Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 105
  1.    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Disagree.

    In terms of quantity, I believe Palm updated WebOS far more times over the first 12 months than Android or Apple did their devices. Now, if we're talking the substance of each update....sure. Most of them were duds, IMO.

    As for marketing, that's a red herring. Where the device was marketed just fine (see Bell Canada's Pre commercials on YouTube), it failed there as well. It just never caught traction anywhere, really. And beyond the substance of the marketing, it was rather remarkable that the device was advertised on various carriers for, what, 8 months in the US? (Six months of Sprint and Palm advertising, combined with two months or so of Verizon ads). When was the last time a single device was advertised for that long across carriers?

    Similarly, I kept hearing over and over that the Pre Plus fixed many build quality issues, and that's the device that people on the top two carriers in the US got access to. They still didn't buy it.

    I think the form factor is a niche at best, and you don't try to establish a new platform by leading with a niche. That's why WP7 launched with a bunch of slabs. That's why Android started with a slide-out keyboard and quickly transitioned to mostly slabs. The Pre form factor - if that's all HP is going to put out in the foreseeable future - is an obstacle, not an asset. As part of a range of form factors and different devices.....maybe.
    the quantity of the updates is not what determines whether or not they were keeping up with the competition. It's about the features being added. Substance as you put it. Palm had a roadmap, but couldn't add features fast enough.

    Build quality and marketing had improved slightly, but not enough. Having a few decent commercials and having a good marketing campaign are two different things.

    as far as the formfactor argument, I don't have any data to argue against you. But I still think the reason anything formfactor succeeds is because the buying public is properly 'educated' on why that design is desireable. Palm has yet to do that. Those of us that like verticle sliders, know why. If palm isn't going to conform, then they need to explain why their design is better.
  2. #62  
    telling someone a design is better and actually being better are two different things entirely. On my nice big 4" screen I'm actually surfing more in landscape than portrait so it's quite easy to just slide open and type away. On my Pre, it didn't really matter because the screen was tiny in either direction so I stayed in portrait. So maybe it's not a big deal on the Veer either. Shame the Kin bombed. Would've been nice to see how it would've done had it stood a chance and could've led the way for the Veer's design.
    Pixi: Sold. Pre: Passed off to another rep. Touchpad: Just a toy until Cloud syncing arrives, and a better doc editor.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    the quantity of the updates is not what determines whether or not they were keeping up with the competition. It's about the features being added. Substance as you put it. Palm had a roadmap, but couldn't add features fast enough.
    Does it look like that's changed given what we heard on February 9?

    Build quality and marketing had improved slightly, but not enough. Having a few decent commercials and having a good marketing campaign are two different things.
    But again, Bell came out with a great, Apple-esque marketing campaign and still got no traction with it. I'm sure other countries marketed it differently. Is it more likely that every single ad campaign across the world was bad or that the sole common denominator - the Pre - just wasn't that desirable?

    If build quality was that big a culprit, why can't the Palm Pre 2 get any respect? Gorilla Glass, soft touch finish, supposedly better slider....seems like people should be all over it.

    as far as the formfactor argument, I don't have any data to argue against you. But I still think the reason anything formfactor succeeds is because the buying public is properly 'educated' on why that design is desireable. Palm has yet to do that. Those of us that like verticle sliders, know why. If palm isn't going to conform, then they need to explain why their design is better.
    I don't think any design is better for all people, but I do think some are best for most, based on utility and popularity. I just don't see a portrait slider being a smashing success regardless of who tries it. Dell (Venue Pro), RIM (Blackberry Torch), Microsoft (Kin)...no one seems to get this right, and those handsets didn't have the stigma of being virtual doubles for a predecessor like the Pre that failed just months prior.
  4. #64  
    I think the Pre2 isn't selling well because of it's predecessor and at this point people were looking more for the Pre3. The pre2 just wasn't enough of an upgrade. Those that would've been interested probably already jumped ship. After awhile, seeing incremental upgrades gets tiresome, and these aren't free phones. If I'm upgrading, I want to see real value. The Pre3 would've been real value then.

    It's a shame the 3 wasn't the 2. Wonder if it would have sold better. I would've bought a 3 then. Well, if they didn't snub sprint.
  5. #65  
    Price of the Veer would be the biggest factor in this I think. According to a regional Best Buy supervisor I know, one of their hottest phones this past holiday season was the free LG Optimus on Sprint that they had during Xmas (I think its $49) now. He said that almost everyone that got one was a trade-up from a feature or dumb phone and they had trouble in some places keeping them in stock. He says once (featrue and dumb) people saw they could get a much more capable phone than what they had at no up-front cost, the grabbed them up like.....(inside joke for those that followed an earlier thread)...."hotcakes."

    This WAS before the $10 increase on Sprint. I agree that there needs to be different pricing levels for the different phones. What hurt the Kin was that it was not really a smartphone, but it only had smartphone level data plans available.
  6.    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Does it look like that's changed given what we heard on February 9?
    webOS3.0 is right around the corner and looks feature rich. I'm not sure if it'll bring webOS to parity with the competition, but it does surpass the comp in some ways. we'll see.


    But again, Bell came out with a great, Apple-esque marketing campaign and still got no traction with it. I'm sure other countries marketed it differently. Is it more likely that every single ad campaign across the world was bad or that the sole common denominator - the Pre - just wasn't that desirable?
    at this point there were marketing a phone that was known to have hardware issues from a company having trouble keeping up with competitors as far as functionality is concerned. the bad press was already churning.


    If build quality was that big a culprit, why can't the Palm Pre 2 get any respect? Gorilla Glass, soft touch finish, supposedly better slider....seems like people should be all over it.
    do you seriously have to ask? how can you expect it to sell well when the carriers don't even acknowledge the fact that they're carrying it, let alone market it.

    I don't think any design is better for all people, but I do think some are best for most, based on utility and popularity. I just don't see a portrait slider being a smashing success regardless of who tries it. Dell (Venue Pro), RIM (Blackberry Torch), Microsoft (Kin)...no one seems to get this right, and those handsets didn't have the stigma of being virtual doubles for a predecessor like the Pre that failed just months prior.
    we'll see
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by crogs571 View Post
    telling someone a design is better and actually being better are two different things entirely. On my nice big 4" screen I'm actually surfing more in landscape than portrait so it's quite easy to just slide open and type away. On my Pre, it didn't really matter because the screen was tiny in either direction so I stayed in portrait. So maybe it's not a big deal on the Veer either. Shame the Kin bombed. Would've been nice to see how it would've done had it stood a chance and could've led the way for the Veer's design.
    Sometimes people won't recognize the usefulness of a particular design without "education". thats what marketing new ideas was all about. Look at how apple marketed the ipad. Before it's release, there were a lot of skeptics (myself included) who could not see the point of buying a tablet running iOS. So their ad campaign was focused on the virtues of having that larger real estate.

    Palm has chosen to make phones with a smaller screen for many practical reasons. But when the buying public saw the device, they just saw a phone with a little screen. They were largely unaware that few other smartphones were as usable with one hand. they were unaware how the gesture area, along with physical keys allowed for more effective use of screen real-estate. the truth is on iphone if you factor in the pixels wasted on back buttons and such, the pre's screensize is comparable to the iphones. but who knows that?
  8. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #68  
    More importantly - who cares? People simply aren't going to get around the tiny screen not unless this phone is sold for $100 contract free.
  9.    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by CGK View Post
    More importantly - who cares? People simply aren't going to get around the tiny screen not unless this phone is sold for $100 contract free.
    I don't think that the phone should be very expensive, but I think $100 contract free is ridiculous. No sense arguing, we'll just wait and see. But IMO if HP is effective in communicating the virtues of a smaller device, it could cell.
  10. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #70  
    I don't think that the phone should be very expensive, but I think $100 contract free is ridiculous. No sense arguing, we'll just wait and see. But IMO if HP is effective in communicating the virtues of a smaller device, it could cell.
    Well if we are to buy into the idea that what's holding back feature phone buyers* is partly cost, it's got to compete in that range - 2011 brings a whole raft of bigger cheaper android devices.




    * Leaving aside the fact that I'm still not convinced this is aimed towards converting feature phone users.
  11.    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by CGK View Post
    Well if we are to buy into the idea that what's holding back feature phone buyers* is partly cost, it's got to compete in that range - 2011 brings a whole raft of bigger cheaper android devices.




    * Leaving aside the fact that I'm still not convinced this is aimed towards converting feature phone users.
    they're releasing android phones at $100 off contract?
  12. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #72  
    Whoops, my conversion is a bit low - about $150 dollars. My blade cost me $120. It make take a while longer in the US (although ZTE are planning to enter the US market with phones at that price this year) but that's the reality pretty much anywhere else where they release this phone.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    do you seriously have to ask? how can you expect it to sell well when the carriers don't even acknowledge the fact that they're carrying it, let alone market it.
    You have it backwards. It's not that the Palm Pre 2 isn't selling because carriers aren't carrying it and marketing it. Carriers are not carrying it and marketing it because it won't sell. People aren't beating down their doors for this device. HP just threw it out without any promotion or support. The preceding product line was a failure. Why should they carry it?

    Which brings us to the Veer.

    Is this going to be a carrier priority anywhere? Unlikely. HP will have to put marketing muscle behind it (which will apparently be an AT&T exclusive in the US). Wonder if it'll be a rehash of the with hipsters having fun with their tiny, speedy phone....(this one had fashionable backs even)
  14. #74  
    Is there any substantive difference between the Pre 2 and Veer other than size? Is the bet that the Pre 2 would be successful if it was smaller? I'm really looking forward to seeing how this is promoted.
  15.    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    You have it backwards. It's not that the Palm Pre 2 isn't selling because carriers aren't carrying it and marketing it. Carriers are not carrying it and marketing it because it won't sell. People aren't beating down their doors for this device. HP just threw it out without any promotion or support. The preceding product line was a failure. Why should they carry it?

    Which brings us to the Veer.

    Is this going to be a carrier priority anywhere? Unlikely. HP will have to put marketing muscle behind it (which will apparently be an AT&T exclusive in the US). Wonder if it'll be a rehash of the Pixi ads with hipsters having fun with their tiny, speedy phone....(this one had fashionable backs even)
    if carriers knew how a phone would sell before it's released, we'd never have any flops... I can go into any store and find phones that people aren't beating down the doors for...

    i'm not saying the Pre2 would have been a blockbuster on sprint, but I think it stood a better chance than say, the Echo.

    1) carriers don't everyphone they sell to be a blockbuster
    2) the Pre2 wasn't even given a chance. It wouldn't have done Droid numbers, but it could have done well enough with a little push behind it.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Is there any substantive difference between the Pre 2 and Veer other than size? Is the bet that the Pre 2 would be successful if it was smaller? I'm really looking forward to seeing how this is promoted.
    There's a big difference: HP didn't really mean it with the Pre 2, but when the Veer drops, it's on.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    if carriers knew how a phone would sell before it's released, we'd never have any flops... I can go into any store and find phones that people aren't beating down the doors for...

    i'm not saying the Pre2 would have been a blockbuster on sprint, but I think it stood a better chance than say, the Echo.

    1) carriers don't everyphone they sell to be a blockbuster
    2) the Pre2 wasn't even given a chance. It wouldn't have done Droid numbers, but it could have done well enough with a little push behind it.
    When you say it wasn't given a chance, I think you mean that HP didn't give it a chance.

    It's now available for the two biggest carriers in America - one on subsidy, one not. HP has done nothing to allow further subsidies. It has done nothing to promote it. In fact, they announced superior versions of the device before this one went onsale, thereby kneecapping Verizon's offering further.
  18.    #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    When you say it wasn't given a chance, I think you mean that HP didn't give it a chance.

    It's now available for the two biggest carriers in America - one on subsidy, one not. HP has done nothing to allow further subsidies. It has done nothing to promote it. In fact, they announced superior versions of the device before this one went onsale, thereby kneecapping Verizon's offering further.
    Verizon could have released it last year. they chose not to.

    That said, one of the phones that HP is planning to heavily market is inferior (spec wise) to the Pre2. If what you say is true and HP smothered the Pre2 because they new it wouldn't sell anyway, then why would they put their faith in something that, according to you, is even more likely to under-perform.

    If more carriers wanted to carry the Pre2, they would have had it. its as simple as that.

    The Pre2 would have been a decent seller had it been given a decent push.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    Verizon could have released it last year. they chose not to.
    And HP could support it with an aggressive promotional push now, but they choose not to. Which one of these parties owns the product and is responsible for its welfare, again?

    That said, one of the phones that HP is planning to heavily market is inferior (spec wise) to the Pre2. If what you say is true and HP smothered the Pre2 because they new it wouldn't sell anyway, then why would they put their faith in something that, according to you, is even more likely to under-perform.
    No argument from me there. Neither device makes a lick of sense in the modern market, IMO. I don't see how a fatter, moving parts Pixi with dongles is going to succeed where the Pixi and Pixi Plus failed.

    If more carriers wanted to carry the Pre2, they would have had it. its as simple as that.

    The Pre2 would have been a decent seller had it been given a decent push.
    Who is responsible for the push, the carriers or HP?

    Isn't this the story of WebOS? It's not our fault.

    It's....

    .....the carriers for not supporting us more and doing better commercials for months on end.

    ...the Droid for beating us to Verizon and taking "our" slot.

    ...the advertising agency for creating an ineffective signature campaign that we signed off on...against our will

    ...Apple for not letting us leech off iTunes sync

    ...Sprint and AT&T for not agreeing to carry our latest device that we don't promote even as they're still getting rid of our last round of junk

    ...store reps for not being trained and motivated enough to push us over bigger screened phones with more apps and more mature OSes

    ...you, for just buying one Pre and touchstone instead of three. If you really loved us, you'd buy spares.
  20.    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    And HP could support it with an aggressive promotional push now, but they choose not to. Which one of these parties owns the product and is responsible for its welfare, again?



    No argument from me there. Neither device makes a lick of sense in the modern market, IMO. I don't see how a fatter, moving parts Pixi with dongles is going to succeed where the Pixi and Pixi Plus failed.



    Who is responsible for the push, the carriers or HP?

    Isn't this the story of WebOS? It's not our fault.

    It's....

    .....the carriers for not supporting us more and doing better commercials for months on end.

    ...the Droid for beating us to Verizon and taking "our" slot.

    ...the advertising agency for creating an ineffective signature campaign that we signed off on...against our will

    ...Apple for not letting us leech off iTunes sync

    ...Sprint and AT&T for not agreeing to carry our latest device that we don't promote even as they're still getting rid of our last round of junk

    ...store reps for not being trained and motivated enough to push us over bigger screened phones with more apps and more mature OSes

    ...you, for just buying one Pre and touchstone instead of three. If you really loved us, you'd buy spares.
    lol, I don't disagree with the fact that their were numerous screwups along the way. But, I also dont think that small screened smartphones are predisposed for failure. the small webOS phones that have failed already, did so because of the aforementioned screwups. and i also don't think that a multi-billion dollar company would engineer and market a product that they KNOW will fail.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions