Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 72
  1. #21  
    Because as I've said before Palm will never use ALP. It's been clear by the deafening silence from Palm that they don't like ALP or Access or both.

    The ONLY reason they would do this would be to add Palm OS compatibility to their own Linux OS.

    Repeat after me, there will never be an ALP-based Treo.

    But this greatly increases the possiblity of a Linux-based Palm OS compatible Treo. Give me this OS on a 750 and I'd be one very happy camper!

    Quote Originally Posted by Perry Holden View Post
    Well, well, well. . . . does this mean the next generation PalmOS will be made by Palm (not Access) and be a Garnet piece (to run Palm PIM apps and heritage Palm programs) on top of a Linux kernel to provide for multi tasking?

    Why pay $44 million if you are going to use ALP?
    Main Phone: Treo 270/600/650/700w/700p/750v/Motorola Q/iPhone
    Tried but sold: Motorola Q/Nokia E61/700wx/HTC TyTN/Treo 680
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Perry Holden View Post
    Well, well, well. . . . does this mean the next generation PalmOS will be made by Palm (not Access) and be a Garnet piece (to run Palm PIM apps and heritage Palm programs) on top of a Linux kernel to provide for multi tasking?

    Why pay $44 million if you are going to use ALP?
    I believe Palm was comitted to a mininum royalty payment to Access of 10 million a year, even if Palm did not make any Palm OS devices. Then back in a July SEC filing:

    Contemporaneously with the [Palm OS] license agreement, we entered into a co-development agreement with PalmSource to develop a next-generation Palm OS for use in future Palm products. PalmSource did not timely meet certain of the milestones under the co-development agreement, relieving us of our obligation to make minimum royalty payments under the license agreement after calendar year 2006. 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.


    If they could not come to a deal Access would lose at least 10 mil a year, under this agreement Palm no longer has to pay the 10 mil a year, I believe its a 1 time payment of 44 mil.
  3. DHart's Avatar
    Posts
    273 Posts
    Global Posts
    274 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Perry Holden View Post
    My guess, is that the next "PalmOS" will be a full blown Linux solution -- it will just have backwards compatibility with prior Palm applications by using some of the "modified" Garnet source code. The PIM apps may remain in PalmOS source code as well. This agreement by Palm with Access, now gives them back control over both their hardware and software future.

    My 2 cents.
    Exactly. I interpret this to mean that Palm is committed to the POS UI, not a continued hacking of Frankengarnet. But I wouldn't necessarily rule out another Frankengarnet, either.

    I'm with you, Perry. I think the important message here is that we WILL see a next generation Palm OS. Hopefully sooner than later.
  4.    #24  
    For all of these rights, Palm will pay ACCESS a total of $44 million, which will be paid in Palm's third quarter of fiscal year 2007, and will be recognized as an expense over the next several years. This single payment eliminates the requirement for Palm to pay ACCESS continuing royalties of 10s of millions of dollars over the coming years.

    http://investor.palm.com/pressdetail...leaseID=221399
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Felipe View Post
    if anyone can fix palm os, it is palm who have extended it beyond what anyone thought it could go.
    Sure, I have big hopes, but I can't help but think that the software may be a Big Ball of Mud at this point.

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

    I really want to see the level of change I saw between Windows 95 and Windows 2000, in terms of reliability and robustness. I wonder how they'll be able to do that... or if they're even willing.


    My issue is that I drooled over having bluetooth, so I upgraded to a 650 from a 600. Let me withdraw that and state more specifically that I drool over every new feature, and I expect those new features to work in addition to the old features I'm using without too much trouble on my part. The trouble I have these days is that I have to remember to shut down chattermail before I get into my truck, else the phone will crash or lockup when the bluetooth connection comes up. Why? I don't know, and after attempting to find the solution a few times, I've accepted defeat. This reminds me of Windows95... where it was commonly accepted that it just needed rebooting sometimes.

    Perhaps it's just a difference in perception... I used to be perfectly happy to (and quite capable of) exploring technical issues on computers and my treos, but these days I'd much rather "just use the thing".

    So, I really do hope they can pull off changes like that. Until then, I've settled for my 650 and its flaws.

    Gosh, I sound like an lazy, endless whiner (or insert your own expression here).
    Who's flying this thing?
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by marcol View Post
    Assuming they don't go down the route of abandoning Garnet apps completely, how hamstrung will Palm be by this compatibility test? Clearly what Access have in mind (and seem to have sealed up pretty tight) is a scenario in which Palm either uses Garnet pretty much as is or modifies it to run in emulation on Linux (just like ALP), but either way Palm can't do anything so fundamental that apps won't be compatible with the Palm OS bit of ALP. They want a system in which developers can build apps that will run on either the Palm product or the Access product. That has to be pretty constraining, doesn't it?
    I read that as meaning that Palm has to ensure backwards compatibility with all Garnet apps, something Palm would want anyway, so not much of a constraint, IMO. I don't think it means, nor do I think it's possible, that Palm has to make sure that all apps that run on new Palm devices have to also be compatible with ALP. For example, there are Treo-specific Garnet apps that would not work on a generic ALP device.


    Q. What will ACCESS name future versions of the operating system?

    A. We are currently using the code name ACCESS Linux Platform for our next generation operating system. We will announce the official name of the ACCESS Linux Platform when we announce that it is available to our licensees and developers—expected sometime in the first half of 2007.

    So ALP devices next year?
    I remember a Palm exec saying that it would take a year after getting an OS to release a device based on it. The question is, do device makers have access to ALP now before it's "officially" announced?
  7. #27  
    I remember reading when Access first announced ALP -- that it was going to make Developer Packets available by late in 2006. The above quote from Access seems to contradict that and pushes it to 2007.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I read that as meaning that Palm has to ensure backwards compatibility with all Garnet apps, something Palm would want anyway, so not much of a constraint, IMO. I don't think it means, nor do I think it's possible, that Palm has to make sure that all apps that run on new Palm devices have to also be compatible with ALP. For example, there are Treo-specific Garnet apps that would not work on a generic ALP device.
    It seems to hinge on whether the apps use "specific software extensions".

    Q. Will the version of Palm OS Garnet available from ACCESS be compatible with the version Palm, Inc., will be using?

    A. Yes. To ensure forward-compatibility of 68K-based Palm OS Garnet applications, ACCESS and Palm will continue to use a test/compatibility harness. This test/compatibility harness is designed to ensure that properly written applications will run on future Palm OS Garnet-based devices from any Palm OS Garnet licensee without having to be re-written. However, as is the case today, any applications using specific software extensions developed by Palm will not run on devices offered by other vendors.

    ACCESS has always given its licensees the ability to extend the capability of Palm OS to meet their specific target market requirements. Applications taking specific advantage of these extensions are by definition only compatible with that particular licensee's devices.

    It seems pretty clear that the intention at least is to maximise compatibility between the Garnet in ALP and the Garnet in anything that Palm might do. I think you're right and the software extensions argument may give them some leeway, but equally they can't just take the OS code and do what they like with it, creating a situation where software writers would need to rewrite their apps so that they're compatible with the new OS. It's pretty common that apps have to be updated to run on an updated version of an OS, but this option seems to be largely closed off to Palm.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I remember a Palm exec saying that it would take a year after getting an OS to release a device based on it. The question is, do device makers have access to ALP now before it's "officially" announced?
    I remember having this discussion before and although I don't have the dates to hand, I'm pretty sure it was only three months or so from the RTM of WM5 until the first WM5 devices. That situation might be very different of course. PPC 2003SE --> WM5 did involve a complete change in memory architecture, but it would seem reasonable that a completely new OS might take a little longer. On the other hand, isn't time to market supposed to be one of the virtues of linux?

    EDIT: Here's the previous discussion:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh....php?p=1071638

    Four months for WM5 from RTM to device.
    Last edited by marcol; 12/07/2006 at 02:07 PM.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Perry Holden View Post
    I remember reading when Access first announced ALP -- that it was going to make Developer Packets available by late in 2006. The above quote from Access seems to contradict that and pushes it to 2007.
    It does look like it's slipped. SDKs were originally supposed to be available "by the end of 2006".

    Mr. Chu said he expects devices running ALP to reach the market sometime in 2007. PalmSource's official release says they expect to make the ALP software developer kit available by the end of 2006. This SDK will be for top licensees and software developers to being work on ALP products. A product developer kit or PDK will be following shortly after for all licensees.


    http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/8...inux-platform/
  10. eKeith's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #30  
    Palm OS lives on!!! Hooray!!!
    Current Phones: Unlocked AT&T Pre3; Samsung Galaxy Nexus i9250; HTC Desire A8181
    Current Tablets: Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 183825U; HP TouchPad 32GB w/ACL
    Previous Devices: Unlocked UK Pre3; HTC Touch Diamond; Palm Unlocked GSM Treo 680; PalmOne Unlocked GSM 650; Palm Tungsten T3 w/PalmOne WiFi Card, PowerToGo and ASUS WL-330g; 3Com Palm III; Sony Clie N760C
  11. dre
    dre is offline
    dre's Avatar
    Posts
    15 Posts
    #31  
    Those who care might want to look at this opinion of recent events:

    http://techdirt.com/articles/20061207/095853.shtml

    As I see more and more cell phones doing many of the "killer app" types of things that palm can do (play music, videos, chat, calendar, email, etc.), I am wondering how long Palm can hold on without some major innovations.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by marcol View Post
    It seems pretty clear that the intention at least is to maximise compatibility between the Garnet in ALP and the Garnet in anything that Palm might do. I think you're right and the software extensions argument may give them some leeway, but equally they can't just take the OS code and do what they like with it, creating a situation where software writers would need to rewrite their apps so that they're compatible with the new OS. It's pretty common that apps have to be updated to run on an updated version of an OS, but this option seems to be largely closed off to Palm.


    I remember having this discussion before and although I don't have the dates to hand, I'm pretty sure it was only three months or so from the RTM of WM5 until the first WM5 devices. That situation might be very different of course. PPC 2003SE --> WM5 did involve a complete change in memory architecture, but it would seem reasonable that a completely new OS might take a little longer. On the other hand, isn't time to market supposed to be one of the virtues of linux?

    EDIT: Here's the previous discussion:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh....php?p=1071638

    Four months for WM5 from RTM to device.
    I'm not quite sure about this, but isn't RTM different from the release of the SDK? RTM just means that the OS code is finalized. But theoretically, they should be able to give developers specific instructions long before that... So the time between release of SDK and product launch could be longer.
  13. Reapman's Avatar
    Posts
    75 Posts
    Global Posts
    76 Global Posts
    #33  
    I'm glad to see this... gives Palm a bit more control over their non WM solutions. I hope they can fix Garnet to accept more then one "wireless connection" so not only could it do WiFi, but also the newer cell technologies preventing us from seeing a 750P. (excuse my terminology been a long day, can't find the word I want) My deam phone is the 750 features with Palm OS. If I had that, I'd be happy

    Assuming they do plan on going eventually to ALP or a new non WM OS in 1, maybe 2 years... 44 mil does seem like an awful lot to me.
    Treo 600 --> Dell Axim x51v --> Copper 680
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I'm not quite sure about this, but isn't RTM different from the release of the SDK?
    This is exactly correct. A SDK is a sort of preview, here are how to the drivers will work, etc.

    Very different from RTM (which WM Crossbow did about 2 weeks ago). RTM is the finalized code that goes to manufactures to then customize, tweak and put on a device. For WM it's about 4 months.

    An SDK though is very primative. Read HERE on those. The time between SDK and RTM can be a long time I think 6 months is not uncommon, then another 4 for RTM. Seeing as the ALP SDK has not yet been released I couldn't imagine seeing any device with a full ALP till Q3 of 2007 and that is being generous.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by marcol View Post
    On the other hand, isn't time to market supposed to be one of the virtues of linux?
    Time to market is actually a Linux vice, due to the amount of customization that needs to be done by OEM's. That is actually the balance between using "free Linux" (with longer and costlier development) or costly licensed software (but less development costs).

    Surur
  16. #36  
    I agree. The delay between an OS RTM and a device running it can be a long time. As I recall it was at least 6 months between when Palm OS 5 was released and there were devices running it. Phone/PDA devices often require even longer.

    Access (and the previous PalmSource) have not ever hit even one of their release dates. The farther Palm (hardware) can distance themselves from these jokers the greater their likelyhood of survival.

    At a minimum, Palm needs a bargaining chip with Microsoft on Windows Mobile. You don't want to be negotiating with Microsoft without any bargaining lever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    This is exactly correct. A SDK is a sort of preview, here are how to the drivers will work, etc.

    Very different from RTM (which WM Crossbow did about 2 weeks ago). RTM is the finalized code that goes to manufactures to then customize, tweak and put on a device. For WM it's about 4 months.

    An SDK though is very primative. Read HERE on those. The time between SDK and RTM can be a long time I think 6 months is not uncommon, then another 4 for RTM. Seeing as the ALP SDK has not yet been released I couldn't imagine seeing any device with a full ALP till Q3 of 2007 and that is being generous.
    Main Phone: Treo 270/600/650/700w/700p/750v/Motorola Q/iPhone
    Tried but sold: Motorola Q/Nokia E61/700wx/HTC TyTN/Treo 680
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by bcaslis View Post
    Because as I've said before Palm will never use ALP. It's been clear by the deafening silence from Palm that they don't like ALP or Access or both.

    The ONLY reason they would do this would be to add Palm OS compatibility to their own Linux OS.

    Repeat after me, there will never be an ALP-based Treo.

    But this greatly increases the possiblity of a Linux-based Palm OS compatible Treo. Give me this OS on a 750 and I'd be one very happy camper!
    I seriously hope this is the case.
    ONE can be spelled as NEO.
    There is no spoon.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by bcaslis View Post
    Because as I've said before Palm will never use ALP. It's been clear by the deafening silence from Palm that they don't like ALP or Access or both.

    The ONLY reason they would do this would be to add Palm OS compatibility to their own Linux OS.
    ...or on top of Windows Mobile, which they already have running and certified on their hardware platform.

    Just sayin.
  19. #39  
    Here we are, YEARS later and still on the same OS, and it's STILL worth 44mil?!?! Wow.

    I really do hope Palm has a trick up their sleeve to put garnet on their own linux/anything stable kernel solution. ALP sounds lame simply because of how little progress has been made with it. GPE has shown more with their development! (http://gpe.handhelds.org/)

    So, here I wait for fixes for my 700p... still.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_memory View Post
    ...or on top of Windows Mobile, which they already have running and certified on their hardware platform.

    Just sayin.
    Actually, how cool would it be to have a 420x420 Palm Treo running say WM5 Crossbow and have it include/integrate StyleTap for running PalmOS?

    Eh, that'd never satisfy the PalmOS die-hards but it'd still be cool

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions