Think for a second about a TX design with 4 GB of internal flash memory, marketed with a video and music bent, that also was capable of internet access and downloading new files over WiFi without having to involve a PC. Or envision something like a Z22 with a couple of gigs of internal memory, plus an EDGE cellular radio, and Palm's own over-the-air music store. Hear a song you like on the radio, Google the lyrics to find the name, and download it directly to your collection in about three to six minutes, all without touching a desktop. Tell me that's not a compelling application.
RE: PDA's
That's because Smartphones and "traditional" phones are on a collision course. The lines between the two device categories will blur and ultimately disappear. Symbian S60 3rd ed. is a smartphone OS and can be found on very common phones that offer smartphone features...Web, email, digital audio, video, etc.
-------------------------------
PocketFactory, www.pocketfactory.com
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com
RE: PDA's
The operators are truncating the "long tail" of the device market down to a short stump today, but competition and latent demand won't allow that state of affairs to continue forever. Be patient.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: PDA's
Why isn't there a PDA with a hard drive yet? 4GB is the same to me as 1GB. It's not enough to hold my music, email, or documents. And I can already hold my photos. If Palm made a device with a 40GB hard drive that easily synced all your data in the way the iPod does, it would own.
But they aren't that smart. They'd rather just hand the market over to Apple.
RE: PDA's
Why isn't there a PDA with a hard drive yet? 4GB is the same to me as 1GB. It's not enough to hold my music, email, or documents. And I can already hold my photos. If Palm made a device with a 40GB hard drive that easily synced all your data in the way the iPod does, it would own.
But they aren't that smart. They'd rather just hand the market over to Apple.
RE: PDA's
I cannot fathom why the marketplace is still awash with me-too 512mb and 1gb flash based mp3 players. Even sillier are the larger screened PMPs that try to make do with a gig or two of flash storage onboard.
Palm, even under the humble capabilities of FrankenGarnet, could easily have produced a large HD-based (at least up to 30gb-isn't that the limit of what Garnet & FAT32 can address?) 480*320 successor to the LD with a reskinned, licensed version of TCMP onboard. There's no reason to let iRiver & Archos run away with the market for non-Apple PMP devices. Why let those guys get away with grafting rudimentary PIM features onto their PMPs when Palm, *THE* granddaddy of PDAs & great PIM capabilities, could join in on the fun?
Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P
Different strokes...
Even if the LifeDrive shipped with 100 GB it would not have been wort getting. Large storage + small device arrives is 2006. Patience, Grasshopper.
I cannot fathom why the marketplace is still awash with me-too 512mb and 1gb flash based mp3 players.
The MP3 players I use are "512mb and 1gb flash based" iRiver players. Reliable, rugged, fantastic battery life, light, no need for Windows Media Player and carry more music than I would ever want to listen to in one setting. I think anything larger than 2 GB is silly unless it's say 60 GB and holds your entire music collection.
TVoR
RE: PDA's
Right on, man. Especially on the iPod, where you can find yourself twirling your finger for all eternity trying to find something specific.
Tim
I apologise for any and all emoticons that appear in my posts. You may shoot them on sight.
Treo 270 ---> Treo 650
RE: PDA's
Flash memory on the other hand is small, incredibly rugged, and takes minimal power. And with prices falling the way they are, you can pack in a significant amount of storage for relatively cheap. 4 GB of flash, sold in bulk, would be under $50. If you really want to make a splash, toss in 8 GB, or maybe 16, and you can still sell the device for $500 with killer battery life. See "iPod Nano."
How many people can honestly say that they need 40 GB to hold all their music? I can't--I'm still working on one 4 GB flash card, and I have a pretty decent collection. Video is bulkier, but it's impractical to carry an entire video collection above a certain size in a single device.
RE: PDA's
I detest anything encoded <192kb MP3...and even then I prefer FLAC or OGG for any discriminating listening. Therefore, I need space!
For the record, I use a 20gb iAudio X5 mp3 player and it's chock-full of music..no videos whatsoever even though it does do rudimentary video playback. I actually have more videos on my 2gb Sandisk SD card for my Palm devices than I do on my HD-based mp3 player.
How do you think Apple is going to fare battery-wise on their next-gen Video iPod (the one with the big screen)?
That said, A TX with 1gb of internal flash would have been more compelling than a 4gb HD-based LifeDrive. A TX-style Palm with 2gb of flash could mate nicely with a 4gb SD card and blow the LD out of the water.
Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P
RE: PDA's
Actually for $89 I can get a 4gb SD card for a Treo and make it just as useful as the Lifedrive. What's the point of the lifedrive again? Nothing.
If you're going to bother putting a hard drive in something at least make it worth your while.
RE: PDA's
The best reasons to go for flash are speed, battery life, durability, and size. Flash is fast, needs next to no power, can be put through hell, and fits into the smallest spaces. To pack in, say, a 40 GB hard drive, you would have to have a device even larger than the Lifedrive, whereas you could easily fit 8 GB of flash into a TX form-factor. The iPods manage because they don't need other things like expansion slots, fast processors, big screens, or other things like that--it's basically the battery, the drive, and a minimum of electronics. And even then, look at the battery life with the video iPod. If they do make a big-screen version, they'll have to expand the battery size unless they want a life of under 90 minutes.
An executive PDA phone?
RE: An executive PDA phone?
http://www.churchoflivingfaith.com/images/treoflipper.jpg
Pat Horne
Breathtakingly bad reporting
I've created a list of the worst ones from CNET, TechSpot, DailyTech, and Brighthand with some corrections. Some of them would be absolutely laughable if it weren't for the fact that they were obviously sincere mistakes.
http://www.pikesoft.com/blog/index.php?itemid=106
If people see other egregious examples, let's point them out here.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
If anything, it seems the other way around: Palm looks determined to regain control over the Palm OS even if this means cancelling its co-development agreeement with PalmSource and anteing up for the IP it needs to rev the OS without PalmSource. How this will actually shake out is in question (will there be two pretenders to the Palm OS throne or will a new co-development partnership be reached?) but I certainly don't see it as a case of Palm becoming less involved in the development of Palm OS."
You're speculating completely here. Palm has not said that they're acquiring any IP, nor have they said that they're going to develop anything independently. All that Palm has said is that they're negotiating with Palmsource on a revised plan to expand Palm's development rights. And the original "error" that you corrected was still very much accurate: unless a new deal is reached, this may result in the termination of Palm's involvement with Access.
"Misstatement #7" was from a post in the article comments, not the article itself, and was the result of somebody making an accidental misreading of the report. Hardly a damning indictment.
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
The exact text is:
We are presently in negotiations with PalmSource to expand our development and distribution rights to the current version of the Palm OS. If we are unable to successfully conclude these negotiations, it may adversely affect our ability to develop and distribute new products based on a next-generation version of the Palm OS.
You're right that it's an interpretation to conclude that Palm wants these expanded rights so it can build the next version of Palm OS itself. But what other interpretation do you have in mind? Palm doesn't say it needs this expanded license to improve Garnet itself. It says that it's the next generation OS that will be will be adversely affected. I'm certainly open to hearing other explanations for how that could be the case.
Finally, I never disputed that Palm's involvement with ACCESS wasn't at risk. The statement I disputed was this:
The failure of PalmSource and Access, Co, Ltd. to meet contract obligations may result in the termination of Palm Inc's involvement in the development of a future Palm OS successor.
You can speculate anything you want, but this isn't stated or implied in the annual report and it's grossly misleading. As you yourself point out, the thrust of Palm's response to the missed milestones is not to terminate its involvement in the development of a Palm OS successor but to expand it.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
It's been pretty amazing at how wrong and misinformed some of the "reporting" on this has been.
Does this count as egregious?
Setbacks in the ALP development process certainly seem to be generating some friction between the two companies, but Gartner analyst Todd Kort says that Palm can't end its rocky relationship with PalmSource because Palm needs a non-windows platform to differentiate it from competitors:
"For them to say they're not going to use Palm OS anymore is not very likely, in my opinion. It could be sort of a threat. Until Palm has something other than a Windows product, like a Linux product available, I don't think they're in a very strong position."
Kort also mentions the Treo 700p, a Palm handheld scheduled for release in 2007 that will probably be shipped with ALP.
Erm... the same 700p released in May 2006 with Garnet?
Yep, I'm really inclined to trust his analysis...
Tim
I apologise for any and all emoticons that appear in my posts. You may shoot them on sight.
Treo 270 ---> Treo 650
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
Erm... the same 700p released in May 2006 with Garnet?
Seeing that the Treo 650 was a rehashed Treo 600, the Tx a rehashed T5 and Palm's glacial pace of change, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they released a Treo 700 with ALP in 2007, the 700alp.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. Aaron Levenstein
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
Setbacks in the ALP development process certainly seem to be generating some friction between the two companies
One thing I find odd is that everyone is assuming that the missed milestones were due to delays in delivering ALP. Isn't it a lot more likely (especially given Palm's silence over ALP) that the "delays" are because PalmSource simply stopped working on porting the Cobalt middleware to a Linux kernel after ACCESS acquired them?
It's astonishing to me the level of confusion this annual report has created. People are coming out with the wierdest statements and interpretations. Or maybe it's just that this report has exposed a deep confusion that has been there ever since PalmSource was acquired.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
Whatever milestone PSRC missed would have been on a contract that existed before ACCESS acquired PSRC. Palm doesn't say what the milestone was, but if it was something related to Cobalt on a Linux kernel, it would have been what we've been calling PalmLinux, and that would have meant that PSRC had a contractual obligation to deliver PalmLinux to Palm.
So 'simply stopped working on' would, in that case, have been a breach of contract and not just a missed milestone, since it would have meant that PSRC didn't just miss a date, but intended not to deliver at all.
I would assume that ACCESS would have negotiated a change in deliverables, rather than simply stopping work. Perhaps that negotiation broke down? That would certainly explain Palm and ACCESS not being on good terms.
This would be more evidence to support the theory that ACCESS doesn't really care about delivering PalmOS compatibility and add credibility to rumor that Marvell is going to buy Palm.
May You Live in Interesting Times
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
I would assume that ACCESS would have negotiated a change in deliverables, rather than simply stopping work. Perhaps that negotiation broke down? That would certainly explain Palm and ACCESS not being on good terms.
I agree that "stopping work" would be a breach and that this would be a subject of negotiation. But a failed negotiation to deliver something different would still be a breach of the original contract. My feeling is that as long as Palm and ACCESS are still talking with each other (and it seems they are) Palm can refer to this as being a missed deadline rather than a broken contract (which would sound a lot more alarming).
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
I don't see why. The difference between PalmLinux and ALP isn't that one platform doesn't have Palm OS compatibility, it's that one has the Cobalt interface and the other is based on the Rome interface. That and the fact that ALP uses a lot of open source stuff under the hood (GTK, GStreamer, SQLite) in place of proprietary components. Not sure I see how any of these differences would have anything to do with Palm OS Garnet compatibility.
IIRC, Palm announced at the 2005 DevCon that the Rome-on-Linux platform would ship first (Spring 2006) and Cobalt-on-Linux would follow in the Fall or Winter. Rome was to be aimed at non-touchscreen feature phones with PIM apps that were "data-compatible" with Palm OS but weren't open to 3rd party software--presumably of little interest to Palm. I wouldn't be surprised if Palm doesn't think that the Rome interface really plays well to its "mobile computing" focus, even if the MAX framework and GHost technically open up the platform to third party apps.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
The failure of PalmSource and Access, Co, Ltd. to meet contract obligations may result in the termination of Palm Inc's involvement in the development of a future Palm OS successor.
You can speculate anything you want, but this isn't stated or implied in the annual report and it's grossly misleading. As you yourself point out, the thrust of Palm's response to the missed milestones is not to terminate its involvement in the development of a Palm OS successor but to expand it."
How is that misleading? Their existing development deal has been voided. Unless they negotiate a new arrangement with PSRC/Access, then their involvement in future OSes developed by Access is done. You seem to be taking it as a foregone conclusion that the ongoing negotiations will result in a new deal.
Palm's 2007 smartphone lineup revealed! SHOCKER!
700w - Sellout OS (Windows Mobile)
700p - FrankenPalmOS (PalmOS 5)
700a - Dog food OS (ALP-OS)
700s - Cover all bases OS (Symbian)
700c - Nostalgia OS (Commodore 64-OS)
More to to come. Stay tuned kiddies...
TVoR
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
How is that misleading?
It suggests that Palm is trying to walk away from Palm OS because of the missed milestones, which the annual report states pretty clearly is not the case.
Their existing development deal has been voided. Unless they negotiate a new arrangement with PSRC/Access, then their involvement in future OSes developed by Access is done. You seem to be taking it as a foregone conclusion that the ongoing negotiations will result in a new deal.
No it's not a foregone conclusion and that's not my point. But I think we agree that Palm is seeking a new deal to be involved, not using missed milestones as a pretext to terminate any involvement in the development of the Palm OS. The statement I was taking issue with gave the opposite impression. You're right that it probably shouldn't have been categorized as an "egregious error" but judging the way people have responded to it, it's certainly spawned some egregious misconceptions.
David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog
OK journalists, READ MY LIPS:
That's because mainstream reporters don't realize that ALP-OS is useless to Palm. Even the current version of PalmOS 5 is more useful to Palm thha ALP-OS ever would be.
Isn't it a lot more likely (especially given Palm's silence over ALP) that the "delays" are because PalmSource simply stopped working on porting the Cobalt middleware to a Linux kernel after ACCESS acquired them?
PalmLinux development (scavenging Cobalt code + moving it to a Linux kernel) was a doomed project, but that was the case even before Access bought PalmSource. Access obviously doesn't give a rat's a$$ about PalmOS (they will never use PalmOS for anything other than a "bonus" PalmOS emulator within ALP-OS and the code to do that has pretty much already been in existence for several years). So there was no reason to continue development of PalmOS with a goal of creating PalmLinux. This left Palm with no next-generation PalmOS and no simple means of differentiating its products. Looking at how little money Access would lose by not delivering PalmLinux it's no wonder that they killed the project soon after they bought PalmSource.
(From the May 2005 8K)
"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."
With PalmSource being sold, Palm can also exercise its options on PalmOS for $10 million/year for 2010 and 2011.
2005 - already paid $41+ million
2006 - already paid $42.5+ million
2007 - too late for Palm to change plans, Palm will ship more than $35 million worth of licenses
2008 - If Palm dumps Access' PalmOS after 2007, Access loses $20 million. Big freaking deal.
2009 - If Palm dumps Access' PalmOS, Access loses $10 million. Big freaking deal.
So killing PalmOS development MIGHT cost Access around $30 million in lost licenses in the next 3 years. And how much would it have cost to develop PalmLinux? Probably a significant percentage of that potential income. Access can afford to jerk Palm around as much as they want to if they are confident that Palm isn't prepared to abandon PalmOS quite yet. Access can sell off rights (either "extended" or complete depending on how much they can squeeze out of Palm) to buggy, hacked-up PalmOS 5 (Garnet) + buggy, incomplete PalmOS 6 (Cobalt) + the pieces of code from incomplete PalmOS 7 (PalmLinux) and let the alchemists at Palm spend the time and money trying to create gold from all that lead. Palm is stuck between a rock (life as JAWL [Just Another WindowsMobile Licensee] and a hard place (having to use a hacked-up, ancient, unstable OS (PalmOS 5) trying to compete with modern versions of Windows Mobile and Symbian) and time is running out.
It's astonishing to me the level of confusion this annual report has created. People are coming out with the wierdest statements and interpretations. Or maybe it's just that this report has exposed a deep confusion that has been there ever since PalmSource was acquired.
No it isn't astonishing. This story has so many twists and turns it's both hard to believe and difficult to follow even for people who have watched (in disbelief) it unfold from Day 1. Just look at the confusion Palm created with the Name Game. [Quick Beersy, list ALL of the names the various Palm Companies/divisions have used in the past 6 years.] Palm could now legally call its customised version of Windows Mobile "PalmOS" . Yeah, this all makes a lot of sense...
TVoR, Inc.
Copyright 2006
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
I don't see that. It says exactly what it means--Access' failure to deliver may result in the termination of Palm's involvement. At no point does it say that Palm is walking away. It doesn't say they aren't, either--there's no really reliable information one way or the other, so no conclusion is drawn. I don't see why one would assume that it implies one thing or another.
But I think we agree that Palm is seeking a new deal to be involved,
Maybe they are. Maybe their current negotiations are an attempt to get what they want and seperate from Access permanently. Maybe it's a smokescreen to cover the fact that they're giving up on a next-gen OS. There's no context, so no way to draw a conclusion with any certainty.
not using missed milestones as a pretext to terminate any involvement in the development of the Palm OS.
Nobody said they were.
The statement I was taking issue with gave the opposite impression.
I would disagree.
You're right that it probably shouldn't have been categorized as an "egregious error" but judging the way people have responded to it, it's certainly spawned some egregious misconceptions.
People jump to conclusions no matter what the story says. Witness around here. If I say, "The sky is blue," am I responsible because someone reads that to mean that it was orange two minutes ago?
RE: Breathtakingly bad reporting
I actually think your final comment is right on track. Palm is seeking to provide the "Palm experience" layered on whatever OS-du-jour they see fit.
I'd honestly not be totally stunned to see them moving forward with selling Treos (running WinMob at the core) and advertising them as "Palm Powered" "Palm Enhanced" or "Palm Capable"...no "OS" in there of course but just trying to evoke a general feel of the "classic" Palm PIMs and intuitiveness.
Remember, folks, there's still a great deal of brand equity left in the "Palm" name and a bit more with the basic association of "Palm=easy to use"...like what Mac OS still enjoys and how IBM, Sony & Maytag used to have their own associations with quality, performance, and reliability.
Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P
Beersy is such a breathtakingly bad drama queen
As I've stated elsewhere, moving Palm's lineup quickly to a modified version of Windows Mobile (+/- a PalmOS emulator to allow compatibility withe most legacy PalmOS applications just so longtime users don't feel "abandoned" by the company) seems to be the smartest way to deal wit the nightmare Palm created for itself by gambling away ownership of PalmOS. I wouldn't trust Palm to be capable of developing PalmLinux into a stable OS any time in the next 5 years. By the time Palm would have developed Palm everyone would probably have specially-tuned versions of Real Windows™ running on their mobile devices and PalmLinux would be redundant. (Remember what happened to my biotches BeOS? [Who's yer Daddy, Gassée? Bwahahaha! That bum still owes me $20 from... nevermind.])
Remember, folks, there's still a great deal of brand equity left in the "Palm" name and a bit more with the basic association of "Palm=easy to use"...like what Mac OS still enjoys and how IBM, Sony & Maytag used to have their own associations with quality, performance, and reliability.
Yes the Palm name still carries some weight. Palm is STILL living off the goodwill + memories it created with the legendary Pilot/III/V series of handhelds in the 1990s. The "Treo" name also has some traction with business customers and could have become a franchaise if only Palm had created a diversified lineup of phones. But people don't remember forever and it will soon be "What have you done for me lately?" as soon as a Treo competitor comes along with better quality + features + lower price than Palm. (Some wold argue that the Treo is ALREADY no longer the best smartphone on the market.) IBM, Sony and (to a lesser degree) Maytag EARNED their reputations. Interestingly all 3 have tarnished those reputations by releasing products and services that failed to live up to high expectations. Palm may have irrevocably damaged the good "Palm" name by releasing a seemingly-endless string of crap like the LifeDrive, T5, m505, etc., etc. I'll be shocked if Palm is still around as an independent company in 2 years.
TVoR
Latest Comments
- I got one -Tuckermaclain
- RE: Don't we have this already? -Tuckermaclain
- RE: Palm brand will return in 2018, with devices built by TCL -richf
- RE: Palm brand will return in 2018, with devices built by TCL -dmitrygr
- Palm phone on HDblog -palmato
- Palm PVG100 -hgoldner
- RE: Like Deja Vu -PacManFoo
- Like Deja Vu -T_W
I see some positives in this.
- Hold on to Garnet. Keep perfecting it.
- Slowly introduce Cobalt.
- Find a way to buy all the rights for Cobalt and bring everything home under Palm Inc. Leave Access go on with ALP and other licensees.
Palm Inc. has alot of negociation clout here since PalmSource desperately needs Palm Inc. Then again, without Palm OS, Palm Inc. will wither away in my opinion.
I see hope in Palm's press release. They seem to understand the importance of holding to Palm OS, the os that has made them for over 10 years. I know for myself Palm OS is the reason I don't even think about PPC anymore.
Maintaining full 68K AND (AND!) OS 5 compability is very important so as to ensure that the 30K software title base is not destroyed. I trust Cobalt more for this.