Comments on: Guardian Article: Can Palm find a way to survive?
In an intriguing article published by the UK's Guardian newspaper, Palm’s CEO, Ed Colligan, admits in an interview this week that “it will be 12 to 18 months” before a Palm smartphone running a Linux-based OS appears. This information, while slightly contradictory to earlier reports, is nevertheless a sign that all may not be well with Palm's in-house OS developmental efforts.
The guardian article, while offering little in the way of new information, does a solid job of providing a nutshell summary of the myriad of reasons leading to Palm’s current doldrums, such as the aging Garnet OS architecture, reduced revenue and consolidation in the PDA market, and the lack of differentiation amongst the Treo line in the face of increasingly fierce competition.
Article Comments
(77 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: Done
RE: Done
RE: Done
I bought a Palm TX in replacement of a dead Palm T3 (dead battery) just because of 5 years worth of data that I have on my PDA. Notes, contacts, journal entries, time logs, expenses ... And now I have to find similar softwares, and ways to port the old data to the new OS. If the T3's battery wouldn't die I wouldn't even buy the TX and would switch to WM directly after the T3.
Microsoft had the vision, they started with a product with a solid core, then they changed it through years to suit the specifics of handheld devices. They showed they have management. The impression is that there is someone there who knows what he's doing, has the vision, and is a superb manager. Steady flow of newer versions, improved each time. So simply Microsoft offers a better product today and I don't see any reason to be willing to remain on Palm OS anymore. 12-18 months??? Sick and tired of this "new multi-tasking OS" thing. We've been hearing it for years. How many years they've been saying this by the way????? When there is this wonderful multi-tasking OS right now out there why should I wait for Palm?
By the way, what's the reason behind 'no replaceable' batteries on Palm TXs. Is it for keeping the cost down or forcing the customer to buy a new one when the battery is dead? My old Sony Clie SJ22 has relacable battery!!
RE: Done
Well my current 700p is only an upgrade from the 650 in RAM & data speed, in everything else it is a lagging malfunctioning downgrade. My 600 was mostly better then the 650, exept the low-res screen. No actual new funcionality has been added.
Palm truly hasn't created anything new in the last 4 YEARS. Now they say they will create a new OS, and release it in another YEAR AT BEST?
What do you think the Treo(r) brand is worth in bankruptcy liquidation?
Handspring Visor, Palm V, Treo 180, Treo 90, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p
MTT
RE: Done
And Bluetooth, improved camera software, the removable battery, and NVFS (contentious, I know, but I prefer a device that doesn't forget everything when the battery runs flat).
Yep, it was an incremental upgrade, but it was still definitely an upgrade.
RE: Done
Pat Horne
RE: Done
4" VGA screen
Seriously, something to drool over. Have you compared the dimensions of that unit vs. the TX?
TX (via my micrometer) - 78 x 14 x 121 mm
iPAQ 210 - 76 x 16 x 126 mm
The HP is actually less wide and only slightly larger in the other two dimensions, but with a 4" screen! Again, just what we've been asking for: max screen in a minimal body.
The rest of the specs are fantastic as well: SD and CF slots, internal mic, 3.5mm headphone jack, mic in, two speakers, removable 2200mhz battery, BT 2.0, 802.11 b/g. Unless this thing costs an obscene amount of money, anyone wanting a higher end PDA has got to at least take a serious look at it.
So once again I'll repeat that if Palm is going to force me to a WinMob device, it won't be Palm branded.
Thinking about Vista? Think again: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Want an alternative? Try this: http://www.ubuntu.com/ or http://www.mepis.org/
RE: Done
I agree exactly with what Ron is saying. I am about ready to throw this lagging, battery-sucking, Error 3000ing 700p against a wall! I still have my two TXs but after they go...well, if Palm is going to force me to a WinMob device, it'll probably be this one!
Does anyone know how WM6 handles BT DUN on cell phones? Is it as picky as Palm OS devices are? Do WM units play nicely with CDMA handsets?
Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P
RE: Done
Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P
RE: Done
Thinking about Vista? Think again: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Want an alternative? Try this: http://www.ubuntu.com/ or http://www.mepis.org/
RE: Done
And I still give huge props to Handspring for the Visor Edge design. They probably spent a fraction of what Palm did (did Handspring do it in-house? I'm pretty sure the Edge was not done by Ideo) and other than the horrible stylus placement, fixed flip cover and lame mini-Springboard slot (that was the device that should've kicked off SD for Handspring) it was a superb piece in every way, surpassing the Palm V in several aspects.
Side by side review/pics of two classics, in case anyone's feeling nostalgic:
http://the-gadgeteer.com/review/handspring_visor_edge_review
Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P
RE: Done
Unless this thing costs an obscene amount of money ...
iPaq 210 is $450 according to hp.com. And I also noticed something they changed the amount of RAM from 64MB to 128MB on their site!
max screen in a minimal body
Interesting that is my favorite design too! Like Acer n311. Man that was a god damn beautiful device!!!
RE: Done
ahhhhhh, 1999. those were the days...
http://the-gadgeteer.com/review/palm_v_review
life was so much simpler back then.
RE: Done
Dirk
RE: Done
Treo was never an option due to the screen size
The screen size is so important for me too. That's why I'm a two piece PDA/cellphone type. HP's new series is a ray of hope. I really hope that classic PDAs don't die because they could be such useful devices. Or at least be replaced by phone/pda hybrids that have similar dimensions and screen size to PDAs. But the down side of the second alternative [phone-pdas] is the price.
RE: Done
RE: Done
Thinking about Vista? Think again: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Want an alternative? Try this: http://www.ubuntu.com/ or http://www.mepis.org/
RE: Done
I'm actually surprised at how easily my TX paired with my Nokia 6233 and how seamlessly it works.
Who is your service provider?... I was in a hurry when my phone died after 6 years... I got a cheap Kyocera that won't connect. But then again I wasn't actively thinking about pairing it with my TX.
RE: Done
Thinking about Vista? Think again: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Want an alternative? Try this: http://www.ubuntu.com/ or http://www.mepis.org/
RE: Done
RE: Done
Without retreading old ground too much, here's the nutshell summary:
Early CDMA BT phones unofficially worked with older (T2, T3, T5) Palm devices for BT DUN. Then Palm disabled CDMA BT DUN functionality on the LifeDrive & TX (likely either at the request of Sprint & Verizon or b/c they wanted to act chummy with the large CDMA telcos).
Palm never officially supported CDMA BT DUN in the first place but they went out of their way to disable it in their final two non-smartphone releases with Bluetooth. Then Verizon changed (or disabled?) their CHAP authentication over BT to really break things for users of older POS handhelds. Again, I'm recalling all of this from memory since it doesn't do me any good to dwell on this matter anymore b/c it makes my blood boil.
Anyway, I think that this CHAP authentication change basically rendered WinMob handhelds & Wintel PCs still compatible but locked out Palm OS devices (based on inherent OS limitations). Some brave souls on Brighthand/HoFo modded their Verizon phones' firmware to bypass this authentication but that's something I've never felt comfortable doing with a work-issued handset.
So my guess is that Palm worked in partnership with the telcos to disable PDA BT DUN in favor of all parties selling higher-margin Treos with the accompanying overpriced data plans.
Now look where Palm's pillow talk with the carriers has got them.....no one but Sprint wanting to even look at a Garnet-based unit, increasingly fierce WinMob competition, the Fooleo dead in the water, and a practically moribund PDA line.
I said several years ago that Palm could have extended the useful lifespan of their handhelds by releasing a series of TX & T|C-style handhelds that could work fine as standalone devices or could work in tandem with *ANY* Bluetooth handset on the market, regardless of carrier. If the domestic telcos would adopt reasonable ($10/month for BT tethering for handhelds, $20 for laptops etc) pricing policies, then the folks who prefer two devices could be happy alongside the folks who like a single converged device.
What if Apple wants to begin installing BT in the Touch as a way of offering an "almost iPhone" for people who don't like AT&T's coverage and/or want or must carry a different cell phone? THAT might make the carriers wake up and pay attention!
Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P
Why don´t they focus on a Linux TX2?
To sort out the underpinings for a phone with multitasking, antennas, power management and so on must be 80% of the work with the new platform.
Please Palm, just give us a plain TX2, with your new OS and your PIM's
RE: Why don´t they focus on a Linux TX2?
Now, Palm's still gonna sell, what, a million or so PDAs this year consisting of three ancient carryover models? Just imagine what they could do if they had something with (gasp!) similar hardware and more robust software capabilities than the iPhone. Palm doesn't even need to knockoff the iPhone's styling as the classic Palm V/m500 formfactor would make the ideal candidate to modernize. Even a hodgepodge of a handful of new 3rd party apps + a few hundred carryover emulated Garnet apps would give Palm a huge advantage/selling point over the iPhone/iPod Touch.
Palm could offer two standard launchers--the "big button" finger-operated n00b mode (ala iPhone) or the "littie button" classic POS-style launcher intended for stylus and d-pad use. Palm could then play on Apple's lack of a removable media slot and target the device as a "digital camera picture viewer" and its ability to store "endless gigs of stuff" on a handful of 8/16/32GB SDHC cards. Stick an integrated mic and Bluetooth on there and market it as a VOIP handset w/ strong PMP & PIM capabilities. It's NOT that hard, guys. Apple gets the big stuff right but intentionally overlooks the little details. Palm misses the big points by a mail but still usually manages to nail the small details (holding the home button to get a quick launcher, the reset button on the back operated by stylus tip, the ring/vibrate switch on Treos etc).
I'm not a software guy either but if they used at least a reasonable amount of existing tooling/tech that they could carry over from the TX/Treo, and had reasonably realistic expectations going into it and sold only at Palm kiosks/stores/website, I'd think that Palm could at least break even with such a device. They'd certainly garner some good buzz and word of mouth and keep their name in the spotlight....to borrow an alalogy from the PC industry, cards like the 8400s and X2400s are the bread and butter video cards for Nvidia & ATI. But the cards they get all of the gamerz buzzing are the X2900XT and 8800GTX high-end stuff.
If I were Colligan, I'd rather break even on a low-margin next-gen PDA that netted Palm a positive buzz instead of sinking 10 Mil. + on the Fooleo flop and tarnishing Palm's reputation in the process.
Besides, once a PDA design is done, it's "done" and (as the T|E2 shows) can be kept alive & kicking for years since the retail channel (especially direct sales) isn't in as much of a hurry to put the old models out to pasture like the carriers are.
Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX-->Treo 700P
RE: Why don´t they focus on a Linux TX2?
I refer all a-GAIN to the words that Andy Brown said about rethinking.
Will they even be around in 12 - 18 months?
In 18 months, they might be cheap enough that freakout can purchase them! :)
RE: Will they even be around in 12 - 18 months?
This is getting so old that even old faithfuls have got to be preparing to bail. This is the same song and dance that we heard back in 2004 with Cobalt. Still, we have almost nothing compelling beyond what was created at Palm in 2003. As someone said before, if I only had call, WiFi, and 3G on my 2003 model TT3, then I would be in high cotton.
We have been begging for this forever, and we still get 12-18 months. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm gonna step out on a limb on this one. Palm-Linux by Palm Inc will NEVER see the light of day. It's vaporware. Palm may be a vaporCo soon too. They tried unsuccessfully to sell it earlier this year and nobody wanted the albatross. I think if I were Motorola, I would swoop in and buy this thing for pennies on the $, just to try to wring something outta the Treo name and the marketing channels.
This "12-18" month statement is the last straw for me. My 680 is sooo awesome and just needs some updating. But, I think the party is over. These people have basically milked this thing into certain death. I feel sad.
Pat Horne
RE: Why don´t they focus on a Linux TX2?
They have no problem completely outsourcing Windows now (note the distinctly nonPALM TREO 500v), why should they have a problem outsourcing Linux?
I think it'll just take awhile to get that Linux in shape and accepted by the previously-mentioned carriers.
RE: Why don´t they focus on a Linux TX2?
I disagree on this one. I think it's different from the Cobalt debacle. Cobalt never saw the light of day in large part because of the ridiculous corporate games that Palm/Source were playing at the time. There was different leadership, different engineers, different priorities. I refer everyone to the interview Hawkins gave back in March this year:
Jeff Hawkins: OK, let’s put this in perspective. First of all, Palm, in my mind, is in the best shape it’s been in, in a long, long time. It’s amazing this company is still around. It was split up, the founders were kicked out, and they sold off the operating system. It’s nothing that I or Ed or Donna had anything to do with; but, this company has been operated in…many different ways.Now, look at Palm today: we have Ed, practically a founder, running the business. Donna (Dubinsky) is on the board, and I’m still involved. We have our name back. We just bought the rights back to Palm OS from ACCESS; so we now have control of the Operating System again. One of the main reasons we did a Windows-based product is because we were worried we wouldn’t have access to the Palm OS. Palm is in complete control of its destiny again.
PJA: I think releasing WinMo devices was a smart move, in any case.
JEFF: It probably was; but here’s the thing: we didn’t have control of our own destiny for the past 5 years. We didn’t have our name, we didn’t have our brand, and we own our OS. We were struggling to get into the smartphone space, while we were losing our traditional distribution channels. It was a difficult time. While all this was going on, Palm kept growing; and, is still growing rapidly. Although there are lots of competitors, Palm is a very healthy company. We’ve been profitable for many consecutive quarters, years really; and, we’re making lots of money; and, we finally feel like we have control of our destiny back in our hands again.
Now, it takes a little but of time to turn that into products. It takes 2 years to design new products, and so you don’t see this control reflected immediately in the product line. In my view, this is a good time at Palm. In terms of viability, we have lots of cash, we’re profitable, and we’re in control of our own destiny. We haven’t been in this kind of shape in a long, long time.
SV:
I would assume that PALM, having thrown up their hands in disgust and dumped the Fooleo's Linux for Windriver's
How many times, SV, must we go over this? Palm were making a planned transition from Intel's 2.4 linux kernel to Windriver's 2.6 kernel. Unless you seriously suggest they should have stuck with outdated tech forever?
Tim
I apologise for any and all emoticons that appear in my posts. You may shoot them on sight.
Treo 270 ---> Treo 650 ---> Crimson Treo 680
RE: Why don´t they focus on a Linux TX2?
You don't make a "planned transition" from one version of an operating system largely rewritten by one entity to another version of an operating system rewritten by another distinct entity a mere month before shipping your product.
Sheesh.
As you say "Give it up.".
RE: Why don´t they focus on a Linux TX2?
RE: Why don´t they focus on a Linux TX2?
Not that I'd argue the point that Palm severely bungled the Foleo OS - just that describing the switch to WindRiver's platform as "dumping" their prior Linux work is melodramatic at best. It would have had to have happened sooner or later anyways. The fact that it happened a month before shipping the product is more indicative of severe mismanagement than it is a lack of confidence in their own coding talent.
RE: Why don´t they focus on a Linux TX2?
My statement was:
== "PALM threw up their hands in disgust and dumped their own
== modified version of Linux and decided to go with WindRiver's instead"
The context of that statement ORIGINALLY was the a-STOUND-ing news that PALM had ... well ... dumped years of development ONE MONTH BEFORE they were supposed to ship THE NEXT GREAT THING and that "over the coming months" were going to be releasing WindRiver's version instead. That was an a-MAZ-ing self-condemnation of their own Fooleo Linux development. It doesn't MATTER what gimmicks (*) the existing Fooleo Linux had, it is READILY apparent that the overall system was broken - badly.
Ever since then, I've used that same statement as context for other comments but it and the reason for it has pretty much remained unchanged.
In no way does that statement say ANYTHING about NOT =eventually= moving on to other versions of Linux.
==========
(*) Yes, gimmicks. "Instant on"...but "instant on" only if your application has been specially programmed to be instant on otherwise instant on doesn't work. Ill-defined "auto-sync"...but "auto sync" only if there is a special client running on the phone as well as on the Fooleo and your phone application knows about that client. A menu system that purportedly is ONE level deep (admittedly, I've seen only ONE post elsewhere about this but it was from someone who went to a Fooleo hands-on who also is (was?) a PALM fanboy so I believe it...YMMV).
RE: Why don´t they focus on a Linux TX2?
Nuff' said.
Pat Horne
Misquote?
RE: Misquote?
"The bulk of Palm's software development spending is thus now aimed squarely at revamping Palm OS5 to work on a Linux core. But even that may be slipping: though earlier Colligan said that would appear in 2008, Palm this week told the Guardian "it will be 12 to 18 months" before a Linux Palm appears."
... could you please point to the portion that you are referring to concerning Mr. Rubenstein? I can't see it.
Pat Horne
RE: Misquote?
http://origin.mercurynews.com/business/ci_6882548
“Q: When will we see the first fruits of the Elevation deal?
“A: We haven’t been sitting on our hands. . . . We’re continuing to execute on our future products.
“Realistically, Jon’s direct involvement, you’re not going to see the fruits of that for 18 months.”
In the Guardian article, notice which words are direct Colligan quotes and which are the Guardian's words. It wouldn't be hard to get the details mixed up.
RE: Misquote?
No doubt. They rarely get things right. But, they did put quotations around that statement claiming that "Palm" said it. Maybe not Ed, but somebody representing "Palm".
So, I guess a possible mixup is what you are referring to.
Pat Horne
RE: Misquote?
RE: Misquote?
If you want to "hope" that the article means something different than what it says then that's your prerogative. If grabbing a quote from one place and combining it with a quote from a different place is your cup of tea, then have at it.
But, with Palm's track record in recent years, I would not put my hope in them, even if they quoted "by next year" outta Colligan's own mouth. Oh, wait. He's already said that!
Good luck.
Pat Horne
RE: Misquote?
(I think we've successfully managed to get at least three angels on the head of a pin.)
What about ALPS?
RE: What about ALPS?
Pat Horne
RE: What about ALPS?
RE: What about ALPS?
This is not Palm OS 1.0 for Dragonball, with IR functionality in a later release. Today, it requires multitasking/multithreading, GUI, a plethora of wireless standards, flexible expandability etc. I must say that Apple & MSFT make it all look really easy. Obviously, it's not.
Pat Horne
RE: What about ALPS?
Staying ahead of this rapidly changing market is the order of the day. "You've got to make sure you continue to evolve with it and [that] you're evolving faster than the industry is evolving," says Chahal. "Every couple of years there's a bigger company out there. Before it was Yahoo!; now it's Google. There's a trend going on, and whoever is creating the trend ends up being the winner."
RE: What about ALPS?
ALP looks a lot like someone else's plans for a Linux OS. Three "environments": Linux, Garnet, Java. Hmm, where have we seen that idea before? http://alp.access-company.com/overview/threeapp.html
Thinking about Vista? Think again: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Want an alternative? Try this: http://www.ubuntu.com/ or http://www.mepis.org/
RE: What about ALPS?
Why hasn't Palm chosen to license it? (They already license Gartnet from them.) Is ALPS costly? Is there bad blood?
Unlike some, I don't think that there was some grand conspiracy back in the day when the Palm/PalmSource split happened. I just think that Palm actually believed they could become the Microsoft of the mobile world and that they needed to have the OS as a separate company to do that. They probably thought that even more licensees would join the club if the OS was hardware company agnostic. With a continued huge influx of licensees, PalmSource could really grow in value. It didn't work, simple as that. I think there were some serious problems with grandiose thinking at the top of the organization that blinded them to the realities of who they were and where the market was headed. (They should have just stuck with the Apple model, but continue to allow third-party licensees at a reasonable cost.)
I don't think that the current management is interested in just becoming a "shell company". I think they can see the huge mistake of splitting the company and believe the only way that they will survive is to be in control of their own destiny with regard to the OS. Licensing ALP will not give them that. Neither will licensing WinMob. And they've only got just so long before the perceived value of the Palm/Treo name falls by the wayside (which they are accelerating by the minute with things like poor QC and unbelievable update problems).
In one sense ALP is even more of a direct competitor to Palm's plans than WinMob or Symbian. Since Palm has decided to control their own destiny and that includes a Linux based OS, they don't want to license ALP. If that wasn't their plan, then yeah, why not license ALP?
I believe Access' primary purpose in purchasing PalmSource was to get China MobileSoft. Getting the Palm OS was icing on the cake. (BTW, I think that PalmSource's acquisition of CMS may just have been the only thing they ever did right; it made some people a whole lot of money in the end.) My hunch is that selling the perpetual license to Palm of the Garnet code served two purposes for Access: recoup some of that exorbitant amount of money they paid out for PalmSource and help to keep the Palm economy alive long enough so that there would still be value in it when ALP got their OS up and working.
But heah, who knows? All this is just the ravings of a madman. It's probably something as simple as Ed Colligan arriving at work one day only to find David Schlesinger's car parked in his spot.
Thinking about Vista? Think again: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Want an alternative? Try this: http://www.ubuntu.com/ or http://www.mepis.org/
RE: What about ALPS?
ALP seems to have great chances of being completed before POS II, since it has been in development for, what, the last 18 months? But it's still not ready and the question remains who will licence it? The Chinese aren't well-known for the respect of copyrights, but they're improving. It'll be interesting to watch.
If Access HAS truly been working on ALP for 18 months and it STILL isn't ready, that leads credence to the author's prediction that POS II will take at least that long. I doubt Palm has as many codemonkeys as ChinaMobileSoft.
Dumb suggestion. Analysts are morons.
Palm's own plan may, like the Foleo, be more of a distraction from the path it should be taking, argues Neil Mawston, associate director at Strategy Analytics: "Personally, I think Palm would be better following the Microsoft route or perhaps adopting Symbian, and then concentrating on application software and services, which is where they are weak now."
No, no, no. Palm needs its own OS. It's the most - perhaps the only - compelling reason to choose one of their devices over a competitor's, who can afford to put in better hardware at a cheaper price. Becoming an OS licensee? The only thing that lies at the end of that road is a horrible, painful death.
Palm have already shown they realise this with me-too devices like the 500v: no more wasting time on Palm-brand secret sauce in rival OS's like Windows Mobile. It's full steam ahead for their own user-and-developer-friendly platform. If they can't achieve that, they die. Simple as that.
Tim
I apologise for any and all emoticons that appear in my posts. You may shoot them on sight.
Treo 270 ---> Treo 650 ---> Crimson Treo 680
RE: Dumb suggestion. Analysts are morons.
So they throw some ideas at Inventec, Inventec designs, engineers, and builds the device, Microsoft with some "special sauce" apparently from VODAFONE for the 700v programs it, PALM stamps their logo on it, and Voila! instant money for PALM.
That doesn't seem like a bad way to go - not at their CURRENT size, of course, but not a bad way to go.
Now they're outsourcing Linux, too. When they get to the same level of frustration they got to with Windows I expect that outsourcing to also become total (and see NO REASON to delay that point in time).
Can they survive like this? I think so - for at least awhile longer - minimal costs really help.
It'll require even more downsizing but I think we'll be hearing about THAT soon. And the stock price will have to dramatically drop as well since PALM-the-shell-company will be even MORE of a shell.
WAITAMINUTE!
The stock price IS about to dramatically drop! the shareholders just approved THAT part!
And a couple new guys are coming in who can take the blame for the New Palm!
WHOWOULDATHOUGHT!
RE: Dumb suggestion. Analysts are morons.
The stock price IS about to dramatically drop! the shareholders just approved THAT part!
And a couple new guys are coming in who can take the blame for the New Palm!
WHOWOULDATHOUGHT! **
What? This has been Palm's legacy. Just look at the corporate synopsis at the end of the article. Just another chapter in the decade and 1/2 saga. Is this what our best and brightest business schools are putting out?
BTW, I think you're about right about the shell company. What else are they going to have left? Might be the best strategy at this point to milk this thing to it's last drop, and then have a fire sale.
Pat Horne
RE: Dumb suggestion. Analysts are morons.
--------
PALM realized they were sunk as far as the future was concerned and shopped themselves around and there were NO bites (that were good enough to meet their desires):
== "...On October 5, 2006, our board of directors met to discuss our
== market value and to explore ways to enhance stockholder value..."
==
== "...On December 6, 2006 at our regularly scheduled board meeting,
== the board of directors discussed ways to enhance stockholder value..."
==
== "...On January 5, 2007, the board of directors met and continued
== its discussion with management regarding our long-term financial
== model, including risks and opportunities associated with the model...
== The board of directors authorized management to engage in more
== substantive discussions with potential partners and begin to make
== more sensitive confidential information available to potential
== partners..."
==
== "...Over the period from January 2007 through April 2007, we met
== with several potential strategic partners and private equity firms
== to discuss a potential business combination transaction...and held
== ...negotiations with them regarding potential transactions..."
Then a couple "private equity" folks come around and offer PALM a noise-level premium over the then-current stock price to buy the whole shebang; the offer was in the $19-$20 range when the stock was in the $18-$19 range, thus this was a mere 5-ish% premium; for comparison, JUST yesterday PALM went up 4% (thus the buyout offer premium was "noise-level" - just wait a couple trading days with a stock like PALM and the price has changed more than the premium that was offered!):
-- http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=PALM&a=02&b=15&c=2007&d=02&e=31&f=2007&g=d
yet even THAT non-Deal fell through within a couple days!
== "...On March 26, 2007, Elevation and a separate private equity firm
== submitted a joint letter with an offer to buy 100% of our shares
== for $19-$20 per share. On March 29, 2006, Elevation informed us that
== its private equity partner no longer wished to pursue an acquisition
== transaction..."
At THAT point PALM was screwed - NO ONE wanted them, they obviously had determined (due to the above) that their future was bleak at BEST - they HAD to sell themselves and COULDN'T. So they were destined to sit and lose shareholder value over time (that is, the stock price was destined to decline over time to a point where it appropriately represented PALM value - trickle-down pure loss of value).
Then SOMEONE (at Elevation) came up with the now-passed transaction that allowed PALM to DOWNSIZE to an appropriate level WITHOUT appearing to downsize!
== "...On April 16, 2007 Elevation proposed a revised transaction to
== us that involved an investment by Elevation of $325 million and a
== distribution to our stockholders of $9.00 per share..."
Instead of a purchase of a mere 25% (something that, for example, Fidelity and T Rowe Price JUST did without the need to go through these hoops), Elevation came up with this GREAT idea of a minimal stock purchase being wrapped up in a MERGER, thus allowing a DOWNSIZE in stock price to more appropriately fit PALM's future! Give shareholders back $9 of their own money (non-taxable return of capital due to this minimal stock purchase being recorded as a merger instead), cut the price down simultaneously, and SHAZAAM!, instant NON-LOSS downsize rather than trickle-away total-loss stock price decline!
Really really cool.
Someone at Elevation was really on the ball.
So, okay, whenever this transaction gets instantiated PALM's price gets down into a region it SHOULD be in given their bleak future and PALM can THEN do all that outsourcing and logo-stamping mentioned above without horrendous shareholder-value impact.
A real win.
And something to respect.
RE: Name Changes, New Logos, and Fooleo
Staying ahead of this rapidly changing market is the order of the day. "You've got to make sure you continue to evolve with it and [that] you're evolving faster than the industry is evolving," says Chahal. "Every couple of years there's a bigger company out there. Before it was Yahoo!; now it's Google. There's a trend going on, and whoever is creating the trend ends up being the winner."
RE: Name Changes, New Logos, and Fooleo
... ahhh, what the heck. Here's the whole list. I hear these are all over the walls in Cupertino:
http://despair.com/viewall.html
Pat Horne
RE: Name Changes, New Logos, and Fooleo
Worth
Just because you're necessary doesn't mean you're important.
and
Conformity
When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.
And it is all so simple to fix...
- Takes notes from the Vampire Lestat.
- Go back on Brighthand and find my post from years ago on how to construct the TX|2. In a nutshell: twin speakers, oled, foot to stand for movie/photo watching, replaceable battery, shielding so as to not demagnetizing bus passes and credit cards, HD SD, 624 mhz, graphics coprocessor, OLED, rollover in pim, better alarms, no annoying lights, ship with cradle, OLED, mini USB, ability to plug in USB drives into TX2 usb port (mini converter cable ships with it), camera, graffiti 3, on and on and on. But Im not waiting my time anymore because Palm simply doesn't listen. So a big 'F you' to them. OLED.
- Ignore everyone who says the above results in 30 min battery life. They are retarded and have no fact to back it up.
- 3 lines of PDAs, 4 lines of Treos. OLED
- No more WM.
- Palm OS 7 - do not brand it anything else. Linux kernel. Same PIM. Multitasking. Highly backwards compatible. OLED.
- Make music/video playback baby-simple a la Apple-way.
- OLED.
- Dump the idiotic utter bs PDA-Killer Colligan plan to produce all Treos in China on some same base template. Palm needs less boring cloning and more diversity.
- Make Treos and PDAs 'daisy chainable' so they can work together to process faster, share energy (cross charging), screens could dock/bond. Be creative. Daisy chaining is an amazing concept that of course only I am talking about because nobody has a clue anymore how to invent anything exciting. Except maybe for Apple.
- Speaking of which, steal all of the good concepts present on the iTouch.
If Palm wants help, they have my address, just send me all your concept designs and I will tell them they are trash and what they should be doing. They have my address because I am the only fool that ever sent Colligan and the Palm board a letter.
RE: And it is all so simple to fix...
I suspect Colligan and company are tired, fed up. They will soon throw in the towel.
Apple is on some sort of maniacle invention/innovation rampage with a dedication level unseen since the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bomb. Jobs is an arrogant super nerd genius artist out to take over the whole industry.
How the hell can Mr. Kiss Bill Gate's behind and adopt WM PDA-Killer Colligan resist the whole line of iPods, iTouches, and iPhones?
And now that he has tortured, beaten, abused and spit on all his long time PDA fans, who does he have left? Treo people... OK. That's fine, but not enough.
The OS problem is about to get very heavy on Palm. I feel consumers are about to say "enough" to a no-multitasking OS. I was showing my 680 to a friend and one of the first things he said is "how do I quickly go back to the other app?". Multitasking makes it smoother.
RE: And it is all so simple to fix...
1. OLED is not a panacea. Nobody cares about OLED. Enough with the OLED.
2. PDAs are a dead/dying market.
3. You're delusional.
RE: And it is all so simple to fix...
RE: And it is all so simple to fix...
By the way, the price was $1100 to get the VZ90 imported here. Man that thing would have been awesome, though.
-Bosco
NX80v + Wifi + BT + S710a
SURVEY: Is Palm dead? If yes, why? If no, why?
I think they're dead because:
No PalmLinux Treos until 2009.
PalmOS 5 can't handle the load anymore without crashing.
The Treo 700p bugs and Maintenence Release garbage proves Palm's software people are useless.
Palm is now becoming a WindowsMobile house a+ will get creamed by HTC, Samsung and the other big dogs.
The "Next big thing" was the Foleo? You gotta be kigging me!
iPhone already is killing the Treo (wait until we find out how poorly the Treo sold this quarter).
Ed Colligan is CEO.
They killed off PDAs prematurely hoping to push us into Treos. Well guess what? My 3 year old T3 still works and when it dies I'm just gonna buy another one off eBay! F the Treo!
The Real Steve
RE: SURVEY: Is Palm dead? If yes, why? If no, why?
>themselves.
If that were true, they *WOULD* have released the Foleo!
>No PalmLinux Treos until 2009.
Who knows when that's going to be released - 2008 at the absolute earliest.
Even if PalmLinux and new hardware is released to run it on, there are nagging questions:
1. RELIABILITY
2. STABILITY
Palm could release an iphone tomorrow, but so many people have been burned by Palm's defective hardware and buggy software over the year. It would take a while for consumers to put any trust or faith back into Palm.
>PalmOS 5 can't handle the load anymore without crashing.
Can't argue with that.
>The Treo 700p bugs and Maintenence Release garbage proves Palm's software people are useless.
I don't think they're useless - I think there aren't any good managers at Palm. Their ability to execute (Foleo is the latest example) is pretty bad.
>Palm is now becoming a WindowsMobile house a+ will get creamed by HTC, Samsung and the other big
>dogs.
True, Palm needs to gain an edge. Releasing half-baked Windows Mobile devices won't do it.
>The "Next big thing" was the Foleo? You gotta be kigging me!
Perhaps Hawkins is burned out...he doesn't seem cut out for the role of Palm "visionary".
>iPhone already is killing the Treo (wait until we find out how poorly the Treo sold this quarter).
I thought PC guys couldn't build a phone? :)
>They killed off PDAs prematurely hoping to push us into Treos.
Palm has no clue at this point.
RE: SURVEY: Is Palm dead? If yes, why? If no, why?
It would have caught on, eventually. However, come MacWorld in January, sales would have gone to zero when Jobs announced *his* Flash-based MacBook. The window for release was too short.
Given that the new OS is now alleged not to appear for over another year (though I doubt that), the Foleo OS is looking better all the time...
RE: SURVEY: Is Palm dead? If yes, why? If no, why?
Palm pulling the plug on the Foleo at the last second proves how clueless they are. It was in development for 3 or 4 years, was announced months ago with Jeff Hawkins emphasizing how it would sync with Treos and they couldn't even get that right. Palm's software people are absolute id10ts. How can a company have the nerve to try to release something that probably needed another year of development?
>Who knows when that's going to be released - 2008 at the absolute earliest.
Come on, this is Palm we're talking about. They worked on the Foleo Linux for 3 years and then ran crying to Mommy (Wind River) for help when they realized they were out of their league. Unless Palm outsources PalmLinux to someone like Wind River it's gonna take at least another year for them to get PalmLinux barely out of alpha/beta, then another 6 months for carrier testing. So were talking around March 2009. By that time everyone will have moved on to iPhone II (high speed, all the apps you want), HTC's 20 different Windows More-bile phones, Blackberrys, Samsungs, Sony Ericssons, Motorolas, LGs and Nokia smartphones. No one will care anymore about Palm in 18 months - we will all have moved on.
>Even if PalmLinux and new hardware is released to run it on, there are
>nagging questions:
>1. RELIABILITY
>2. STABILITY
>Palm could release an iphone tomorrow, but so many people have been
>burned by Palm's defective hardware and buggy software over the year.
>It would take a while for consumers to put any trust or faith back into Palm.
Palm's hardware is pure crap. I'm onto my third T3 in 3 years now. If I didn't like all my old apps so much I would have dumped Palm after the 2nd one died (Digitizer Drift Disease). I'm gonna take a long look at those new HPs and see if Styletap will work. If it works OK, I'm outta here.
I also wonder how Verizon and Sprint feel about having to deal with all the bugs of the Treo 700p. Palm sells 1/2 of its phones to these 2 carriers. I've heard Sprint is still planning to release the PalmOS Centro, but is Verizon willing to take a chance on another PalmOS phone or will Palm be forced to sell mainly Windows More-bile phones from now on until PalmLinux can prove itself? Maybe Palm should just give up on PalmLinux and try customizing Windows instead? At least they know Windows isn't vaporware.
>I don't think they're useless - I think there aren't any good managers at
>Palm. Their ability to execute (Foleo is the latest example) is pretty bad.
Palm's software people are fat, lazy and stupid. Everything they've done for years has had tons of bugs. And the managers are id10ts as well. I read once that Palm had 3 times as many managers as was needed. Amazing. Wanna bet they announce another round of job cuts in the next month or two? They're completely outsourcing hardware design, no new PDAs seen in 2 years, 1/2 of their sales come from someone else's OS (Windows More-bile) - why would they still need over 1200 employees? The Elevation Executioner's axe is gonna drop soon at Palm. Probably 25 - 30% of their employees dumped before the end of October. Palm's gonna become a lean, mean, outsourcing machine! And maybe Elevation's gonna buy the other 75% of shares at $5, netting them the whole company for half the original $2 billion asking price? Sweet!
>True, Palm needs to gain an edge. Releasing half-baked Windows Mobile
>devices won't do it.
Badge engineering Windows More-bile is actually working for Palm, partly because the old Treo 600 design was so far ahead of its time. But once everyone else starts catching up to them, Palm is dead. Looking at what the iPhone has done in just a couple months and also how HTC looks to be trying to beat Palm at its own game, I figure the competition has already caught up with + passed Palm.
>Perhaps Hawkins is burned out...he doesn't seem cut out for the role
>of Palm "visionary".
How can you get "burned out" if you work less than a day a week? The Foleo could've been a good idea if Palm had got all the software right. As we found out a few days ago, Palm's software people couldn't get the job done. As usual.
>I thought PC guys couldn't build a phone? :)
;-)
That's what Eddie C. told me too. Guess he was wrong. Dead wrong. And if Apple was able to produce such a slick phone on their first attempt what does that say about the Treo's future? 4 years after the Treo 600 all Palm has given us is a Treo 600 with the antenna chopped off, a little more memory and faster data connection. Freakin unreal. What the F do the people at Palm do all day? Seriously. Unless these morons pulled EVERYONE except the cleaning crew and the night watchman to work on the Foleo for the past 3 years Palm has no excuses. Oh and rebranding generic phone designs (Centro/500v) and slapping a Palm name on them aint gonna cut it, either.
>Palm has no clue at this point.
Palm is borked. Will the last one to leave the building please turn out the lights. Assuming the power hasn't been shut off by then.
Hasta la vista, Baby!
The Real Steve
RE: SURVEY: Is Palm dead? If yes, why? If no, why?
1/2 of their sales come from someone else's OS (Windows More-bile)
Damn it, I should have copyrighted Macroshaft, WinDOHs and Morebile. ;-D
RE: SURVEY: SURVEY: Is it just me? yes? no? :)
RE: SURVEY: Is Palm dead? If yes, why? If no, why?
-- http://www.palminfocenter.com/comments/
you get an extended list complete with date/time stamps and the article about which the comment was made.
RE: SURVEY: Is Palm dead? If yes, why? If no, why?
RE: SURVEY: Is Palm dead? If yes, why? If no, why?
RE: SURVEY: Is Palm dead? If yes, why? If no, why?
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
Done