Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 65
  1. #41  
    Well its been two weeks since Ive posted a message since just before Palm Released the 700P fix to the fix.

    Like many of you I've been a very LONG LONG standing owner of Palm treo phones since the Visorphone. I personally feel like Palm was really lost its way. I genuinely feel sad because I like the Palm product albeit as older as it is. I feel and agree with alot of people that there is no other platform that is as versatile as this. There is windows and there is the blackberry platform. EVERY PHONE AND CARRIER out there can't get it right. No one can deliver a super-phone because it will interfere with this portion of the business. i.e. Why didn't Verizon get the Iphone? Its because it would compete with their own VCast music download service. Tmobile doesn't have 3G STILL after all these years (it'll happen eventually). In Palm's corner they are working with an Older OS which continues to stay the same while all these other manufacturers are passing them by. I was on a Treo 600P and I jumped to Verizon and the 700P because I wanted something that wouldn't be out of date because at that time I genuinely felt that Tmobile didnt care about the Treo. And if you search their website they don't have any). But I jumped from a OLD phone to a horrible buggy phone. Verizon was nice enough to replace the phone for me 4 times in the span of 6 weeks before I finally had it. I like the Palm platform but it just doesn't work.

    And if a company cannot innovate and upgrade they deserve whats coming to them. Could you imagine if Microsoft never updated their OS. We'd be in SuperDOS 10.0 Same old thing but just a tad bit updgraded with Edgier applications. But no they (in a sense) stole a good design, made it they own and grew it out so often. Same thing with the car. If I stayed with my car (97 Sentra) up until 200k+ miles and it dies I'm not going to go buy a 99 Sentra to replace it. Its stupid and doesnt make sense. You have to MOVE ON. And I'm sure some of you may agree. If you buy a 2007 Nissan Maxima you would expect it to work for the price you paid for it.

    Now before I get flaim-baited here, not sure if many of you guys remember me. I launched a BBB complaint against Palm for the Data issue and I mentioned a bunch of other issues not only for myself but on behalf of other 700P owners. They started going in the right direction by canning the foleo and after 2 months fixing the data issue. For the people who are bashing all the naysayers who are abandoning because they are leaving and saying goodbye. Its not because they are rubbing it in your face. Its because they need a device that works. They have to communicate, they have to get email, they have to do this, that or the other. Don't bash them. Last I remember its a free country and a free site to post on. We chat, have fun but lately its been a source of frustration for many unhappy Treo owners. I know, I'm one of them. Maybe I refrain yelling and snapping at people more than others. So if people say goodbye.. just let em be. They are off in happy-land with something that works for them. So to all the people who want to stick with palm... Stick with Palm! Its a free country with Fre Will. If you want to go to something else... then do it. No one is holding a gun to our heads.

    I know change sucks and is hard. But what would happen IF they Palm releases their Linux phone. What if it doen't have any Palm-OS Capability, what If it has partial support and not all of our apps would work. What then. Do you continue to support them? That decision is up to you. But if Palm or any company can't do what they can to stay in business then thats the way of things.

    Two years ago I got a phone call that transformed by life tremendously. If I face certain doom in my job where we are laying people off and I get cut, well I need a phone that will be reliable and not reboot on me when I get a call. I keep thinking two years ago if I had a 700P and I got that call and my phone rebooted.. What that manager didn't want to leave me a voicemail. What if this, what if that. Having a non-working phone would be totally intolerable and I would NOT want to mis that call. I will NOT make that same mistake again.....

    I think the people here are the coolest community I've seen outside a apple-based community. Its friggin fun but don't turn it into a flame-bait board. If so form www.palmsucks.com like the www.paypalsucks.com people did and maybe just go over there. I almost wanna say.. EESH for fsck's case just deal with it!

    If Palm brings out something that totally rocks the whole mobile phone/SmartPhone community then I will be very glad for them and hopefully they will bring back all the people they lost. Until then some of us needs a device that just works. And if they release that rockin phone and the nay-sayers buy it and come back we can be happy and have fun all over again.


    Change is inevitable.
    This is Life.
    Last edited by ncc1701p; 10/03/2007 at 09:51 PM. Reason: Innovate or Die
    Greatest Treo Call Bug EVER!
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by neurocutie View Post
    I am fully aware of the difference and history behind Palm, PalmSource, PalmOne, etc. The point is that it was all one company, these *were* the software/OS paths and solutions created and worked on by this one company. That it split into two, lost their way, got bought by the wrong folks, etc, etc. are all MISTAKES that Palm made. Palm was ultra-stupid for ever losing control of PalmOS in the first place -- the only truly unique and valuable thing they ever had. Yeah Palm Inc only got the rights to Garnet in 2006, but they *created* that situation by their previous mistakes and stupidity. Access is not to blame here, Palm, or old Palm, *is*.

    Time will tell, but I'd say its a fair bet that it is also a big mistake that Palm is deciding to roll their own POSII and take so long to do it, instead of continuing to support and work with PalmSource/Access on ALP. You can say all those old mistakes were back then and this is now, but deciding not to use ALP is a "now" mistake, and a continuing one. I sure hope whatever reasons they have for not using ALP were good reasons (not just bad blood) and are worth losing 2+ years of development and market time...
    They were one company back in 2002/2003. All the OS fumbling that you blame Palm for happened at PalmSource, which is now ACCESS.

    Now you want Palm to license the OS from the company that produced Cobalt (which came from BeOS) and then took 3 years to produce a LinuxOS.

    And note that licensing ALP would mean producing a product NEXT year, probably just a few months ahead of their current production plans.
  3. fishera's Avatar
    Posts
    494 Posts
    Global Posts
    495 Global Posts
    #43  
    I think if Palm purchased the old license to Cobalt, improved on it, 6.1 was almost ready for production... they would be looking at a time frame of January new Treo smartphones running Palm OS 6 Cobalt!

    I think ditching Cobalt development and allowing PalmSource to be purchased by ACCESS was the pure downfall of Palm. Sure, before they had amazing phones, the Treo 600 and 650 were on people's toungs and flying off shelves. But that was because of the innovation... even in the OS.

    Cobalt is perfect... I almost wish some hacker downloaded the 6.1 ROM and got it running on current Garnet Treo's... that would be amazing!
    Aaron M. Fisher
    CEO of Sonicfish Consulting
    www.SonicfishConsulting.com

    PDA/ Smartphones:
    Handspring Visor> Sony Clie SL10> Nokia N-Gage> Nokia 3300b> Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 680> Nokia e71> Apple iPhone 3G> Palm Pre+
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by fishera View Post
    Cobalt is perfect... I almost wish some hacker downloaded the 6.1 ROM and got it running on current Garnet Treo's... that would be amazing!
    Yeah his name is Shadowmite and he is well known but Palm shut him up. Sad. I was hoping he could be the saviour of the 650+ line but unfortunately he cant.
    Greatest Treo Call Bug EVER!
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    They were one company back in 2002/2003. All the OS fumbling that you blame Palm for happened at PalmSource, which is now ACCESS.

    Now you want Palm to license the OS from the company that produced Cobalt (which came from BeOS) and then took 3 years to produce a LinuxOS.
    I cannot (and I did not) say for a certain that turning down ALP was the wrong move, but ALP *appears* to be ahead of Palm in making a useable, certainly showable new POS.

    But regardless, the first point is that Palm has known for *years* that they needed to replace old PalmOS, and bottomline is that its *still* not accomplished and the market is passing them by.

    The second point is that the first "fumble" was creating a separate PalmSource in the first place. What you are saying is tantamount to saying that Palm was *smart* to isolate all those incompetant software/OS developer into a separate company (Palmsource), jetison them and now have someone else to blame for the inability to deliver a POSII.

    It was/is parent Palm's responsibility to find a POSII for its own products. Period. And way back when. It was Palm that decided to split the company into two, creating PalmSource. Yes, PalmSource fumbled, even twice, maybe more than twice. That doesn't absolve Palm from finding a POSII. Blaming your former colleagues doesn't help. EVERYBODY in the software business fumbles (look at Microsoft). Are you honestly saying that Palm itself is "fumbling" less than PalmSource did ? Is that reason enough for Palm to split from ALP ? I dunno, but bottomline, Palm itself has fumbled no matter who you want to point the finger at.

    Finally, you say, PalmSource/Access "took 3 years to produce a LinuxOS", well, at least they *did*... you think Palm is going to take *less than* 3 years ? Do you think *any* decent OS takes less than 3 years ?

    The original point is, when Palm apologists say "oh but we only had since 2006 to work on a Linux POSII", I call BS. It simply doesn't cut it from the market's standpoint. And it belies the real truth...
  6. #46  
    They(Palm) were certainly able to come up with a Linux OS for the ill fated Folieo. Imagine if that energy had been directed toward the new Palm OS. Palm is a ship lost at sea. They make one bone head move after another. The sooner this company is put out of its misery the better it will be for everyone.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by neurocutie View Post
    I cannot (and I did not) say for a certain that turning down ALP was the wrong move, but ALP *appears* to be ahead of Palm in making a useable, certainly showable new POS.

    But regardless, the first point is that Palm has known for *years* that they needed to replace old PalmOS, and bottomline is that its *still* not accomplished and the market is passing them by.

    The second point is that the first "fumble" was creating a separate PalmSource in the first place. What you are saying is tantamount to saying that Palm was *smart* to isolate all those incompetant software/OS developer into a separate company (Palmsource), jetison them and now have someone else to blame for the inability to deliver a POSII.

    It was/is parent Palm's responsibility to find a POSII for its own products. Period. And way back when. It was Palm that decided to split the company into two, creating PalmSource. Yes, PalmSource fumbled, even twice, maybe more than twice. That doesn't absolve Palm from finding a POSII. Blaming your former colleagues doesn't help. EVERYBODY in the software business fumbles (look at Microsoft). Are you honestly saying that Palm itself is "fumbling" less than PalmSource did ? Is that reason enough for Palm to split from ALP ? I dunno, but bottomline, Palm itself has fumbled no matter who you want to point the finger at.

    Finally, you say, PalmSource/Access "took 3 years to produce a LinuxOS", well, at least they *did*... you think Palm is going to take *less than* 3 years ? Do you think *any* decent OS takes less than 3 years ?

    The original point is, when Palm apologists say "oh but we only had since 2006 to work on a Linux POSII", I call BS. It simply doesn't cut it from the market's standpoint. And it belies the real truth...
    1. Stop the name calling.

    2. Stop putting words in my mouth.

    3. I said Palm has been working on this OS since last December - not for years as you claim. I'm not excusing them. I'm trying to accurately describe the development time.

    4. As for Palm's responsibility to find a new OS, that's what they did with Windows Mobile, which now comprises nearly half of their sales. Since they don't own POS, they can't develop a POSII without securing rights from ACCESS.

    5. As for Palm's spin-off of PalmSource, that was the source of all their current problems and was a big mistake. Eric Benhamou was responsible for that, and he's gone after the Elevation transaction.

    6. You said that losing control of the OS was a big mistake. Now Palm is finally regaining control of its OS, and you think that's a big mistake.

    7. Yes, I think Palm will take less than 3 years. Palm is nearly done with its Linux OS after 1 year. That's why they're projecting a new device by the end of next year. Palm is months behind ACCESS, if that. Not "2+ years."
  8. ~Q~
    ~Q~ is offline
    ~Q~'s Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    370 Global Posts
    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by Perry Holden View Post
    Very good points, but my hunger for a rock solid (as the Palm Pilot), multi-tasking, multi-media, Palm Treo still burns!!
    As do I. However, I could careless what the underlying OS is. Ultimately what I want is the Palm UI and support for existing apps. If they can put a custom UI on top of WM to do this, I'd be fine with it. I don't think this is going to happen though.
    Criterion 300>CMT>Huskey Hunter>Handspring Visor>Juniper Allegro>Palm Tungsten>TDS Recon>Treo 650>Treo 700P>Treo 755P>Blackberry Pearl

    The Truth About MonaVie:
    http://monavieoregon.wordpress.com/
  9. ~Q~
    ~Q~ is offline
    ~Q~'s Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    370 Global Posts
    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by fishera View Post
    I think if Palm purchased the old license to Cobalt, improved on it, 6.1 was almost ready for production... they would be looking at a time frame of January new Treo smartphones running Palm OS 6 Cobalt!
    It is hard to say how far along Cobalt was. Pulling a half backed OS off the shelf is not the way to fix Palms OS problems.
    Criterion 300>CMT>Huskey Hunter>Handspring Visor>Juniper Allegro>Palm Tungsten>TDS Recon>Treo 650>Treo 700P>Treo 755P>Blackberry Pearl

    The Truth About MonaVie:
    http://monavieoregon.wordpress.com/
  10. #50  
    1. I'm not aware of calling you by any name... if you mean "apologist", I was primarily refering to Ed C." Sorry if you somehow contrued it to mean you...
    2. Either you don't know the meaning of "tantamount", or you fail to see the implications of what you did say. You said that PalmSource fumbled, suggesting that Palm had nothing to do with that fumbling.
    3. We're crossing orthogonally here. I said that Palm *knew* for years they needed a POS replacement. And I sure hope they were working for years on *some* kind of strategy for replacement. Who exactly is to blame for that strategy failing ? PalmSource ?
    4. In mentioning WM, you are implying that WM was/is an adequate replacement for POS, at least for a while, and that was a fulfillment of Palm's responsibility. I don't think you mean this, which means you're sidestepping the issue of what Palm has done for the past N years to find a POSII -- and the answer is: nothing that has yielded a useable result yet. Period.
    6. All we all know is the bottomline. What previous moves were mistakes, who can say for sure ? If you agree that spinning off PalmSource was the root mistake, then lets agree on that and leave it there -- until the next milestone in Palm history.
    7. I'm glad to here that Palm is farther along than most of the world thinks it is. There isn't any hard evidence of it that has been shown, but if Palm does deliver a solid POSII device in the next year, you'll have been right and it will be about as good as we can hope for from Palm at this point.
  11. fishera's Avatar
    Posts
    494 Posts
    Global Posts
    495 Global Posts
    #51  
    I am looking into the Treo 750 with more then half a heart this time. Mainly because I can find one unlocked for around $300 or less now. I would put my Treo 680 in my closet for safe keeping though.

    I love the Palm enhancements to Win. Mobile... the photo ID calling thing on the home screen is pure amazing and it is exactly what I need! the ability to just turn on the Treo and type someones name and click call... simple.

    The threaded txt messaging application Palm installed is top notch. The call notifications are really nice and colorful. It does take the click of "start" to open programs like Word and Camera like that, but im sure there are hacks to make those drop downs always display the same.
    Aaron M. Fisher
    CEO of Sonicfish Consulting
    www.SonicfishConsulting.com

    PDA/ Smartphones:
    Handspring Visor> Sony Clie SL10> Nokia N-Gage> Nokia 3300b> Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 680> Nokia e71> Apple iPhone 3G> Palm Pre+
  12. #52  
    Let's look at this from a business and contractual standpoint.

    It has been about two years since Cobalt failed and PalmSource persisted in not meeting contractual deliverables to Palm, which resulted in the Second Amended and Restated Software License Agreement (SARSLA) for Palm OS5. This agreement did not give Palm the freedom to develop an OS independent of PalmSource that would be backward compatible with PIMs or third-party applications.

    Palm was not in a position to cancel that license agreement and entirely abandon PalmOS in favor of going 100% Windows Mobile given relationships with developers and other enterprises, and the fact that WM devices with Palm branding were new and their profitability untested. Thus they had to work something else out. They were outbid by Access when PalmSource went up for auction.

    The next strategy was the perpetual license agreement which has been in effect for less than a year, and was the legal opening for a real development effort on a new OS with backward compatibility.

    Ultimately the loss of control of the OS from the spinoff is what started this mess. From what I have read on Access and ALP, I am of the belief that it is designed to be highly customizahle for carriers' UIs and benefit; read ARPU.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by neurocutie View Post
    1. I'm not aware of calling you by any name... if you mean "apologist", I was primarily refering to Ed C." Sorry if you somehow contrued it to mean you...
    2. Either you don't know the meaning of "tantamount", or you fail to see the implications of what you did say. You said that PalmSource fumbled, suggesting that Palm had nothing to do with that fumbling.
    3. We're crossing orthogonally here. I said that Palm *knew* for years they needed a POS replacement. And I sure hope they were working for years on *some* kind of strategy for replacement. Who exactly is to blame for that strategy failing ? PalmSource ?
    4. In mentioning WM, you are implying that WM was/is an adequate replacement for POS, at least for a while, and that was a fulfillment of Palm's responsibility. I don't think you mean this, which means you're sidestepping the issue of what Palm has done for the past N years to find a POSII -- and the answer is: nothing that has yielded a useable result yet. Period.
    6. All we all know is the bottomline. What previous moves were mistakes, who can say for sure ? If you agree that spinning off PalmSource was the root mistake, then lets agree on that and leave it there -- until the next milestone in Palm history.
    7. I'm glad to here that Palm is farther along than most of the world thinks it is. There isn't any hard evidence of it that has been shown, but if Palm does deliver a solid POSII device in the next year, you'll have been right and it will be about as good as we can hope for from Palm at this point.
    1. Nonsense. Ed never said anything like your quote either.

    2. I didn't say or imply that Palm's spin-off was smart. I said that you were confusing Palm with PalmSource:
    Quote Originally Posted by neurocutie View Post
    I'm sorry but that's just a bunch of hoo-ey, standard Palm excuse-making, and revisionist history. Palm/PalmSource was working on Linux way, way before 2006, way before Access had anything to do with PalmSource. For example:

    http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/...msource_1.html

    shows in 2004 they had acquired CMS and had very strong Linux plans. A bit more search I'm sure will refresh my memory that Palm had been considering Linux even earlier than that. So they've had at least 3-4 years to work on an alternative to Cobalt, and not from scratch either. Linux is a very well developed OS already, and CMS had already been placing Linux in cell phones. So a huge headstart, 3-4 years and yet... they need another 1.5 years... I'm sorry but that's pretty pitiful.
    All this fumbling with Linux and CMS was at PalmSource, NOT Palm.

    3,4. In 2004, PalmOne had a choice. It could a) license Cobalt, b) develop a new OS from scratch that was not backwards compatible with POS, or c) license a third-party OS that was not backwards compatible with POS. I don't know the reason Palm didn't go with Cobalt, so I can't say whether that was a mistake. Palm chose (c), and developed WM Treos. I don't know how you could call that a failure.

    Since PalmOne did not own POS, developing POSII was NOT an option for them. Only PalmSource could do that.

    7. I don't know how you've determined what most of the world thinks. I only go by what I've read. Here's what I know: Palm has said many times that it takes 1 year to develop an OS, and 1 year to develop a device after an OS is ready. Palm secured the rights to modify PalmOS at the end of 2006. Palm currently projects releasing a Palm Linux device by the end of 2008. ACCESS just released its SDK this summer.
  14.    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by RickMG View Post
    I was hoping you would see my smiles and not take me so seriously, but seems like you did. Sorry, just a little tired of all the Palm bashing on this board in recent months. I look on this board to get and give advise, not hear how bad my choices are. Don't ever leave, as I do look forward to most of your posts. Just understand how some posts can attack the rest of us on the board. Constructive posts are encouraged as I hope someone from Palm is lurking.
    Did I make you cry?

    I'm not that thin skinned.

    Ok, GROUP HUG!!!
    I find it sad/odd that people ask to be thanked. How genuine is it when you have to ask? It's like forcing your kid to call Grandma, to thank her for the new underwear she sent for their birthday.

    "To me, clowns aren't funny. In fact, they're kind of scary. I've wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus, and a clown killed my dad.
    -Jack Handy, SNL-


  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by ScaryHumor View Post
    Ok, GROUP HUG!!!
    That would be a good way to end this thread before there is no board left.

    ((((((((((((HUG)))))))))))
    Kyocera 6035 > Kyocera 7135 > Treo 600 > Treo 650. All Verizon. Sprint Treo 755p, HTC Mogul & Centro
    Unlocked Treo 680 for trips outside Sprint's areas
  16. #56  
    Well, despite all the quibbling about this or that detail about Palm, PalmSource, Cobalt, ALP, CMS, and Linux... Palm itself put those dominoes in motion. Palm helped create a situation (spinoff) that led to it's apparent inability to make things happen with the OS and took a long time trying to get control back. Maybe they thought that doing something similar to Handspring (Treo progenitor Visor, anyone?) would yield similar results, but I think we can all agree that this definitely did not happen.

    I think Palm has learned, in a very painful way for everyone involved, what other companies have in the past... you can't trust anyone else with your crown jewels. All we can hope -- if there is any hope left -- is that Palm can finally get it's collective act together and do what it should have long ago /rather than/ creating PalmSource in the first place.
    Last edited by taroliw; 10/04/2007 at 10:04 AM.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    3,4. In 2004, PalmOne had a choice. It could a) license Cobalt, b) develop a new OS from scratch that was not backwards compatible with POS, or c) license a third-party OS that was not backwards compatible with POS. I don't know the reason Palm didn't go with Cobalt, so I can't say whether that was a mistake. Palm chose (c), and developed WM Treos. I don't know how you could call that a failure.
    (Now who's putting words in mouths...)
    I never said that choosing to develop WM Treos was in and of itself a "failure". It obviously was not and should have been done regardless of what was happening to POSII. What I said was that the developing of WM Treos cannot be contrued as addressing in anyway adequate the need to find a POSII solution. It was and is completely orthogonal to that business and market need.

    Look, we seem to be talking in circles now. You seem to be say that as of 2004, Palm has chosen the best course that it could and that choosing either Cobalt or ALP would not have been better. And it sounds like you'd agree that Palm got into that situation through mistakes made earlier in splitting off PalmSource and then losing control of PalmOS to Access. I'm fine with all of that.

    None of that "makes ok" or in any way changes the perceptions in business, market or customer circles that: 1) Palm is very very late in finding a proper successor to PalmOS, 2) This situation is due to serious mistakes that Palm has made. The rest of the blame-shifting and detailed historical hindsight doesn't really matter as far as the market and the perceptions of most customers.

    The plain perception out there is that Palm, itself, has fumbled somewhere along the way to get to where they are today, with no deliverable successor to PalmOS.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    Ultimately the loss of control of the OS from the spinoff is what started this mess. From what I have read on Access and ALP, I am of the belief that it is designed to be highly customizahle for carriers' UIs and benefit; read ARPU.
    Agreed, except that I can't tell whether you think this reputed flexibility of ALP is a good thing or a bad thing or something that Palm doesn't want...

    It seems ironic, but as I recall, the stated reason at the time for spinning off PalmSource into a separate company was so that PalmSource could better meet the needs of PalmOS OEMs, and to better enable the development of Palm's software assets as a business in its own right -- in other words to permit greater flexibility to meet diverse needs of PalmOS software customers. So it would seem that this reputed customizability of ALP is right in line with Palm's originally stated intentions and rationale for spinning PalmSource off in the first place...
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by neurocutie View Post
    Agreed, except that I can't tell whether you think this reputed flexibility of ALP is a good thing or a bad thing or something that Palm doesn't want...

    It seems ironic, but as I recall, the stated reason at the time for spinning off PalmSource into a separate company was so that PalmSource could better meet the needs of PalmOS OEMs, and to better enable the development of Palm's software assets as a business in its own right -- in other words to permit greater flexibility to meet diverse needs of PalmOS software customers. So it would seem that this reputed customizability of ALP is right in line with Palm's originally stated intentions and rationale for spinning PalmSource off in the first place...
    Well, I think the /idea/ of flexibility is a good thing, to be sure. The downside is that you now become just another customer to the software vendor, competing for their attention amongst other priorities. Oops! You mean you had a product launch you were driving on but no longer have the clout with your software people to make it happen? Not a good situation, methinks.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by taroliw View Post
    Well, I think the /idea/ of flexibility is a good thing, to be sure. The downside is that you now become just another customer to the software vendor, competing for their attention amongst other priorities. Oops! You mean you had a product launch you were driving on but no longer have the clout with your software people to make it happen? Not a good situation, methinks.
    Excellent point. Not only that, but in this hypothetical situation, you are now competing for hardware sales with your supposed partners. The entire business mindset is a money-losing profit-margin-sucking conflict-of-interest quagmire. Hindsight 20/20 and all.

    Apple had the same problems in licensing their OS out, and it doesn't surprise me that Palm had the same problems in trying to emulate the darling of those days, Microsoft, in spinning off the OS company and licensing their OS out.

    The big question is if Palm can execute their turnaround. Personally, I think they can -- they're one of the few companies in the mobile sector that have experience in writing their own operating system, and they have the benefit of writing the basis for their operating system after giants like blackberry, microsoft, and apple come out with their own innovations but leave gaping holes in the finished products -- Palm is one of the few software companies out there that understands the human interface portion of software.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions