Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 269
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    Re-read your history lessons. During the Treo 600-650-680-700 timeframe, Palm was always at the top of the smartphone sales list. They had solid revenues, a growing market ... and mediocre-quality phones. I believe you're describing the post-Treo 700 timeframe - after the iPhone came out.
    no need to re read history homie, im talking about the last year they were a single entity. The year of the orignal palm pre, they didnt have alot of money am I correct. Im not talking about the treo timeframe when they were ok as a company. The palm pre wasent around in the treo era right?
  2. #122  
    I wonder if the people who were jumping ship leaked this info.
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by juavez707 View Post
    That leads to some serious hope. It also suggests that the original plan was for an OMAP3640, but that it's since been changed. An Oct-Dec release time-frame and 1.2GHz CPU are strongly suggestive of OMAP4.

    This is the best news I've heard all week.
  4. #124  
    1. FCC disclosure of filings/approvals can be requested to be delayed until launch by the manufacturer.
    2. September announcement can theoretically be for an October, November of December launch of a product, or products.
    3. OMAP4 processors are scheduled to be shipping in 2nd half/2010, in the 45nm thickness and the 4430 (up to 1ghz) dual core. Samples were ready for manufacturers to evaluate early in 2010. The 4440 (1 ghz+) wont be shipping until 2011, if I remember correctly.
    4. Look at my thread for the youtube video I found this morning on what the OMAP4 processors are scheduled to be able to include, come 2011.

    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  5. #125  
    In another thread we have been talking about the minimum specs for a flagship phone today.

    If Palm announced a new keyboard phone would it at least have to compare to the Samsung Epic?

    Overall the Epic is 10% bigger than the Pre (6.97 cubic inches vs. Pre 6.4 cubic inches). But the Epic about doubles the screen resolution, speed, and camera (with zoom and autofocus). The Epic also has video chat and HD output.

    The Epic has sold out in pre-release sales. Many stores will no longer take names for waiting lists because the lists are impossibly long.

    Could you get away with a new flagship phone as small as the Droid2 with only a 3.7" screen? Verizon only sold 150-200k the first week. Business Week said, Droid 2 is a refresh, not a revelation.

    Blackberry has met a similar fate with the even smaller Torch: BackBerry Torch Not Looking So Hot and BlackBerry Torch fizzling.

    Is matching the Epic enough? Would it need to match the phones coming out for Christmas at 1.2 to 1.5 GHz?

    I hope that Palm does announce a new flagship phone and I hope that it is world class. No one can afford to drop the torch like BlackBerry just did.

    - Craig
    Last edited by milominderbinder; 08/25/2010 at 01:26 PM.
  6. nicekyo's Avatar
    Posts
    78 Posts
    Global Posts
    79 Global Posts
    #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by juavez707 View Post
    With spec like that, I wouldn't mind waiting until CES 2011, seriously HPalm, test it out, attract developers, establish a sound marketing campaign, you will win many more users.
  7. #127  
    the guy said he knows all about the new device and that we should check webosworld.com later today for more info and that hpalm has something great brewing up...
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by juavez707 View Post
    Those claimed C40 specs were 1GHz, 3.7″, 4G, 5MP camera, 720p recordings, 800 x 480 resolution...

    We had another source say it was: 3.8".

    Add in a bigger screen, wireless HD out, 3x zoom, autofocus, and Video Chat and it would be Epic.

    If you announce a flagship phone after the Epic, wouldn't the specs need to be better?

    Didn't all of our inside sources tell us that it would be webOS 1.5 then 2.0 is needed for the new hardware?

    - Craig
    Last edited by milominderbinder; 08/25/2010 at 01:23 PM.
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by juavez707 View Post
    What Happened to the Palm c40?

    The title says it all. Back in January of this year leaked Sprint documents found their way onto the web, and they were showcased on many gadget blogs around the internet. From this list, most every device has since come to fruition; This includes the HTC A9292 WiMAX candy bar (EVO 4G), LG clamshells, Sanyo devices, and those colorful offerings from Samsung. One device that hasnít yet panned out is the Palm c40. So what happened to it?
    Until I hear official news from HP and Palm, I'm choosing to believe in this rumor. Because, you know, I like to dream, and this thing would be ridiculously awesome.
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > HTC Mogul (*****!) > HTC Touch Pro (***** squared!) > PRE! > Epic
  10. Traxion's Avatar
    Posts
    153 Posts
    Global Posts
    223 Global Posts
    #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    And I don't think you followed the discussion the same way I did. I agree, they won't release a new mediocre device before the high end. They will (I suspect) release a high end device, and the current device will become the "mediocre" one.

    Palm already has the Pre Plus. There is no reason (technically) for it not to be released on the Sprint network. My (strong) suspicion is that we will see it, probably pretty close to the same time frame that Palm releases the newer device.
    This could be the case, but I see it as unlikely. Seeing how all carriers are EOL'ing Pre's in general from their inventory and basically trying to give away the ones they still have. I just dont see Palm "releasing" the Plus on Sprints network. It will have to be another new device or a nearly completely revamped Plus.
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by wellwellwell11 View Post
    no need to re read history homie, im talking about the last year they were a single entity. The year of the orignal palm pre, they didnt have alot of money am I correct. Im not talking about the treo timeframe when they were ok as a company. The palm pre wasent around in the treo era right?
    I guess you need to go back to Post #111 in this thread then. You quoted my post about the mediocre development history of Palm from the Treo 600 through the Treo 700 and then claimed:
    Quote Originally Posted by wellwellwell11
    right and they are justified, becasue at the time Palm was a bleeding company with very little resources.
    ... which is just plain incorrect. So maybe you understand recent history just fine - you just failed to respond to what I posted... even after quoting me (for some reason). FWIW, the Treo was the only money maker for Palm, as paltry as it was, during the first 6 months of 'Pre era' and was still probably the bigger money maker for the first quarter after the Pre's release.
  12. #132  
    Honestly, I think people need to avoid the urge to be size queens. It's not the sheer screen size that matters. I'm not saying that the Roadrunner/Pre 2/c40 couldn't afford to be larger...but what I am saying is it makes no sense to pair retina display resolution with a screen size larger than the iPhone -- you don't get the stunning pixel density that is the entire point that way.

    Pixel density is more important than sheer resolution or sheer size.
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by subversiveasset View Post
    Honestly, I think people need to avoid the urge to be size queens. It's not the sheer screen size that matters. I'm not saying that the Roadrunner/Pre 2/c40 couldn't afford to be larger...but what I am saying is it makes no sense to pair retina display resolution with a screen size larger than the iPhone -- you don't get the stunning pixel density that is the entire point that way.

    Pixel density is more important than sheer resolution or sheer size.
    in your opinion of course.
  14. djmcgee's Avatar
    Posts
    626 Posts
    Global Posts
    627 Global Posts
    #134  
    True about pixel density and size, but the American way is that bigger is better and we're not going to get away from that anytime soon.

    Phones, cars (trucks/suvs), (insert phallic comment), etc. are all an example of American fatness that doesn't just include their bodies.
    Dan
  15. asharrop's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    100 Global Posts
    #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by djmcgee View Post
    True about pixel density and size, but the American way is that bigger is better and we're not going to get away from that anytime soon.

    Phones, cars (trucks/suvs), (insert phallic comment), etc. are all an example of American fatness that doesn't just include their bodies.
    lol. So tell me how you really feel...
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    I guess you need to go back to Post #111 in this thread then. You quoted my post about the mediocre development history of Palm from the Treo 600 through the Treo 700 and then claimed:
    ... which is just plain incorrect. So maybe you understand recent history just fine - you just failed to respond to what I posted... even after quoting me (for some reason). FWIW, the Treo was the only money maker for Palm, as paltry as it was, during the first 6 months of 'Pre era' and was still probably the bigger money maker for the first quarter after the Pre's release.
    true though I meant the pre only, as well as Palm was still bleeding money even during the Treo era, though you say the treo was the money maker for Palm during the first 6 months of the pre era, wheres your evidence of that? Also why would you think the treo made money even after the pre was introduced?
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by subversiveasset View Post
    Honestly, I think people need to avoid the urge to be size queens. It's not the sheer screen size that matters. I'm not saying that the Roadrunner/Pre 2/c40 couldn't afford to be larger...but what I am saying is it makes no sense to pair retina display resolution with a screen size larger than the iPhone -- you don't get the stunning pixel density that is the entire point that way.

    Pixel density is more important than sheer resolution or sheer size.
    I agree completly, also didnt they say on the iphone 4 the human eye cant pickup all the pixel anyways? I really think they need to make sure the device is still mobile, though I doubt they will they will most likely play the size game. To me I dont see nothing wrong with a 3.5-3.7 inch screen to me a phone still has to be somewhat small and mobile, and if I need anything bigger Ill get a laptop, computer or a tablet.
  18. asharrop's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    100 Global Posts
    #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by milominderbinder View Post
    Those claimed C40 specs were 1GHz, 3.7″, 4G, 5MP camera, 720p recordings, 800 x 480 resolution...

    We had another source say it was: 3.8".

    Add in a bigger screen, wireless HD out, 3x zoom, autofocus, and Video Chat and it would be Epic.

    If you announce a flagship phone after the Epic, wouldn't the specs need to be better?

    Didn't all of our inside sources tell us that it would be webOS 1.5 then 2.0 is needed for the new hardware?

    - Craig
    not sure what you're getting at, it IS better. Did you read the whole article? There was more info about HP's specs they wanted and how it was merged into the project.
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by subversiveasset View Post
    Honestly, I think people need to avoid the urge to be size queens. It's not the sheer screen size that matters. I'm not saying that the Roadrunner/Pre 2/c40 couldn't afford to be larger...but what I am saying is it makes no sense to pair retina display resolution with a screen size larger than the iPhone -- you don't get the stunning pixel density that is the entire point that way.

    Pixel density is more important than sheer resolution or sheer size.
    Actually, 960X640 makes sense for webOS regardless of the screen size. It's simply the correct ratio. And I doubt that we'll see higher resolution in anything smaller than a tablet.

    I consider "retina display" to just be Apple marketing speak. On a 4" screen, 960X640 would certainly be superior to the 800X480 screens of the competition, and would work better with webOS.
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > HTC Mogul (*****!) > HTC Touch Pro (***** squared!) > PRE! > Epic
  20. #140  
    Here's the math:

    iPhone4: 3.5" diagnal, 960 x 640 = 614,400/3.5 = 175,542 pixels/linear inch

    Pre2: 4" diagnal, 960 x 640 = 614,400/4 = 153,600 pixels/linear inch

    The iPhone would still have a higher screen density, but, at this size and scale, it wouldn't be perceptable to the eye.

    Both devices would be state of the art - in fact, the Pre2, with its OMAP4 duial core processing power and slightly lower screen density, would be way faster, theoretically, without any visual difference, AND a larger screen.



    Oh, and for a comparison:

    HTCs HD2, Evo, etc:

    4.3" diagnal, 800 x 480 = 384,000/4.3" = 89,302 pixels/linear inch
    Last edited by LCGuy; 08/25/2010 at 04:56 PM.
    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions