Results 1 to 11 of 11
Like Tree11Likes
  • 2 Post By ilovedessert
  • 1 Post By VaccPalm
  • 2 Post By GodShapedHole
  • 1 Post By GodShapedHole
  • 2 Post By HenryAlan
  • 3 Post By LCGuy
  1.    #1  
    Hi all,

    His number one choice of upcoming smartphones is the PRE3! (MY TOP CHOICE AS WELL...).

    take care,

    Jay

    Aaron's Top 5 upcoming devices, (2011)
    Aaron Baker - Yesterday at 7:30 PM |

    Aaron's Top 5 upcoming devices | PhoneDog

    1. HP Pre 3
    HP's webOS is the bee's knees, as far as I'm concerned. Innovative in many ways, it has taken a hit over the years due to lack of strong hardware. It's not a huge deviation from the Palm Pre, Pre Plus, or Pre 2 design, but the Pre 3 offers hardware improvements that will (assuming it launches sometime this year) allow webOS to compete with the big boys on the market - Android and iOS.

    HP's Leo Apotheker is also on record claiming that the company is willing to license the OS to other manufacturers, so I'm hoping we'll see an HTC or Samsung superphone with webOS at some point in the future. A little OS diversity never hurt anyone, right?
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
    fmarcanojr and BrewCity like this.
  2. #2  
    Licensing WEBOS to other companies is a good move. The more phones woth WEBOS out the the better, more options. how Google became a threat to IOS and became the top smart phone OS.

    I always think what might have happened if WEBOS was released on a better phone then the Pre without all the hardware issue etc and released on a better -bigger carrier then Sprint. I think WEBOS which even a fella like me who is using Andorid right now ( Though my son still has his Pre) knows WEBOS really is the best OS out there.. Is it too late , probally not but If done right all those years ago I think WEBOS could have been the Bee's knees as they say.
    fmarcanojr likes this.
  3. #3  
    Licensing webOS makes all sorts of sense to other manufacturers, but I always thought that HP would consider the advantage to be gained from such a deal - a greater selection of devices with the manufacturer's diversifiers, in Samsung's case, brilliant screens - to be greater than the possible disadvantages of brand dilution (I know, I know, in the case of webOS that would amount to homeopathy) and fragmentation, especially since the manufacturer's possible advantage to be gained - webOS as another diversifier against the legion of other Android manufacturers - is much greater proportionally to the risk involved.

    I suppose that a few Android manufacturers have come to the conclusion that the current market is going into a less than desirable direction: a sea awash with more-or-less generic smart devices of wildly varying quality (including possibly, if you're not a geek, chinese KIRFs) all running Android in some fashion or another.

    Higher-end manufacturers will run into huge problems when no-name generic Android devices start running smoothly, which shouldn't take more than a year or two judging by the pace things are going in the chip industry. Because then your average joe consumer might in fact be tempted to get the 150-off-contract generic smartphone instead of the 300-on-contract/if-you-have-to-ask-you-can't-afford-it top-end ultimaphone or tablet. If the cheap alternative actually RUNS WELL, that HTC OMEGA X with the 3,8ghz Roaring Thunder chip doesn't necessarily sound attractive enough to justify the additional price. They're both running the same OS. The cheap one is also smooth. The other one has a Turbotron 9000. This one is a third of the price. Which to pick? Remember, you're NOT a geek (I know that's a difficult thing to pretend, but try) and they're both "running Android".

    Android Land is quickly approaching a price war - consumers will be happy because it'll bring on an age of fairly OK, totally capable, easily affordable and therefore absolutely ubiquitous smart devices. Yay Android!

    But things are looking much more bleak for manufacturers, whose profit margins will melt away as they're forced to lower prices on their superior products in order to have any chance against the cheaper generic competition. They simply won't make the kind of money on them they're making now. Vanjoki, bless his finnish soul, was completely right when he said what using Android amounts to, even if his hearty way of phrasing the truth offended some. Boo Android!

    And remember these guys LOVE their profits. They may not always like sharing them with the actual employees whose daily work generated those profits, but that's another story.

    So the idea of having another platform becomes EXTREMELY attractive to manufacturers, who could find themselves with a killer diversifier... And to consumers, who will still have the option of buying the cheap Android thingy but also the option to pay more for the other one which also has a Turbotron, and it's the same price as the other expensive one with the Turbotron, But it also has a "Samsung Oculus" display and it says 'Gigarainbow 3HD' here, and it's *different*, with like cards and stuff. And I think I saw a commercial with that boxer once, whats his face, Vitali Klitschko I think.

    Everybody would be happy if that happened. HP has a living ecosystem, consumers have choice, manufacturers retain their fat profits.

    If, on the other hand, everything goes pear-shaped, HP has a dead, fragmented ecosystem with a diluted brand despite their heavy investment... While the manufacturer can file the adventure under failed experiments and continue on with their fight for survival. It's not like licensing software had cost them more than the licenses, or as if they had to do any costly R&D for the whole thing.

    Manufacturers simply stand to gain the most from such a deal (unless you count consumers, which will happily gain even more.)
  4. #4  
    Good news!

    I also would like to see webOS on other devices, and have come to realize that fragmentation is NOT an issue with the average consumer since they usually dont have a clue as to what version is available or even exist.

    As long as the phone is new, they think all is well.
  5. #5  
    I see licensing as a headache that will drive Webos into the ground. How can you license an OS and keep tight intergration with other products? You can't. Apple tried it with that moto enabled phone and the countless number of nexus s owners have a useless nfc capability. Eventually there will be multiple manufacturers using webos that will try to out do each other and it will ruin the brand with useless gimmicks (thanks kyocera echo)

    If HP truly wants to run an ecosystem they have to build it themselves. What if a manufacturer doesn't want to include the tap coil? What if a manufacturer builds crappy hardware? too much is out of Hp's hands and there is too much at stake.

    IMHO if HP can't build the phones they can contract another company to do it for them, which is the best way at this point. It gives HP access to knowledge and hardware that they don't have, and lets HP keep total control over the device (like google does with the Nexus line).
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by ljbad4life View Post
    I see licensing as a headache that will drive Webos into the ground.
    The thing is: if HP was to license webOS very selectively - maybe pick two manufacturers, maybe even just one - they would be able to work pretty tightly with these manufacturers, certainly much more tightly than Google is able to work with their dozens and dozens of manufacturers. Selecting a reputable manufacturer also means that the manufacturer WILL deliver a good product (or what they would deem a good product); not simply because they will obviously want their venture to succeed, but most basically because they don't want to risk their own good reputation in the marketplace. From there on in, the manufacturers' hardware chops, whatever they may be, are what would drive, as the boardroom talk goes, the synergies to be leveraged.

    HTC doesn't have much to put on the table. They're building reasonably attractive phones of qualities that can differ from stellar to mediocre from model to model, but they have nothing tangible beyond software skins and a brand image that truly, really sets them apart from the rest of the pack. The same is true for Motorola. Kyocera... is Kyocera.

    There's some good candidates too though, but not all of them are actually looking for partners. (Nokia and Microsoft, sitting in a tree...)

    Samsung does in fact seem like a good candidate. They're well-known for producing screens that rank among the best in the industry - and that is PRODUCING, not buying from third-party suppliers. Word travels fast, and people who just two years ago couldn't say "smartphone" now say "Super AMOLED Plus" with a quivering voice.
    Samsung even has its fingers in chip design and if they have some nice next-gen stuff cooking up in their labs, and HP can get a cross-licensing deal for that, you'd see Qualcomm dropped as the supplier for HP devices more quickly than you can say "memristor".
    RoverNole likes this.
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by GodShapedHole View Post
    The thing is: if HP was to license webOS very selectively - maybe pick two manufacturers, maybe even just one - they would be able to work pretty tightly with these manufacturers, certainly much more tightly than Google is able to work with their dozens and dozens of manufacturers. Selecting a reputable manufacturer also means that the manufacturer WILL deliver a good product (or what they would deem a good product); not simply because they will obviously want their venture to succeed, but most basically because they don't want to risk their own good reputation in the marketplace. From there on in, the manufacturers' hardware chops, whatever they may be, are what would drive, as the boardroom talk goes, the synergies to be leveraged.

    HTC doesn't have much to put on the table. They're building reasonably attractive phones of qualities that can differ from stellar to mediocre from model to model, but they have nothing tangible beyond software skins and a brand image that truly, really sets them apart from the rest of the pack. The same is true for Motorola. Kyocera... is Kyocera (a weird example to pick, really. why not hyundai?)

    There's some good candidates too though, but not all of them are actually looking for partners. (Nokia and Microsoft, sitting in a tree...)

    Samsung does in fact seem like a good candidate. They're well-known for producing screens that rank among the best in the industry - and that is PRODUCING, not buying from third-party suppliers. Word travels fast, and people who just two years ago couldn't say "smartphone" now say "Super AMOLED Plus" with a quivering voice.
    Samsung even has its fingers in chip design and if they have some nice next-gen stuff cooking up in their labs, and HP can get a cross-licensing deal for that, you'd see Qualcomm dropped as the supplier for HP devices more quickly than you can say "memristor".
    Hi,

    One though just came to me..so many of us have been saying HP needs to keep a tighter control over webOS then Google has with Android, (should HP decide to allow other firms to license webOS)...Google has lost control of Android...they have allowed it to be so overly customized to the detriment of the OS...they have allowed new products to be put up for sale that not just aren't using the most current form of the OS, they can't be upgraded to it either.

    (IE: If my memory serves me, either earlier this year or late last year a low priced tablet came out....brand new yet it was using a different version of the Android OS....by that I don't mean the difference from 1.xx to 1.xy...it was more the difference of 1.xx to 2.xx)

    Perhaps that HP has control of both sides of the equation will work in favor of the webOS community...since HP is also a hardware company...they should have a better understanding of the inner workings of webOS on some other firm's hardware....thus perhaps they can be more exacting of what rules or parameters need to be followed for another firm to make webOS products.

    Take care,

    Jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  8. #8  
    One of the neat things about licensing, is the contractual element. Samsung or HTC wouldn't be able to simply manufacture whatever phone they want and slap webOS on it. HP can require elements like the tap to share coil, touchstone compatability, etc. as part of the license. In other words, the license grants HP a degree of control that Google doesn't have.

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    ilovedessert and RoverNole like this.
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryAlan View Post
    One of the neat things about licensing, is the contractual element. Samsung or HTC wouldn't be able to simply manufacture whatever phone they want and slap webOS on it. HP can require elements like the tap to share coil, touchstone compatability, etc. as part of the license. In other words, the license grants HP a degree of control that Google doesn't have.

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    Hi,

    thank you you nailed the situation perfectly!

    Take care,

    Jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  10. #10  
    No one knows exactly what HP is thinking of, here, but, I'd take a guess that this is close to it:

    Under strict NDA, sharing the source code with one or two specific, highly qualified manufacturers that will agree, under contract, to design a specific device (or line of devices) that will be revewed and approved by HP to be run using WebOS on them - it wouldnt be a broad license to put WebOS on just any device that they choose; that would be too risky on a qualitative level.. perhaps there is even a general specification of the type of device that the original and its later versions would have to fall into, would be clearly delineated in the contract.

    These are called "joint ventures", because, both parties do some work to make the final project come to be - HP must continue to develop the software and support it for the device, and the manufacturer does the same with the hardware.

    In no way would HP commoditize WebOS llike Google intentionally did with Android - the business models are worlds apart... WebOS is HP's future, in so many areas of its business - Google is a search engine company, who expanded into a software company, all of whose revenues are derived from advertizing revenues, so anything they can do to maintain their strategy to that end that yeilds a profit works for them, including developing an open source mobile OS, free to be used by anyone.

    HP's financial benefit from any Joint venture will be a piece of the profits of the final sales for the new device, so the better the device is, the more accepted it is, the more desirable it is, the more ubiquitous it is, the more desired it is, the more it will sell and the more they will make, and, to do that, they must be very careful with whom and on what they allow thier software to be used by and put on.

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

  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by GodShapedHole View Post

    Samsung does in fact seem like a good candidate. They're well-known for producing screens that rank among the best in the industry - and that is PRODUCING, not buying from third-party suppliers. Word travels fast, and people who just two years ago couldn't say "smartphone" now say "Super AMOLED Plus" with a quivering voice.
    Samsung even has its fingers in chip design and if they have some nice next-gen stuff cooking up in their labs, and HP can get a cross-licensing deal for that, you'd see Qualcomm dropped as the supplier for HP devices more quickly than you can say "memristor".
    At that point if HP selects one manufacturer, why not just contract samsung to build the phone for HP? I think that's the best approach to keeping everything tightly integrated and still giving HP access to Samsung's chips, screens and whatever else.

Posting Permissions