Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58
Like Tree39Likes
  1. #21  
    It could have been worse news but I just hate waiting. The news of someone else buying WebOS and giving it a new beginning and bright future would have really made my month. Instead we get to wait a month to find out if there is a future at all.
  2. #22  
    I think it is fairly obvious--but of couse I am guessing--that HP was unable to find a buyer at anywhere near their strike price and thus they now are forced to make an internal decision.

    If they can't sell it (or unload it) then they are forced to at the minumum maintain servers and fix blatant flaws and security issues in the OS for at least one year from the last day they officially sell anything with webOS on it (which would include authorized carrier device sales--VZW and AT&T ebay Pre3's don't count of course, but those TP's that are sold as a bundle item from Wal Mart and BB have to carry a full warranty). I think they have to do this because warranty support runs for a year and regardless they would look even worse if they brought down the servers which are the backbone of synergy and webOS functionality and the vast majority of users who don't know about precentral and webOS internals would have a inoperable device.

    My two cents.
    PDA Lineage: Palm Pilot, Palm V, Palm Tungsten, Treo 650 (Cingular), Treo 750 (AT&T), Treo Pro GSM (unlocked), Pre Plus (AT&T), Pre 2 GSM (unlocked), Pre 3 16GB (AT&T Branded) and Touchpad 32 GB
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsol View Post
    I think it is fairly obvious--but of couse I am guessing--that HP was unable to find a buyer at anywhere near their strike price and thus they now are forced to make an internal decision.
    This is basically what Gruber at Daring Fireball surmised as well.

    That said, while HP is forced to carry a warranty on all devices, they could very easily take down the internal systems (Synergy, Profile, and the App Catalog) and violate no part of said warranty in the process because it wouldn't be a unit-based defect; instead, it's just classified as removing features as long as the manufacturer has taken reasonable steps to ensure (through a variety of transitional ways) that the unit can operate without them. "Going dark" is certainly not without precedent when, say, a hardware manufacturer's gone bankrupt or exits an industry. You might get a grace period enough to prepare, but that's no guarantee.

    Granted, the chances of HP taking down any of them are likely slim for now while they're still deciding what to do with webOS, if they do end up executing a sale and it's a pure patent/IP play rather than to adopt the ecosystem, those servers would likely be dead the not long after the ink hits the paper since the buyer would, IIRC, be cleared of liability from prior commitments and the seller would no longer be under any obligation to support a product it no longer owns or has any rights to.

    I guess we'll see where it goes; until then, it's all speculation.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by vanadium View Post
    Granted, the chances of then taking down any of them are likely slim for now while they're still deciding what to do with webOS, if they do end up executing a sale and it's a pure patent/IP play rather than to adopt the ecosystem, those servers would likely be dead the not long after the ink hits the paper since the buyer would, IIRC, be cleared of liability from prior commitments and the seller would no longer be under any obligation to support a product it no longer owns or has any rights to.
    And that's why we have WebOS Survival Kit - WebOS Internals ...

    -- Rod
    WebOS Internals and Preware Founder and Developer
    You may wish to donate by Paypal to donations @ webos-internals.org if you find our work useful.
    All donations go back into development.
    www.webos-internals.org twitter.com/webosinternals facebook.com/webosinternals
  5. #25  
    I was just waiting for you to enter stage left when I pressed "Submit", Rod.
  6. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by vanadium View Post
    This is basically what Gruber at Daring Fireball surmised as well.

    Granted, the chances of HP taking down any of them are likely slim for now while they're still deciding what to do with webOS, if they do end up executing a sale and it's a pure patent/IP play rather than to adopt the ecosystem, those servers would likely be dead the not long after the ink hits the paper since the buyer would, IIRC, be cleared of liability from prior commitments and the seller would no longer be under any obligation to support a product it no longer owns or has any rights to.

    The longer this goes on, the more I'm convinced that (as was suggested ) that HP got the valuation of HP wrong and that whatever patents came with Palm are actually not that interesting (yes yes.. I've heard that they hold the patent to the smartphone ).
  7. DrewT3's Avatar
    Posts
    63 Posts
    Global Posts
    111 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by vanadium View Post
    ... if they do end up executing a sale and it's a pure patent/IP play rather than to adopt the ecosystem...
    I see this idea mentioned often - that HP would sell Palm to a buyer only interested in the patents.
    Why would the patents necessarily be sold as a package with WebOS? It seems to me they are totally different assets and there wouldn't be much of a point in a buyer of the patents wanting to take on WebOS.
    Vistaus likes this.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by rwhitby View Post
    I predicted this exactly, over 5 hours before the event: https://twitter.com/webosinternals/s...12334288027648

    Prediction for all-hands: "The executive team is determining the best course for webOS, and we'll tell you the outcome in the coming weeks."

    -- Rod
    often shortened to, soon(tm)
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by geekpeter View Post
    often shortened to, soon(tm)
    I thought that the soon(tm) trademark was held by Sony Online Entertainment.
    Vistaus likes this.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewT3 View Post
    I see this idea mentioned often - that HP would sell Palm to a buyer only interested in the patents.
    Why would the patents necessarily be sold as a package with WebOS? It seems to me they are totally different assets and there wouldn't be much of a point in a buyer of the patents wanting to take on WebOS.
    Because Microsoft and Apple would aggressively assault any company that tried to market WebOS devices without the protection of an abundant patent portfolio. Any such company would be attacked so thoroughly, they would be unlikely to make much if any profit after paying off the leeches. Right now, Micorsoft is reported to make more money in leeching license fees from Android developers than off their own mobile products.

    While any number of companies might find value in a separate purchase of the Palm patent portfolio, only a company already in possession of a large technology patent portfolio could find much value in purchasing WebOS without the protection of Palm's patents.

    Even Palm's patents may not hold much value to most of today's industry players. My recollection is that some years ago, Palm signed some level of patent sharing agreement with both Microsoft and Apple. This would suggest the Palm patents might not be at all useful to a company trying to fend off an assault by Microsoft and Apple. While the terms of those agreements are secret, there are indications that this is the case.

    For instance, I suspect this is the reason Google never bid on Palm's assets, either now or when HP purchased them. Google was prepared to spend 12 billion on Motorola, but not 1 billion on Palm? Palm's mobile patents are the foundation of smart phones, but if those patents couldn't be used to fend off assaults from Microsoft or Apple, they would be of little use to Google or to any other smart phone developer.

    (While buying Palm's patents might seem to protect a Google, HTC, or Samsung from Microsoft and Apple's onslaught, it just as equally may not. This has to do with the way mutual assured destruction works - it only works if a patent owner can retaliate, if the Palm patent sharing agreements signed away the right to retialiate, the Patent suite would be of little value to the current players in the mobile device space)

    As things stand now, the terrible, awful, corrupt patent situation almost completely prevents new players from entering the mobile device market. Meaning that WebOS without the patent portfolio is worth just about zero.
    Last edited by Toasters; 11/10/2011 at 12:59 PM.
  11. #31  
    Wasn't IBM the first "smartphone" maker with the Simon in 1992?
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsol View Post
    I think it is fairly obvious--but of couse I am guessing--that HP was unable to find a buyer at anywhere near their strike price and thus they now are forced to make an internal decision.

    If they can't sell it (or unload it) then they are forced to at the minumum maintain servers and fix blatant flaws and security issues in the OS for at least one year from the last day they officially sell anything with webOS on it (which would include authorized carrier device sales--VZW and AT&T ebay Pre3's don't count of course, but those TP's that are sold as a bundle item from Wal Mart and BB have to carry a full warranty). I think they have to do this because warranty support runs for a year and regardless they would look even worse if they brought down the servers which are the backbone of synergy and webOS functionality and the vast majority of users who don't know about precentral and webOS internals would have a inoperable device.

    My two cents.
    After sitting with this for awhile, I am thinking it may be the difference between bid and ask also included HP's assessment of the value of webOS as functioning software, something the bidders might have been more hesitant about due to its risk.
    The fact that the CEO with Ruby in tow (the inventor) came in person to meet the webOS group seems to be her way of saying she values the software as a going concern. Knowing that the internal meeting would be leaked, she may even be indirectly communicating with suppliers/channel---ie the ecosystem--and with Wall Street--a way of putting feelers out for ideas and feedback as she works with Ruby to fashion a coherent business model. Including Ruby was a big signal as I have to believe webOS's inventor is webOS's best fan as a viable ecosystem.

    If this is the case, I am glad. It seems, whatever Hurd's vision was, it seems to have been mis-communicated to Leo's team and the new board. Or Leo was too busy shopping PSG to put a coherent strategy together and instead let Palm struggle alone.
    Ruby needs a team around him that can execute and have a coherent plan that can stand up against competition. And webOS (and the webOS team and webOS customers) deserves no less.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluenote View Post
    ...Or Leo was too busy shopping PSG to put a coherent strategy together...
    Leo was too busy promoting Leo. He was one of the most narcissistic people I have ever seen. He joined HP and put his picture everywhere, all over the internal web sites, on the walls up and down nearly every hall. Many employees were beginning to worry they might even be forced to get a tattoo of Leo's face.
    darkzone and Vistaus like this.
  14. palmless's Avatar
    Posts
    19 Posts
    Global Posts
    565 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by passlogix View Post
    Only reason Whitman didn't make any decision today because she couldn't find any buyer yet. I am guessing within next few weeks, someone will end up getting webOS for patents pretty damn cheap.
    Yep. Her statement translates to "Still no takers... anybody? Anybody?"

    They need to HUSTLE and take whatever is out there. The odds of the price going up after another quarter or two of neglect are very low.
  15. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluenote View Post
    The fact that the CEO with Ruby in tow (the inventor) came in person to meet the webOS group seems to be her way of saying she values the software as a going concern. Knowing that the internal meeting would be leaked, she may even be indirectly communicating with suppliers/channel---ie the ecosystem--and with Wall Street--a way of putting feelers out for ideas and feedback as she works with Ruby to fashion a coherent business model. Including Ruby was a big signal as I have to believe webOS's inventor is webOS's best fan as a viable ecosystem.
    In a market that moves as fast as mobility, vagueness communicates quite a lot of things... none of them are good.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Palmless View Post
    The odds of the price going up after another quarter or two of neglect are very low.
    Try zero. webOS is depreciating at an accelerating rate as it effectively sits idle.

    Now, incorporate these factors:

    1. There's still Touchpad stock out there that won't move quickly due to bundling*
    2. The rate of attrition from people moving on to other platforms
    3. Non-existent business and entertainment/media consumption ecosystems

    All of this basically spells "bargain basement" after too long, no matter how great the OS itself is.

    * Face it, bundling is not a genius move if you're looking to move units fast and in earnest. It's a measure of saving face by appearing to have a viable presence for the OS in the marketplace while trying to offload webOS to other companies.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by vanadium View Post
    * Face it, bundling is not a genius move if you're looking to move units fast and in earnest. It's a measure of saving face by appearing to have a viable presence for the OS in the marketplace while trying to offload webOS to other companies.
    I agree. What they should have done was test different price points to see if even a small profit could be made. That could have helped in making the final decision.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Palmless View Post
    Yep. Her statement translates to "Still no takers... anybody? Anybody?"

    They need to HUSTLE and take whatever is out there. The odds of the price going up after another quarter or two of neglect are very low.
    So their new add campaign is: Anybody On? LOL
  19. #40  
    <threads merged>
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions