Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by nick15 View Post
    With Jon onboard, Palm is the Apple that isn't Apple. Apple's comeback had a lot to do with the fact that it was Jon in the trenches, doing the actual work that Jobs pondered up. Jobs may have said "we need an entry-level Mac to capture the hearts and minds of new users", but Jon was the one who said said "iMac". Jobs may have said "we need an awesome portible digital music player to capture the hearts and minds of new users", but Jon was the one who said "iPod".

    Jon has some ten years of Apple experience under his belt (which is also why I think Jobs went easy on Palm yesterday at the Antennagate press conference), which should be more than enough for Jon to know what users want and what Palm needs to do to give it to them.
    Yet after all that opportunity he was given at Apple, Ruby showed he was unable to repeat his Apple successes when working on his own - without his mentor at the helm. Add to that one of his Apple ship-jumping buddies leaving the Palm ship now (Mike Bell), Ruby's still unfulfilled task at Palm just took another header.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    Yet after all that opportunity he was given at Apple, Ruby showed he was unable to repeat his Apple successes when working on his own - without his mentor at the helm. Add to that one of his Apple ship-jumping buddies leaving the Palm ship now ([url= Bell[/url]), Ruby's still unfulfilled task at Palm just took another header.
    I wouldn't count Ruby out just yet. It took Apple several years to get back in on their feet and in shape, and even they suffered major departures (like Ellen Hancock and Donald Norman). But lo-and-behold, Apple is insanely great despite departures. In fact, I'd say that it wasn't until Apple switched from the PowerPC to Intel in 2005 that all the demons from Apple's past were slain... eight years after Jobs came on board.

    Ruby has ben CEO of Palm for barely a year now, and was with Palm as a lead engineer in 2007. In three years after Jobs came on board to Apple, all they had released was the iMac and MacOS X... and OSX was barely months old by the three year mark. The iPod had yet to be released (that one comes in on the four-and-a-half year mark).

    Palm, by this point, has had a new OS a year before Apple, but a device that could run it about a year after Apple. Otherwise they're still on track with where Apple was three years into their revival. Heck, I could argue that Palm's revival is only a year old, coinciding with when Ruby became CEO and when the Pre was release... Or it could be barely a month or three old, coinciding with when HP bought Palm. Either way, I STILL don't think we have anythin to worry about concerning Palm's future... Apple was doing either worse or at least equally as good as Palm is going right now, and look where they are now!
    Last edited by nick15; 07/18/2010 at 12:18 PM.
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by jbg7474 View Post
    But they HAVE to find a way to get products to market sooner. Even yearly refreshes may not be enough if they're to keep up--at least until they build up enough mindshare to get some momentum.
    But of course... there still are kinks in the system. Also considering that the cellphone/mobile market is far more... disposable and quicker-pased than the desktop/home computer market, so Palm needs to evolve quicker and faster than Apple needed to back in 1997.

    Of course, once Palm is grounded enough, they can then take their time. Apple experienced the same thing; today people will wait and wait and wait for Apple products, but back in 1997, if Apple ran out of product, people would easily just switch over to a Windows PC.

    Eventually Palm will be desired by those who will wait in lines overnight to get their hands on a new Palm Wondēr or Palm Gēist. But right now they need to make sure that people can get Palms when they want it, and not have to resort to buying a non-Palm device when a store has run out.

    Or... perhaps Palm CAN take their time and "push consumers away" by not updating their products "faster"... at least not yet. I mean, again, Apple had to live through low product availability and the risk of losing customers because they don't have the supply to fulfill demand... and yet, again, Apple is who they are despite it! Perhaps Palm can live with the fact that they're not updating their product line "quick enough" TODAY, so long as they an make back the lost customers (and THEN some) later on down the road.

    Again, this isn't a sprint but a marathon... Short term losses can be acceptable so long as long term success can be grown and maintained.

    If quicker release schedules work to help Palm in the longrun, then they should do it. But if quicker releases helps them only in the short term and would actually negatively affect their long term profitability, then they should skip out on it and focus on something that WOULD positively affect the long term profits.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions