Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52
Like Tree18Likes
  1. #21  
    If this was someone claiming to be an Apple employee and he was talking about the I-phone or the McIntosh PC, we'd laugh him out of the house.

    As it is, here's somebody claiming to be an HP employee, but he's talking about Web OS and we believe every single syllable.

    Not that half of it isn't believable... but why would a product that was worked on be cancelled outright for missing a deadline?

    Android works on multiple SOCs; while far from trivial, it shouldn't be an impossible mission to make webOS run on multiple SOCs.

    Just saying.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by GodShapedHole View Post
    If this was someone claiming to be an Apple employee and he was talking about the I-phone or the McIntosh PC, we'd laugh him out of the house.

    As it is, here's somebody claiming to be an HP employee, but he's talking about Web OS and we believe every single syllable.

    Not that half of it isn't believable... but why would a product that was worked on be cancelled outright for missing a deadline?

    Android works on multiple SOCs; while far from trivial, it shouldn't be an impossible mission to make webOS run on multiple SOCs.

    Just saying.
    Well, from what I gathered from the article, it was more than just one missed deadline, it was many missed deadlines. I'm sure it wasn't that alone that attributed to them canceling their webOS products.

    webOS was designed to work on one type of silicon; it's difficult to rework the underlying infrastructure without breaking everything on top. It's like trying to pour a new foundation for a house without removing the actual house.
    milominderbinde likes this.
  3. #23  
    Not only was it many missed deadlines but it also sounds like they had no carrier support. So if we're looking at a division that's missing milestones on a product nobody wants to sell, I can see why HP would want to throw in the towel.
    milominderbinde likes this.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    webOS was designed to work on one type of silicon; it's difficult to rework the underlying infrastructure without breaking everything on top. It's like trying to pour a new foundation for a house without removing the actual house.
    This is the thing that bugs me... People at HP have been saying this, but it's just wrong.

    I mean, look at the devices on the market:
    Pre (and Plus)- 600MHz OMAP3430 (TI) ARMv7
    Pixi- MSM7627 (Qualcomm) ARMv6
    Pre 2- 1GHz OMAP3630 (TI) ARMv7
    Veer- 800MHz Snapdragon 7230 (Qualcomm) ARMv7
    Touchpad- Dual-core 1.2GHz Snapdragon (Qualcomm) ARMv7
    Pre 3- 1.4GHz Snapdragon (Qualcomm) ARMv7

    So yes, a lot of the products have been Qualcomm, but to say that it only runs on one architecture is ignorant of the actual products that have been released.
  5. rashad1's Avatar
    Posts
    520 Posts
    Global Posts
    531 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by GodShapedHole View Post
    If this was someone claiming to be an Apple employee and he was talking about the I-phone or the McIntosh PC, we'd laugh him out of the house.

    As it is, here's somebody claiming to be an HP employee, but he's talking about Web OS and we believe every single syllable.

    Not that half of it isn't believable... but why would a product that was worked on be cancelled outright for missing a deadline?

    Android works on multiple SOCs; while far from trivial, it shouldn't be an impossible mission to make webOS run on multiple SOCs.

    Just saying.
    Apple employees aren't in danger of losing their jobs anytime soon, so they have no reason to put their selves in that position
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by nappy View Post
    Not only was it many missed deadlines but it also sounds like they had no carrier support. So if we're looking at a division that's missing milestones on a product nobody wants to sell, I can see why HP would want to throw in the towel.
    I understood that they lost carrier support because so many missed deadlines.
    champiful likes this.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by kataran View Post
    Let HTC buy webos and the protopye phones...they will get it on the market quick

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    Not a chance.
  8. #28  
    I'm not buying the whole it is too hard to port webos to another chipset.

    AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK $webos$ $is$ $a$ $linux$ $kernel$, $plus$ $drivers$ $for$ $specific$ $phone$ $hardware$, $plus$ $a$ $number$ $of$ $open$ $source$ $libraries$, $plus$ $the$ $proprietary$ $parts$ $for$ $the$ $GUI$ $and$ $some$ $other$ $stuff$. $Plus$ $the$ $basic$ $native$ $apps$ $of$ $course$. $The$ $native$ $apps$ $run$ $on$ $abstracted$ $interfaces$ $on$ $the$ $kernel$.

    The only part that needs porting is the kernel with specific drivers. That no doubt involves some work. But surely not years and most likely not even months. The Linux kernel is already used on several architectures and
    abstracting that hardware to provide standard interfaces to higher functions is the core job of a kernel. Patching drivers to support a different chipset shouldn't be too hard for a group of engineers who are already familiar with the target chipset and the linux kernel.

    Wait - Android is also using a Linux kernel to abstract the hardware.

    Companies (like those producing DVD players, TV, routers., etc) already port Linux all the time. It's not that big a deal.

    If only there was a company that produces a lot of TVs, DVD players and Android phones and has engineers familiar with that doing this all day long.

    Hm - now that I think about it, doesn't Samsung do this - ALL THE TIME?

    In short - some companies like Samsung and HTC *already* have Linux driver code for their target chipsets. The rest of the software is mostly some tweaking, configuring and a cross-compiler away from running on that too. Give webos to such a team and I bet they can have a testable version of webos running within a few weeks.

    I'm simplifying a bit and the devil is always in the detail. But I don't buy that porting webos to hardware that Samsung or HTC wants to use is a major problem.

    Samsung has trouble with Android. They already have said that they are considering alternatives and the Google/Motorola deal after the MS/Nokia deal ads to that motivation. They could concentrate on WP7 - but that means higher licencing costs, dependence on another company and much less influence on their platform.
    They already maintain an alternative OS - Bada - so they are motivated and willing to invest in alternative to keep options open. But so far they have kept Bada on some cheap smartphone models. It's probably not ready for Tablets or high end smartphones.

    In short Samsung has the means, the motivation and the vision to have an alternative to Android.

    And similar is true for HTC. Also Dell might be interested. They keep trying to really get into the smartphone and tablet market - without much success.

    The only reason I can see that none of those companies would take over webos is simply the price. It mostly depends on how much HP will demand for selling webos (while licencing it back to use on printers). If HP would sell at a realistic price (including a defensive patent portfolio) one of them will likely pick it up - and then probably re-brand it under a new name. Call it SmartOS or whatever.
    Pre -> Pre3 & TP32 -> Nexus 5
    rot likes this.
  9. emuneee's Avatar
    Posts
    96 Posts
    Global Posts
    123 Global Posts
    #29  
    Going from what the engineer was saying Palm didnt perform to well at all. Missed deadlines, canceled products... Takes me back to my days in 2008 when i was with Sony Ericsson. As a individuals, smart bunch of people... Collectively for whatever reasons, we suffered from the same issues... Missed deadlines, canceled products, marketing completely out of touch with the market, terrible top down leadership.
  10. #30  
    I'm calling absolute bull plop on this poster. As for the issue of not working on other chipsets? Bull as well. Samsung would be a good fit for they're sheer manufacturing ability. Look what they did with they're Galaxy 10.1 line, they first intro'd a much thicker less appealing unit and then when the iPad 2 was introduced went back designed, prototyped and had the new model ready for manufacturing in what? I think it was less than 60 days? Besides they're chipsets are arm7, that and for they're cdma phones they use VIA Telecom chipsets. So they are very good at converting and optimizing drivers and firmware. If Samsung had a fire lit under they're buts and were interested in webos's potential, they could have a killer phone ready for mass distribution in no more then 90 days after deciding to roll with it. Will that happen? Probably not, I give it 1000:1 odds....
  11. #31  
    I am kinda interested in these canceled phones, I mean what were the plans for them? I also wonder if this has anything to do with why Sprint never announced the Pre3? Not that any of this matters anymore.
  12. lactose's Avatar
    Posts
    47 Posts
    Global Posts
    480 Global Posts
    #32  
    Producing reliable hardware and software is a lot of work and very expensive. Companies that get into these businesses lie to themselves about the cost, then when they come crying because they need to make a profit, the engineers are expected to abandon their health, marriages, and kids, to pull the company's ess out of the fire.

    Unlike medical or avionics, consumer electronics software is not required to undergo the independent audits, and intense processes and testing as more serious software is required to do. So from the get go, it is a sinking ship. Rushing to write code without requirements, patchwork instead of architecture, and when there are any slips, testing gets cut to get it out the door. Of course these companies have had previous project challenges before, and could add a realist amount of slip time to the schedule, but they don't. That is a big part of why the GAO study said most software projects fail. And if you don't believe me I challenge you to pick any phone, read the reviews, and tell me how many times you see "it freezes" "crashes" "battery lasts three hours". This industry is a mess. It is nice to get a relatively inexpensive phone, but once you go thru the hassle of crashes, returned phones, etc, is it really worth the price ?
  13. samab's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,060 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by tholap View Post
    I'm not buying the whole it is too hard to port webos to another chipset.
    It is also a fact that Honeycomb tablets initially only ship with Tegra 2 chips and Windows Mobile 7 initially only ship with Qualcomm chips. You don't think that Microsoft would want to support other chipsets???

    Blackberry 7 handsets and the Playbook faced massive delays because Marvell chips sucked so badly that RIM had to spend months and months porting their stuff to Qualcomm and TI chipsets.
  14. JLegacy's Avatar
    Posts
    320 Posts
    Global Posts
    323 Global Posts
    #34  
    Sounds like most of the trouble in the last year has been on the software side, rather than with the hardware. It's ridiculous to think that HP axing their own hardware will solve anything.

    Sounds like they need new management for the software side of thing, hopefully the recent switchup will help solve this...but I'm skeptical.
    Peace, Freedom, Prosperity.

    If you have a complaint/request relating to webOS please use the Feedback & Feature Requests Form at the official site.
  15. aFo
    aFo is offline
    aFo's Avatar
    Posts
    8 Posts
    Global Posts
    23 Global Posts
    #35  
    Assuming this is all true, it's very alarming to hear what was going on at HP/Palm. Lots of mismanagement and it seems like the announcement to shut down webOS wasn't supposed to be for another few months. They were caught them off guard and are still trying to pick up the pieces
    I guess it's standard industry stuff, but it's also surprising to me to hear that marketing teams and executives get to decide hardware specs and not the engineers. Go figure
  16. emuneee's Avatar
    Posts
    96 Posts
    Global Posts
    123 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by afo3262 View Post
    Assuming this is all true, it's very alarming to hear what was going on at HP/Palm. Lots of mismanagement and it seems like the announcement to shut down webOS wasn't supposed to be for another few months. They were caught them off guard and are still trying to pick up the pieces
    I guess it's standard industry stuff, but it's also surprising to me to hear that marketing teams and executives get to decide hardware specs and not the engineers. Go figure
    Well ideally, it should be marketing setting specs because a good marketing person/organization would be in tune with what the market wants, upcoming technologies, etc. There is alway input from engineering but marketing should take the lead on things like this because there is s lot of business-sy things that need to be thought of like desired margins, carriers, etc.
  17. #37  
    While I believe this employees is legitmate, and is telling it as he sees it, I do believe that what he sees, or thinks he sees, is only a very small part of the real situation.

    He's an assistant technician... that's a very isolated position, and anything he finds out outside of his own world is purely speculation, at best.

    We'll see over the next couple of weeks what unfolds.
    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  18. #38  
    this may have been the C40....
  19. srb151's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    80 Global Posts
    #39  
    The truth of the port lies somewhere in the middle. WebOs does indeed
    run on a few different chips, but there are other parts other than the cpu core.
    There's an excellent article on this at anandtech about this.

    AnandTech - It's Not Qualcomm's Fault: Dispelling TouchPad Myths
  20. Hobbz's Avatar
    Posts
    273 Posts
    Global Posts
    279 Global Posts
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnygewitter View Post
    Why would he need two other accounts? Original one was amaathrowaway, then amaathrowawayLOSTPW, and then even another one throwawayOS?
    Somewhere in that thread, he does mention that he lost his password and says the "OS" one isn't his account.


    Quote Originally Posted by johnnygewitter View Post
    And additionally, as someone there pointed out, he's only ever talking about "Web OS", I don't believe someone from the Palm webOS team would spell it that way.
    I wouldn't put a bunch of weight into that point. Walmart officially changed their name from "Wal-Mart" and people keep spelling it the old way. Even new spell check software has the old version.


    When looking at the points he says and match it up to the info we knew here on PreCentral, it seems to line up. I'm not saying he's legit. All I'm saying is you have to look underneath the surface.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions