Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    I see you have a join date of this year. A few overly vocal folks on this forum "going crazy" about things not going the way they want at Palm shouldn't surprise anyone that's been here a while. Sad state of affairs, but there it is.
    Yep. I only heard about the Pre a couple of months before, out of chance. After researching I decided to pick one up in May.

    So I can tell you just how bad their ad drive really was because I never even knew the device existed before that time.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by wellwellwell11 View Post
    lol WOW of course not (I hope you know it was a example, I really do), but companys get cash all the time, and not put it forth to be claimed on tax reports. So why would that be hard to fathom, that Palm had abit of cash sitting?
    Because as a publicly traded company hiding cash or any asset would be illegal in ways that would fry the company and get the officers tossed in the slammer.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Even Paczkowski said "at that rate". Of course, without the details, we don't know what write-offs Palm may have taken that quarter.

    It's really sort of moot anyway. The response is acting as if Ruby said something that was misleading. Even his statement was that Palm "wasn’t going to able to sustain itself in the long run".
    Well, you have a point. It is pretty typical for companies "flush with cash" to also face destitution six months later.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Well, you have a point. It is pretty typical for companies "flush with cash" to also face destitution six months later.
    Yup. Cash just means that they didn't have illiquid assets. They were able to make purchases and payroll but they had no revenue stream. Burn rate exceeded long term income prospects and their run rate would have ground them down.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Even Paczkowski said "at that rate". Of course, without the details, we don't know what write-offs Palm may have taken that quarter.

    It's really sort of moot anyway. The response is acting as if Ruby said something that was misleading. Even his statement was that Palm "wasn’t going to able to sustain itself in the long run".
    yup and IMO they wouldnt have. How the market has changed so much, and with android just dropping devices around the clock, unless Palm as a single entity could have launched a Iphone 4 type solid device, they would have folded prob within another year. Its a different world now, regardless of how bad the economy is, people will continue to upgrade to the next best device within months now, instead of years like before. So to me Webos best chance at survival is with a Giant Like HP, and if they don't suceed with it then it just wasnt meant to be.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Unclevanya View Post
    Because as a publicly traded company hiding cash or any asset would be illegal in ways that would fry the company and get the officers tossed in the slammer.
    but dosent stop companys from doing so, hence even 2 of the vendors I work for does so. Example of a old vender I did business with in the early 90's MBNA before bank of america purchased them, they would market unmarked CC called the millenium card to big business owners as secured cards (having to have to provide their own line of credit), and have a seperate small banking facilitys not marked under MBNA. then 6 months jack the rate up to 30 plus percent, then when the business would default they would keep what money they invested in the card, and waive the rights of the card from that paticular business. You cant be thinking everyone plays by the rules, and there is usually a way around certain aspects of the legal system.
    Last edited by wellwellwell11; 12/09/2010 at 04:38 PM.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Ruby says they were flush with cash, eh?

    Palm Wouldn’t Have Lasted the Year | John Paczkowski | Digital Daily | AllThingsD

    Seems like their post deal financials dont really agree.
    The problem with Paczkowski's analysis is that Palm likely dramatically accelerated their spending post-acquisition. They went from needing to be judicious with their money to having the might of HP's financials behind them. Can you see how that might influence their actions in a slightly different way?

    You can't use the behavior of a company post-acquisition to determine how long they would have been able to survive if the acquisition hadn't happened. This is such a basic logical error on Paczkowski's part that I am quite frankly a little embarrassed for him.
  8. #28  
    i still wish htc would of bought palm. maybe even made webos open source like android. id love to see this thing running on all devices. i don't think palm had much of a strategy either, webos has soo much potential, i just hope they continue to build on it.

    i love the pre but it is outdated, i got the evo and i love it. i do miss the polished look & feel to webos but until palm/hp get their heads out of their rears and release what we would consider a high end, competitive device im staying where i am. gingerbread "android" will probably be the best os out there right now. palm was never really in the game to begin with, i hope this changes next year. i still think alot of us may be disappointed at ces in jan.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by fixxxer1022 View Post
    i still wish htc would of bought palm. maybe even made webos open source like android. id love to see this thing running on all devices. i don't think palm had much of a strategy either, webos has soo much potential, i just hope they continue to build on it.

    i love the pre but it is outdated, i got the evo and i love it. i do miss the polished look & feel to webos but until palm/hp get their heads out of their rears and release what we would consider a high end, competitive device im staying where i am. gingerbread "android" will probably be the best os out there right now. palm was never really in the game to begin with, i hope this changes next year. i still think alot of us may be disappointed at ces in jan.
    Its starting to look that way more and more. I love my pre, but i'm starting to regret not upgrading to the evo , especially if i knew palm wasn't going to release any high end hardware all this time.
  10. #30  
    they were flush with cash because they had just taken on a new investor after recapitalizing when Rubi joined the company.

    in this case flush with cash was relative to annual sales. Not that much if you compare it to the ad budget for the winPhone7 launch.
  11. #31  
    Guys, it takes time to develop high tech products, especially when specialized semiconductor products are involved. It typically takes at least a year of development time from when initial prototypes/samples are manufactured to when the final product is ready for shipping, and then production has to be ramped. I've worked on products that took longer than 2 years to ramp. It's actually quite impressive for HP to have products ready for shipping within 3 quarters of the acquisition date.

    It's hard to be patient, I know. But when HP says it will be worth the wait, as someone who is involved in the industry, I'm inclined to believe them.
  12. #32  
    I love to hear Ruby spin. Palm had plenty of money and HP had no mobile strategy. Ruby continually calls the fire-sale acquisition a merger. Listening to his side of it, one would think that Palm swooped in to save the floundering HP.

    Since Palm had so much cash, I would like an explanation for why the Pre was so shoddily built with substandard materials and little QC. I would also like to know why they didn't invest more in good advertising and a more ambitious marketing strategy. Why, with so much cash and great carrier relations, did they not get the Pre on every network around the world?

    Might the reason be that the public simply rejected the Pre in favor of products more suited to their tastes? Might the fact that they had no long-term sustainability be due to the fact that they didn't have a competitive product that people generally did not want at any price?

    One last thing, the second to last paragraph makes it sound like the Pre 2 was HP's project, not some leftover from Palm. Hmmm...
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Might the reason be that the public simply rejected the Pre in favor of products more suited to their tastes? Might the fact that they had no long-term sustainability be due to the fact that they didn't have a competitive product that people generally did not want at any price?
    Might the problem not be that there's always people coming to this forum with a new Pre, saying they saw it in the store and liked it, so they bought it even though they had never heard of it? Could the problem not be such terribly ineffective marketing, made worse by the fact that the marketing drives were short and everything other than ubiquitous?

    In other words - you say there was no demand. It's hard to get demand for a product nobody knows exists...
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by xcomputerman View Post
    It's hard to be patient, I know. But when HP says it will be worth the wait, as someone who is involved in the industry, I'm inclined to believe them.
    I love these validating statements from complete strangers on forums...they always inspire such confidence for the rest of us non-insiders. I put this up there with "I guarantee you, I promise you" etc. as great confidence builders.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Yep. I only heard about the Pre a couple of months before, out of chance. After researching I decided to pick one up in May.

    So I can tell you just how bad their ad drive really was because I never even knew the device existed before that time.
    What is this Pre thing people are talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by wellwellwell11 View Post
    yup and IMO they wouldnt have. How the market has changed so much, and with android just dropping devices around the clock, unless Palm as a single entity could have launched a Iphone 4 type solid device, they would have folded prob within another year. Its a different world now, regardless of how bad the economy is, people will continue to upgrade to the next best device within months now, instead of years like before. So to me Webos best chance at survival is with a Giant Like HP, and if they don't suceed with it then it just wasnt meant to be.
    Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiddlekins View Post
    The problem with Paczkowski's analysis is that Palm likely dramatically accelerated their spending post-acquisition. They went from needing to be judicious with their money to having the might of HP's financials behind them. Can you see how that might influence their actions in a slightly different way?
    Exactly, before they didn't know whats going to happen and they wanted to conserve money. After HP bought them they could do a lot more -- and can actually plan, research and develop 4-6 devices for release in one year.

    Quote Originally Posted by fixxxer1022 View Post
    i still wish htc would of bought palm. maybe even made webos open source like android. id love to see this thing running on all devices. i don't think palm had much of a strategy either, webos has soo much potential, i just hope they continue to build on it.

    i love the pre but it is outdated, i got the evo and i love it. i do miss the polished look & feel to webos but until palm/hp get their heads out of their rears and release what we would consider a high end, competitive device im staying where i am. gingerbread "android" will probably be the best os out there right now. palm was never really in the game to begin with, i hope this changes next year. i still think alot of us may be disappointed at ces in jan.
    I to wish HTC bought Palm. But if HP and Palm have a good line up next year, everything will be fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by xcomputerman View Post
    Guys, it takes time to develop high tech products, especially when specialized semiconductor products are involved. It typically takes at least a year of development time from when initial prototypes/samples are manufactured to when the final product is ready for shipping, and then production has to be ramped. I've worked on products that took longer than 2 years to ramp. It's actually quite impressive for HP to have products ready for shipping within 3 quarters of the acquisition date.

    It's hard to be patient, I know. But when HP says it will be worth the wait, as someone who is involved in the industry, I'm inclined to believe them.
    Amen friend! Look at the iPhone, that was in development for at least two years. The rumors leading up to the announcement proves that. The fact that HP and Palm have not just one, but many devices readying for launch next year is simply astonishing.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    I love to hear Ruby spin. Palm had plenty of money and HP had no mobile strategy. Ruby continually calls the fire-sale acquisition a merger. Listening to his side of it, one would think that Palm swooped in to save the floundering HP.

    Since Palm had so much cash, I would like an explanation for why the Pre was so shoddily built with substandard materials and little QC. I would also like to know why they didn't invest more in good advertising and a more ambitious marketing strategy. Why, with so much cash and great carrier relations, did they not get the Pre on every network around the world?

    Might the reason be that the public simply rejected the Pre in favor of products more suited to their tastes? Might the fact that they had no long-term sustainability be due to the fact that they didn't have a competitive product that people generally did not want at any price?

    One last thing, the second to last paragraph makes it sound like the Pre 2 was HP's project, not some leftover from Palm. Hmmm...
    Thats business. No one will admit they were broke. And more then likely they had money but no way to replace it. Going on a spending spree wouldn't be smart.
  16. #36  
    i find it much more interesting that HP had no mobile plan. Makes me think as i did all along, the purchase was a printer and tablet play. maybe they changed their minds by now but at the time. i think it was about printers mostly and that's why you had ceo's talking about printers and not getting into it for phones then backtracking.
  17. #37  
    HTC would have given the diversity in devices straight up which will come with HP Palm in time, the key advantage HP has is multi-platform options, not just the printing / tablet interaction but option to tap into the Enterprise channels and sit as a core offering - with webOS and Synergy at its core a potentially powerful offering.

    I really hope that they make significant in-roads next year we need consistent high quality devices giving options to consumers, core application coverage for both Enterprise channel and key mobile media capability.

    It's a tough ask, I think it'll grow, whether it will succeed time will tell - I'm hoping so.
    ___
    My Palm PDA history: m130 > Tungsten T > Tungsten T|X > Pre 2 > HP Pre 3 (unlocked)
    My Mobile history: Nokia 5146 > 3110 > Samsung D900 > N73 > Nokia 6300 > Pre 2 (convergence!) > HP Pre 3
    My Tablet history: HP TouchPad 32Gb (model A - 1st gen)
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiddlekins View Post
    The problem with Paczkowski's analysis is that Palm likely dramatically accelerated their spending post-acquisition. They went from needing to be judicious with their money to having the might of HP's financials behind them. Can you see how that might influence their actions in a slightly different way?

    You can't use the behavior of a company post-acquisition to determine how long they would have been able to survive if the acquisition hadn't happened. This is such a basic logical error on Paczkowski's part that I am quite frankly a little embarrassed for him.
    Honestly, you might want to save some of the embarrassment for yourself.

    Think your counterpoint through...there's no output to substantiate it. Did marketing dramatically increase? Nope. Development? No...WebOS 2.0 still came out in the time frame hinted at before acquisition except they still didn't get all of the promised features in 2.0's initial release. New product? Nope. HP bankrolled the Palm Pre 2 finally hitting the market four months later.

    If Palm had remained "judicious" with their cash, the result would've been worse: EOL handsets with no replacement on Sprint and Verizon to bring in new revenue, except they would've exhausted their cash to bring the Palm Pre 2 to market...and still been rejected by carrier after carrier. Or maybe not bothered and just died quietly with the existing stock gathering dust in stockrooms. They certainly couldn't have afforded to pay people with bundles and giftcards to take the remaining stock like HP did.

    Either way, virtually no real revenue was coming and the burn rate couldn't have been reduced further without compromising their ability to operate at even their lowly market status.

    Paczkowski's take was only proven to be right given what we've seen HP Palm accomplish since.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Honestly, you might want to save some of the embarrassment for yourself.

    Think your counterpoint through...there's no output to substantiate it. Did marketing dramatically increase? Nope. Development? No...WebOS 2.0 still came out in the time frame hinted at before acquisition except they still didn't get all of the promised features in 2.0's initial release. New product? Nope. HP bankrolled the Palm Pre 2 finally hitting the market four months later.

    If Palm had remained "judicious" with their cash, the result would've been worse: EOL handsets with no replacement on Sprint and Verizon to bring in new revenue, except they would've exhausted their cash to bring the Palm Pre 2 to market...and still been rejected by carrier after carrier. Or maybe not bothered and just died quietly with the existing stock gathering dust in stockrooms. They certainly couldn't have afforded to pay people with bundles and giftcards to take the remaining stock like HP did.

    Either way, virtually no real revenue was coming and the burn rate couldn't have been reduced further without compromising their ability to operate at even their lowly market status.

    Paczkowski's take was only proven to be right given what we've seen HP Palm accomplish since.
    I agree, so far looking at what HP and Palm has done so far, and in the time frame given it does look like Palm would have done the above. Since the Pre 2 did just come out, instead of even months ago maybe august, it shows they would have used up whatever cash they had left on this minor upgraded product. Now mind you unless they had something else in works other then the Pre 2 before the acquistion, they would have ran into the same problem as now. Carriers not wanting to carry the device, and the existing money for their last hooray a failed one. So to me HP was the best choice, and now with the scale, money and power I think the vision of Webos can really resinate as it was intended.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Yep. I only heard about the Pre a couple of months before, out of chance. After researching I decided to pick one up in May.

    So I can tell you just how bad their ad drive really was because I never even knew the device existed before that time.
    There were LOTS of ads. Sprint was counting on the Pre to be their flagship. After all the hoopla in the first half of 2009 it was reasonable to count on it being a hit. There was lots of hoopla, by the way. No one following gadgets then could have been unaware of the Pre.

    Turns out that people thought it was too small and there were build problems and the OS wasn't ready for prime time. So sales did not follow and advertizing spending stopped.

    Many people blame the quirky ad campaign that kicked off the intro. I don't. I liked them. All the star placement events were well done. People didn't like the hardware. End of story. They want bricks. The new Nexus S has a nice curved screen, Pre like.

    I've had my Sprint Pre since June 2009. Replaced once.
    Last edited by jdlyall; 12/12/2010 at 10:21 AM. Reason: addition
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions