All I'm saying is that who cares if the average user knows who webOS belongs to or that it belongs to HP. "webOS" is what HP wants people to remember and think about. Just like people know "Firefox", not Mozilla. If they associate it with HP as a company, great, if not, does it really matter at this point?
You're saying that in order for webOS licensing to be successful, there needs to be name recognition by the consumer with HP. I just don't agree with that point. Not when you are talking about partnering with the likes of Samsung and HTC. Now, if they are looking to partner with some unknown, small up-and-coming manufacturer, sure, agreed, because HP would have to stand on their name alone.
Firefox didn't gain popularity because people knew who created it. More and more people started using it because it they heard about it from a friend or co-worker or whomever. They had to go and download it and did so because they heard enough about it to become interested (yes, marketing in a sense, but not by Mozilla), it worked, it was faster, etc.
If webOS is put on more devices and it's solid and stable, developers have a better chance of becoming interested enough to write apps. If Samsung or HTC can put out high quality hardware and let HP focus on the quality of webOS, what's so bad about that?
I guess I don't follow your logic here. AT&T = Carrier, Android = OS = Google. Ok, you didn't mention Motorola which is the hardware.
For instance when AT&T promotes Droid [X] with Google's Android operating system, think about Samsung saying "Introducing the new Samsung Galaxy S IV with HP webOS". In doing that Samsung is promoting a competitor.
Samsung = hardware, which runs Android = OS = Google.
You're saying that Samsung can't opt to support both Android and webOS at the same time? Why not?
Promoting a competitor of who, Google, so what? Android is on more than just Samsung hardware. That's like saying Android can't go on HTC phones because it's also on Samsung.