Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 84
  1. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #61  
    The only way I see HP licensing webOS is if there's a chance it will help to sell more of their own hardware. I don't think that licensing profits alone will be enough to push wide licensing. They need licensing + hardware or licensing + service sales to really make it compelling.

    For instance if they license to Samsung which also has it's own phones and PCs then HP risks losing customers to Samsung and maybe only getting the printer side of the business. Whereas if they license to Ford or GM they may reinforce their the HP brand and create a compelling product tie-in which encourages consumers to purchase HP webOS compatible phones, tablets, PCs, and printers.

    Where it might make sense to license to Samsung is in the appliance market. But then the same argument above works in reverse with Samsung, in that Samsung would lose potential customers to HP in the phone and PC market.

    I think short term HP has to look at non-competing companies to license webOS. They will bring in companies that add to the ecosystem. Then they can expand to competitors in very restricted areas. Then maybe after they are significantly established and people have made the connection webOS === HP, then they can license it to competitors in a less restrictive fashion.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by nhavar View Post
    Whereas if they license to Ford or GM they may reinforce their the HP brand and create a compelling product tie-in which encourages consumers to purchase HP webOS compatible phones, tablets, PCs, and printers.
    I still think this is an AWESOME idea.
    I love physical keyboards... but there is two devices that would make me consider a slab, one is something running a full version of Open webOS. The other is an iPhone!!!! HA HA just kidding (about the iPhone that is)...
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by Suntan View Post
    Which is it?

    Either non-WebOS phones are all the same, or they are always coming out with new ones. Which is pretty much the definition of unique.

    If WebOS’s claim to fame is that their target customer thinks “Nobody else wants them” then they are doomed.

    -Suntan
    I don't think you understood what I said. Android is a dime a dozen. They're everywhere and the OS is not unique among phones. WebOS is.
  4. #64  
    Guys, you are overexerting with fragmentation concern. With one "controlled" and unified hardware/software platform such is WebOS we have diversity of devices fragmented both in hardware and software. Fragmentation is a common and inevitable.
    Licensing WebOS would brig fresh air to WebOS.
  5. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSkoolVWLover View Post
    I still think this is an AWESOME idea.
    Yeah and I think it falls more inline with what Leo has stated. When Ruby said that they'd think about licensing, Leo was more specific in that they'd license to more select companies that add value to the ecosystem.
  6. #66  
    Samsung sold 10 millions of Galaxy S phones. Imagine it was WebOS device. Wouldn't that add any value to ecosystem?
  7. #67  
    HOLY FRAP.

    Samsung. Sony.

    Big names in the TV and Media industry! webOS on TVs! Egads! LCDs. LEDs. Personal entertainment devices. All running webOS.

    How's THAT for an ecosystem?

    Imagine syncing your profile to EVERY gadget/appliance from these other brands.

    *Faints*
  8. ijip's Avatar
    Posts
    885 Posts
    Global Posts
    960 Global Posts
    #68  
    Leo was talking about more than just phones, for example, internet enabled tv's, cable boxes, stereos, mp3 players.

    yes they may also license it for phones, but i believe that will only happen is they have a compelling hardware, as he also said, we dont want to sell the same phones with just a webos version of it.

    HP believes licensing as google and ms are doing actually devalues the brand since people will just think of it as just another phone.
    Want to help design and write an app?
    follow me at Twiiter @ijip
    THANKS~!!
  9. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by chalx View Post
    Samsung sold 10 millions of Galaxy S phones. Imagine it was WebOS device. Wouldn't that add any value to ecosystem?
    No, because it would help Samsung sell phones but not help HP sell phones, tablets or PCs at this point. Average users wouldn't make any association between webOS on a Samsung phone to HP. So it provides no BUSINESS value right now. Would it provide USER value, ABSOLUTELY. But the two aren't always in alignment.

    You wouldn't want to be a company that builds a great product and then an ecosystem, only to have that great product misidentified as someone else's great product. "Oh yeah my phone is the greatest, it has Samsung's webOS!"

    Remember Google built buzz and brand association between the Google name and the Android OS for about a year or more before it started broad licensing efforts. And it wasn't encumbered by trying to compete in multiple hardware categories or driving enterprise adoption. Then you can look at Apple and the fact that they've gotten HUGE market share without even the thought of licensing. Just a few short years ago no one would have predicted what a break out hit they had on their hands.
  10. #70  
    LA, when asked directly about licensing WebOS to other manufacturers, said that they would have to bring "something special" for them to do it. JR later said "something "unique".

    When asked specifically what his response would be if HTC approached HP to license WebOS, LA said "That would certainly be something to consider".

    Let's face it, I don't think HP ever planned on licensing it out, but, if Samsung or HTC came to HP with a unique device, whether it is a smartphone design, a tablet, or TV even, and wanted to put WebOS on it, HP would be foolish to not at least entertain it.

    Of course, they wouldnt want to cut their nose to spite their faces and make a competitive product to those that they are producing, but, for a simple example, let's say, Samsung wanted to put WebOS on an innovative smartphone device that they designed with two screens and a landscape keyboard, well, HP would certainl have no issue with that because thier phones are, to date, portrait sliding hardware keyboards, single screen.

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

  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by nhavar View Post
    No, because it would help Samsung sell phones but not help HP sell phones, tablets or PCs at this point. Average users wouldn't make any association between webOS on a Samsung phone to HP. So it provides no BUSINESS value right now. Would it provide USER value, ABSOLUTELY. But the two aren't always in alignment.
    You can't say that without knowing how HP would license webOS. It could be a huge revenue stream that can be put towards making it that much better. Just because it's licensed, doesn't mean they would let other mfgs alter the OS.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhavar View Post
    You wouldn't want to be a company that builds a great product and then an ecosystem, only to have that great product misidentified as someone else's great product. "Oh yeah my phone is the greatest, it has Samsung's webOS!"
    Really? Seriously? Look at Windows. When you buy a Dell or Lenovo or whatever, people know it's Microsoft Windows that is driving the PC. Again, just because the OS is licensed, I wouldn't assume that HP would allow other hardware mfgs to change it.
  12. #72  
    Just saying the windows example is a bad one. Most people don't even know how to use windows, also windows was pretty much the only game in town for quite some time. And in reality the market as a whole has been windows and apple to the average consumer. The cell phone marketspace is a different beast.


    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    I love physical keyboards... but there is two devices that would make me consider a slab, one is something running a full version of Open webOS. The other is an iPhone!!!! HA HA just kidding (about the iPhone that is)...
  13. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodWulf View Post
    You can't say that without knowing how HP would license webOS. It could be a huge revenue stream that can be put towards making it that much better. Just because it's licensed, doesn't mean they would let other mfgs alter the OS.
    HP restricting the licensing enough to retain control and pricing it high enough to make it a considerable revenue stream would decrease it's value to the licensee and therefor reduce adoption and the earnings potential for HP.

    Quote Originally Posted by WoodWulf View Post
    Really? Seriously? Look at Windows. When you buy a Dell or Lenovo or whatever, people know it's Microsoft Windows that is driving the PC. Again, just because the OS is licensed, I wouldn't assume that HP would allow other hardware mfgs to change it.
    Microsoft has been around for how many years, has put how many billions of dollars of marketing into the Microsoft === Windows name/brand association. They've splattered their logos, software, trademarks, stickers, and EULA's on how many millions of devices in how many millions of homes and companies.

    They didn't get there with Windows over night and they didn't ship on every PC in the world when they first started. I bought my first copy of Windows 1.0 retail and installed it over the top of DOS on an AT&T 8086. The only reason I knew about it was because my uncle mentioned hearing something about it at work.

    You can see the problems with branding today when you ask an average user to open Firefox, Chrome, or Internet Explorer. They'll say "what? Oh do you mean the Internet." They can't tell you who makes Firefox or Chrome. They know they followed a link or someone told them to download it. They don't know who makes half of the stuff that comes bundled on their PC or their phone for that matter unless there's a huge expensive and long lasting marketing campaign that drills it into their head for months if not years. (see Google - Android)

    HP needs a solid year of marketing and name association until it can start broad licensing and even after that year their going to need more marketing as well as their partners pushing the brand to be successful. 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. So on the business side it's going to be a little hard to come around to actually executing on that kind of strategy. While the higher ups might pay lip service to it at Samsung, that's as much to put pressure on Google, as it is any real thought as to licensing an alternative OS like webOS.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by nhavar View Post
    No, because it would help Samsung sell phones but not help HP sell phones, tablets or PCs at this point. Average users wouldn't make any association between webOS on a Samsung phone to HP. So it provides no BUSINESS value right now. Would it provide USER value, ABSOLUTELY. But the two aren't always in alignment.
    Like Leo, I was talking about adding value to ecosystem and user value, not about HP's stocks value.
    Millions of WebOS devices in use would bring more developers to platform than any synthetic corporate action like one HP is trying to pull right now with recruiting new developers.
    Don't let positive public attitude of HP execs toward WebOS to full you. They changed story twice from Palm purchase till today - first about WebOS on phones and other about licensing. It's a sign that they basically bought Palm because it was cheap purchase, without firm idea what to do with it. Now, investments in WebOS exceeded initial 1.2 billion by a lot, so it's natural HP is expecting some cash to come. HP projected 4 millions sold TouchPads. What if they fail? Does anyone think HP investors will be cool with that outcome?
    I think potential low sales of Veer, TP and Pre3 could harm HP and WebOS more than adding custom launcher or lock screen on WebOS by Samsung or HTC.
  15. #75  
    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?

    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.
    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.

    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.
  16. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by chalx View Post
    Like Leo, I was talking about adding value to ecosystem and user value, not about HP's stocks value.
    Millions of WebOS devices in use would bring more developers to platform than any synthetic corporate action like one HP is trying to pull right now with recruiting new developers.
    Don't let positive public attitude of HP execs toward WebOS to full you. They changed story twice from Palm purchase till today - first about WebOS on phones and other about licensing. It's a sign that they basically bought Palm because it was cheap purchase, without firm idea what to do with it. Now, investments in WebOS exceeded initial 1.2 billion by a lot, so it's natural HP is expecting some cash to come. HP projected 4 millions sold TouchPads. What if they fail? Does anyone think HP investors will be cool with that outcome?
    I think potential low sales of Veer, TP and Pre3 could harm HP and WebOS more than adding custom launcher or lock screen on WebOS by Samsung or HTC.
    ROFLMAO!!! Leo is a CEO he never talks about increasing user value without knowing first that it increases shareholder value. If he's not improving the valuation of the stock then he's out. The shareholder is who Leo is beholden to and not the user.

    Hurd's statements after the Palm purchase should be taken in light who they came out of. Hurd doesn't think about how his statements will be taken. He just blurts stuff out without clarification. So when he says "we didn't buy Palm to get into the smartphone business" he doesn't back it up with "only" or "we're already in the business" he just leaves it out there for people to do what they will with and he moves on to sabotage something else. Go back and look through more than just Hurd's statements and you see a consistent message from the rest of his management team and investor relations about webOS across multiple platforms including phones, pcs, printers and other connected devices. There's no disparity there.

    You can't take blurbs from higher ups to shape your view of direction. Just like when Ruby said that they might license webOS. He didn't make any promises. He didn't mention specific plans. He just said they'd be open to it. Leo backed up that statement with clarification that it would need to be unique and offer something to the ecosystem. He seemed to clearly favor something other than phones. At the same time he has to make it clear that if Samsung or HTC came forward with an offer that he'd at least entertain the idea. If he didn't then the shareholders would be banging down his office door and foisting him from office. So neither of your examples are inconsistent with the original statements or direction of webOS.
  17. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodWulf View Post
    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.

    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.
    I'm not saying that for licensing to be successful that there has to be name recognition. I'm saying that for HP to consider licensing it would have to be a considerable revenue stream. The only way it can be a considerable revenue stream is 1) initially high licensing cost until volume increases 2) low licensing cost under the premise that exposure through licensing draws consumers to other products that generate the primary revenue.

    Maybe a more appropriate example is Google. Android is not licensed to generate revenue. It's licensed in order to gain exposure and to drive hits to Google's primary revenue generator - the search engine. The search engine is Google's "castle".

    Likewise Microsoft uses Windows licensing to gain exposure and drive people to Bing and more importantly to server products, Office, and consulting services which are their largest revenue streams. Licensing is a means to an end, not the end.

    HP would need a similar strategy. The problem is that HP hasn't built the association to help drive consumers to those other revenue streams. It doesn't have a search engine. It doesn't have a recognizable retail software offering it can sell. It's unlikely that Samsung is going to want to help them build those pathways since they are competing for the same revenue. Samsung isn't going to want to promote an HP product that leads sales away from Samsung's own PC/Laptop/Tablet offerings. At the same time Samsung isn't going to want to pay a premium in licensing fees for an OS that doesn't have a proven adoption rate. The only way to sweeten a licensing only deal is for HP to reduce licensing costs and forego any secondary revenue stream for the time being.

    I feel sorry for any CEO going in front of their board of directors trying to make that argument. "Yeah we're going to license webOS that we spent almost 2 billion on to Samsung at a reduced rate. We think that will help us drive PC and printer sales 2 years from now." Shareholders want to know how your generating revenue NOW. HP's current strategy addresses both the short term and long term goal. They hedge their bets by making it clear to investors that it's a marathon, but without setting any time frames that are too far in the future as to spook investors. So there's potential for hardware sales generating a little revenue to start and as the ecosystem grows so does the revenue and revenue potential. The plan as it stands means that HP gets to prove the OS as capable, have solid data to present to potential licensees, and work out any kinks that could drive high support costs with those licensees.
  18. #78  
    webOS on a 55" LED TV would be cool. With Exhibition and Synergy, synced profile.
  19. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by Midway99 View Post
    webOS on a 55" LED TV would be cool. With Exhibition and Synergy, synced profile.
    And using Kinect API so that you don't have to be up on the TV to use it.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by nhavar View Post
    And using Kinect API so that you don't have to be up on the TV to use it.
    actually kinect seems made for webos

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions