Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49
  1.    #21  
    The way this news item is being reported by CNET and the blogosphere is spectactularly wrong. I'm really amazed by the string of breathtaking misstatements we're hearing.

    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 eggregious examples, please point them out to me.
  2. #22  
    Bit too much opinion in that article David, there are enough gross errors around without that. This one reached out and punched me in the eye.

    Palm sold PalmSource to mobile device software maker Access in 2005 for $324.3 million.

    From the CNET article.

    There is another prevalent one, which I saw at brighthand, and have now seen repeated at 1src.com, implying becuase the minimum royalty contract has lapsed, PalmOS is now free for the next 3 years. This is completely false. The way it works, there is a royalty cost for each device with PalmOS, and if its less than the minimum royalty they have to pay the minimum e.g. Sony still had to pay $20 million until recently. If they ship MORE, they have to pay the difference too. This is all in the 8-K filling.

    With Palm no longer selling 4 million devices per quarter, they were in a strong position to renegotioate the contract, and ,ade the minimum payment conditional. This has now lapsed, but the regular per-device royalty remains.

    Surur
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Bit too much opinion in that article David, there are enough gross errors around without that.
    I tried to make a clear distinction between the facts and interpretations, but it's my blog so it wouldn't be much fun if I didn't weigh in on what I thought things meant here and there (especially the conclusion, which is all opinion).

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    There is another prevalent one, which I saw at brighthand, and have now seen repeated at 1src.com, implying becuase the minimum royalty contract has lapsed, PalmOS is now free for the next 3 years. This is completely false. The way it works, there is a royalty cost for each device with PalmOS, and if its less than the minimum royalty they have to pay the minimum e.g. Sony still had to pay $20 million until recently. If they ship MORE, they have to pay the difference too. This is all in the 8-K filling.

    With Palm no longer selling 4 million devices per quarter, they were in a strong position to renegotioate the contract, and ,ade the minimum payment conditional. This has now lapsed, but the regular per-device royalty remains.
    I'm glad you mentioned this since this was my understanding of how this worked, too--I just hadn't had a chance to dig up the text yet. I'll add it to the list and attribute you.

    David
  4.    #24  
    Which 8k is that, by the way, Surer? Do you have a link?

    David
  5.    #25  
    Updated. We're up to 7 in the list of real whoppers that are being repeated: http://www.pikesoft.com/blog/index.php?itemid=106

    (I didn't include the CNET one you mentioned since the article is about misconceptions concerning the annual report.)

    David
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by cervezas
    Which 8k is that, by the way, Surer? Do you have a link?

    David
    http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingF...28%2F2005&pdf=

    Surur
  7. #27  
    When Palm split into 2 companies I thought it was such a bad move. They were getting too big for their own good. Now they are paralyzed by this. I think that they are working on their own OS, like Surur pointed out, there are too many loyal Palm OS users to disappoint. There was a reason they went back to being Palm, and paid $30+million to do that and have all rights to "Palm".
    Jimmie Geddes
  8. #28  
    WTF... I thought the next palm OS was right around the corner. Now they are TALKING about building the next OS. Palm (OS) is in trouble. Is going to take a good 2 years to get the software in a phone.
  9. #29  
    It won't take 2 years. Supposedly Palm has been working no their own in house OS for close to a year already.
    Jimmie Geddes
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by lyndon_h
    WTF... I thought the next palm OS was right around the corner. Now they are TALKING about building the next OS. Palm (OS) is in trouble. Is going to take a good 2 years to get the software in a phone.
    We'll probbaly see it before Vista

    Development's been underway for quite some time with software developer kits shipping soon.

    Then again, that's IF Palm doesn't choose to sue its own version.

    http://www.palmsource.com/press/2006...xplatform.html
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    We'll probbaly see it before Vista

    Development's been underway for quite some time with software developer kits shipping soon.

    Then again, that's IF Palm doesn't choose to sue its own version.

    http://www.palmsource.com/press/2006...xplatform.html
    Wait. I get confused. Is www.palmsource.com the same company as the manufacturer of the hardware -- our beloved Palm that we feel free to insult incessantly for having achieved Higher Levels of Imbecility?

    Or is www.palmsource.com = Access = the new non-U.S. owners of the software that won the bidding war a little while ago?

    Because if I understand the thread we are looking for a Palm OS from www.palm.com and not from www.palmsource.com in order for Palm-the-hardware-maker to regain control over its own destiny. Thus I would hope to see SDKs from www.palm.com in that case.

    Or am I terribly, terribly confused? (Note to self. More caffeine needed).
  12. #32  
    Palm sold it's Software division to PalmSource. Then when Colligan came in, he tried to buy it back....Accees outbid him.

    PalmSOurce was suppossed to develop ALP for Palm....they began to fall behind and palm decided it would be in their best interests to have other options available.....so they made a deal w/ da devil (Gates ) and they also started R & D on doing their own OS which they are permitted to do, with soem limitations, if PalmSource didn't meet deadlines....and they didn't meet some deadlines.

    Now if I am Colligan, I would play every angle against the middle so to speak. We know he wants to control palm's desitiny so if he had to choose, Palm would do its own thing. But he's gotta comply with the terms of the deal his predecessor made with PalmSource. Plus he'd be crazy to alienate PalmSource too much at this point as if he gets squeezed by MS or if his Linux team doesn't coem thru, then he gonna need to go somewhere.
  13. #33  
    Colligan is playing 3-D chess with Spock.
  14. #34  
    Of note is that negotiations for the WM Treo started in 2004 already. They had lost confidence in the success of PalmOS and the capabilities of PalmSource even then.

    Surur
  15. #35  
    That's one opinion. Palm said they did it to penetrate corporations that have standardized on Windows. While I often think Palm doesn't state the whole truth (for corporate reasons), I have no reason to think they are lying on this. Every review shows that the 700w is not rated as well as the 700p. By those marks it's a failure. But I'm sure it has gotten sales at corporations that wouldn't have bought Palm OS devices.

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Of note is that negotiations for the WM Treo started in 2004 already. They had lost confidence in the success of PalmOS and the capabilities of PalmSource even then.

    Surur
    Main Phone: Treo 270/600/650/700w/700p/750v/Motorola Q/iPhone
    Tried but sold: Motorola Q/Nokia E61/700wx/HTC TyTN/Treo 680
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by bcaslis
    That's one opinion. Palm said they did it to penetrate corporations that have standardized on Windows. While I often think Palm doesn't state the whole truth (for corporate reasons), I have no reason to think they are lying on this. Every review shows that the 700w is not rated as well as the 700p. By those marks it's a failure. But I'm sure it has gotten sales at corporations that wouldn't have bought Palm OS devices.
    I'm a T-Mobile subscriber. I went to the Verizon store yesterday. The 700w isn't THAT bad compared to the 650, though side-by-side with the 700p I'd take the 700p.

    And I'm the dead-on profile of a corporate customer -- Exchange Server 2003 with which I want full over the air sync.

    So, JackNaylorPE, yeah, I think Palm wanted to penetrate the corporate market. They just didn't execute the plan very well by (1) making the 700w with certain deficiencies endlessly debated on TC; and (2) waiting for $%&(&* ever to introduce the 700w into the GSM market segment.

    I'd consider a GSM 700w as currently configured (pathetic memory and display) if the price was right. But I don't currently have that option.
    Last edited by Tastypeppers; 08/03/2006 at 02:52 PM. Reason: typo
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by bcaslis
    That's one opinion. Palm said they did it to penetrate corporations that have standardized on Windows. While I often think Palm doesn't state the whole truth (for corporate reasons), I have no reason to think they are lying on this. Every review shows that the 700w is not rated as well as the 700p. By those marks it's a failure. But I'm sure it has gotten sales at corporations that wouldn't have bought Palm OS devices.
    In other words, they had no confidence in the ability of PalmOS to penetrate the corporate environment. Of note is that Blackberry (which is not WM) had no such problem.

    Of further note is that I have seen rumors of WM handhelds from Palm too.

    Surur
  18. #38  
    With regards to Blackberry, corporate sheep have no problem buying what other corporate sheep have. Additionally, the BB is a good email handheld solution. Stinks as a personal phone/pda, but good for corporate email.

    I have no idea what you mean by "rumors of WM handhelds from Palm". They already sell one such animal. If sarcasm, please put a funny icon with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    In other words, they had no confidence in the ability of PalmOS to penetrate the corporate environment. Of note is that Blackberry (which is not WM) had no such problem.

    Of further note is that I have seen rumors of WM handhelds from Palm too.

    Surur
    Main Phone: Treo 270/600/650/700w/700p/750v/Motorola Q/iPhone
    Tried but sold: Motorola Q/Nokia E61/700wx/HTC TyTN/Treo 680
  19. #39  
    I meant Palm WM PDA's, not smartphones.

    Regarding the difference between RIM and Palm, Palm had bigger mind share than rim in 2004, shipped many more devices, but the OS was not as stable, and the e-mail solution not as good, and the support for security and provisioning not as good. Those are OS related. If PalmOS was better they would have done better also, even in the cooperate market.

    Surur
  20. #40  
    Palm did a Windows Mobile Treo because there was demand for it. Windows Mobile users wanted one because the Treo is the best smartphone. Palm knows that more people especailly corportate would prefer something running Windows over anything else. This gives Palm more cash. The Treo 700p is being very well received, even more so than the 700w. I haven't seen one bad review about the 700p, I have seen bad reviews of the 700w. Different strokes for different folks. Palm is a company, and a company wants to make $$. In the IT field people feel more comfortable deployin g Windows Mobile, not because it's any better (some parts are), but because it runs Windows, and therefore they think they can support it better.
    Jimmie Geddes
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions