12/28/2011, 01:28 PM
I agree with you. The concept that there was NO way to be successful is just stupid. It's all about execution, and there were hundreds of decisions to be made - that were, at critical junctures, made poorly. (Both by the old Palm and HP).
Originally Posted by koolkid09
Not sure about the licensing - though it looks good now in hindsight. I think they may have needed to build value in the brand first. But you may have a solid point, before they killed their credibility, Palm was a premier name in mobile tech... even though it had been a while since they came out with anything new. That is why they got the "free pass" from the tech press initially.
Timing (at a number of different milestones) was just awful. No need to beat that dead horse again.
Open sourcing the OS was the second worst outcome for webOS. The worst, of course, would have been if they had locked everything away in a vault and shut it all down. But the whole open source "we might make a webOS tablet in the future" thing feels like they are trying to get others to do their work so that they can reclaim the OS if it gets any traction.
Would have rather seen them do an "X Prize" type of arrangement where they allow teams to work on an OS / hardware combo. The winning team gets a large cash award and/or a few years of royalties for their work in exchange for allowing HP to jump on the gravy train that is created. (Imagine what webOS internals could do with an incentive like that!)
And totally reversing their direction was politically impossible given all of the bridges they burned with developers, resellers, suppliers, and customers. And that fact it would have been a rebuke to the entire board of directors.. the same BOD still in place at HP.