webOS Nation Forums >  webOS Discussion >  Open webOS General Discussion > webOS: The Plan
webOS: The Plan
View Poll Results: Would you regularly give money to a community effort to support and develop webOS?
No, Never 21 10.61%
Yes, I'd start giving right away 76 38.38%
Yes, but only after I saw some results 101 51.01%
Voters: 198. You may not vote on this poll

  Reply
Like Tree19Likes

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01/08/2012, 03:10 AM   #41 (permalink)
Member
 
SnotBoogie's Avatar
 
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcedhk View Post
What you're seeing is exactly my point. There is no plan right now, which is why we need to put one together. There is no chance of anything really beneficial coming out of the open sourcing without a good plan in place.
I'm just saying if you want investment you need a real business plan to get my money. And i don't function on hope and faith.

And the poll is would you regularly give money? Well i couldn't remotely answer without a flushed out plan. Which the original post has very little of. like the OP mentions apps. well my question is which apps are priorities? How do you convince these companies when they wouldn't do it before? who makes the pitch to them? Who arranges the meetings? What's the budget for each? How much do you plan to pay Netflix to make an app? Or Mint.com? or whomever?What if they want double? What if they refuse? Who makes hardware? of the native apps what are you fixing first? How do you address the speed issues? I'm just saying until there were answers that i liked i wouldn't invest money. That's just me and my two cents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDsmartphone View Post
ok- lets leave the "we can't do this" people out of this thread.

seriously, why are you even posting in this thread???

you are detracting from the purpose of the original post.
Why? The original post didn't ask for yesmen. it asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcedhk View Post
are you on-board for this?
People are free to offer an opinion. Just cause people have differing opinions doesn't mean they shouldn't be free to express them. If you only want people that agree with you the poll should have only had two answers, Yes and yes and that's ludicrous.
__________________
You come at the king. You best not miss.

Last edited by SnotBoogie; 01/08/2012 at 03:25 AM.
SnotBoogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2012, 03:42 AM   #42 (permalink)
Homebrew Developer
 
Vistaus's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
You want mainstream companies to make apps you have to pay them and they aren't cheap, especially when with a small community they don't benefit much at all.
Well, no. That depends on how big the app is and how much time porting is gonna take. Porting something from iLand to webOS is fairly easy to do (though it does take time of course, but it's an easy way to port) for example. Let's say the app takes 3 hours to port to webOS and it's an app a lot of people see use in (for example WhatsApp which is really easy to port as a Synergy-plugin). They would make a lot of money from all the webOS-people. No, we're not talking billions, but the Touchpad only has at least 300.000 users (source: statistics). I'm sure that if the app is useful, at least 150.000 of them will buy it. That outweights the time/money it takes to port by far. I'm sure they do want that extra 150.000 users (which becomes more eventually of course plus it's more than 300.000 total so...).

So yes, it will benefit them (except for game companies and stuff 'cause that takes a lot of time).
Vistaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2012, 07:34 AM   #43 (permalink)
Member
 
vladi's Avatar
 
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
i'm just saying i think you can raise a billion dollars and it wouldn't be enough. And no offense but the webos community loves things like vertical sliders and the touchpad. Me not so much so what they want isn't really what i want. Thus i wouldn't trust them spending my money. But from a practical standpoint i think to make a mainstream successful phone operating system it would take billions, plural per year just to even have a chance. You want mainstream companies to make apps you have to pay them and they aren't cheap, especially when with a small community they don't benefit much at all. what's the goal too? to just have it hacked onto hardware? That's nice but doesn't really interest me. If you want it on third party hardware good luck but point is you need some company to make hardware, design, it manufacture it, sell it and considering the poor sales who would take a shot buying the devices? Another thing is i'm not interested in tablets and i don't see webos getting much support for phones in the future. Even Meg said she doesn't anticipate them in the phone business. That's not absolute but seem to me the future of webos is mostly tablets. I'm not trying to poo poo on peoples dreams i'm just convinced that unless some big company comes in and decides they want to rescue it and throw tons of money at it the future is for hackers and hobbyists. I'm neither. Either way the first post poses plenty of questions but I'd need a fully flushed business plan that i believe in before i'd give my money away. That's just me. And i'm an unlikely candidate anyways but i wish you luck.

You are looking way too much into it Nobody here is making a commercial mobile OS that will take over the world, this project will be a perfect exercise for all the people that want to contribute and in the end you might end up with OS thats tailored to your needs. Thats all, nothing more than personal satisfaction and hunger for mastery.

Its really not about the apps or number of apps but rather about quality of the apps. I think we rather have 3 apps that we all need and use than 30 that only one or two people will use. Thats called being app efficient

Being an enthusiast project also has it advantages as you really don't need big licensing agreements and this gives us an option to include BBS into synergy or even MSN for example. There are ways to improve the experience without much money. As a matter of fact HP never needed a lot of money to make WebOS good (they needed more efficient people) but where they needed money is to make sales
vladi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2012, 07:48 AM   #44 (permalink)
cgk
Member
 
cgk's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Being an enthusiast project also has it advantages as you really don't need big licensing agreements and this gives us an option to include BBS into synergy
No it doesn't - not unless I've missed something and RIM now license this technology.
cgk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2012, 02:46 PM   #45 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 400
As this thread has developed over the last few days, I think one of the major obstacles that people keep bringing up is the lack of hardware, and that at this point no manufacturer is going to risk the many $millions needed to develop new hardware for an OS that 2 major players in Technology couldn't make a success of. This is true. However, it does not tell the whole story:

It is not necessary to design new hardware at this time
HP made some smart choices re the specs of the TouchPads. The hardware is capable of running webOS with a performance level that is satisfactory to many with the current 3.0.4 webOS version, and with a level that is praiseworthy to those who have applied some assorted enhancements from webOS Internals. Because of this, rather than design a new device from scratch, a third party would have the option of licensing the existing TouchPad and TouchPad Go designs from HP, choosing the Chinese factory of their choice (or better yet, working with the same factories that HP was using), and be able to produce TP's without incurring R&D costs. They would even be able to make small improvements, such as providing 4G and GPS capabilities to all models as opposed to just the 64GB, and swapping in an upgraded camera that you could actually use for something, without incurring significant extra costs.

Getting this hardware built is not dependent on the open sourcing efforts
A lot of us have made the mistaken assumption that we would not be able to get any new hardware until after the source code is released. That is not true. A third party who is putting webOS on same spec TP hardware they manufactured themselves (as described above) could potentially license webOS and load it onto the devices without having to access the source code. Even if this was not the case and they did need access to some parts of the code, HP could make these parts available to them under their license agreement. Proprietary closed source does not mean that no one else ever gets to see the source, it just means that you need permission and you can only use it in the ways the owner has specified that you can. Even though there is code in webOS that HP does not own and must strip out before they release the source, the third party may be able to either sub-license it from HP, or license it from the IP holder as well.

Only a major manufacturer like HTC, Samsung, ZTC etc would be able to, or would consider putting out webOS hardware
This is not true. There are second and third tier Chinese manufacturers out there that are looking for ways to distinguish themselves, and they are currently engaged in trying to outdo each other by putting out the cheapest devices they can that will still run Android. At some point some of them are going to have to reevaluate and look at other options, such as webOS. I'm sure much of what they would initially put out would probably not be attractive at all to many people in more prosperous countries, but there are other markets where consumers are......less discriminating, and success there could lead to success in other areas down the road.
marcedhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by Daughain, gerzhwin, renater
Old 01/08/2012, 03:05 PM   #46 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 246
@marcedhk
I like you're thinking. However it's unlikely that HP would license their tablet hardware to 3rd parties. Meg said that they're still considering releasing new webOS tablet hardware themselves. It won't make sense to allow competitors building cheap clones at this stage, unless they decide otherwise (which might happen).
Phones is a different story as HP is not likely to release new phones. Maybe a Pre2 or Pre3 clone is an option? Which company has the guts to give them a call and the means to deliver?
Anyone among us who has some contacts or just some money to invest ;-)
renater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2012, 03:11 PM   #47 (permalink)
Member
 
vladi's Avatar
 
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGK View Post
No it doesn't - not unless I've missed something and RIM now license this technology.
Yup, BBS exists on Symbian and as a matter of fact I used it on my now defunct UIQ powered SE G900. So BB is willing to cooperate and all you need to do is ask them (the right people) politely if they are willing to support little homebrew project
vladi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2012, 03:44 PM   #48 (permalink)
Member
 
SnotBoogie's Avatar
 
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vistaus View Post
Well, no. That depends on how big the app is and how much time porting is gonna take. Porting something from iLand to webOS is fairly easy to do (though it does take time of course, but it's an easy way to port) for example. Let's say the app takes 3 hours to port to webOS and it's an app a lot of people see use in (for example WhatsApp which is really easy to port as a Synergy-plugin). They would make a lot of money from all the webOS-people. No, we're not talking billions, but the Touchpad only has at least 300.000 users (source: statistics). I'm sure that if the app is useful, at least 150.000 of them will buy it. That outweights the time/money it takes to port by far. I'm sure they do want that extra 150.000 users (which becomes more eventually of course plus it's more than 300.000 total so...).

So yes, it will benefit them (except for game companies and stuff 'cause that takes a lot of time).
I said mainstream not whatsapp. I've never even heard that. That right there is 100% why i would not give money. Cause people would be aiming at what's app but i need much much higher goals.

Go get me a Netflix. Starbucks card, Youtube that interfaces with my account. Garmin navigation, Tom Tom, Mint.com, Delta, NFL, Netflix etc, You're aiming way way way too low and that destroys my confidence. I don't care most about the novelty apps by small developers. If its only three hours and they still haven't done a whatsapp app yet what new do we bring to the table that HP or Palm didn't? Yes, you need to pay them. The references of billions was to the total cost of running a webos platform. it's fixing the software, marketing, staff, support, buying materials, research.

And you bring up whatsapp. I just looked it up. There's a thread that's almost two years old asking for whatsapp. http://forums.webosnation.com/webos-...app-webos.html even the guy in the thread said he got a email form whatsapp stating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyckedankh View Post
I just got a reply back from them tonight.

WebOS market share is unfortunately too small. We are still considering it for 2011 and hope to make a decision soon.

THx,
--b
the guy below him got the same response. Clearly the tiny marketshare was a real problem in 2010. It's worse now. Clearly it's not time to port that's the issue and from everything i've read many of these apps are not simple 3 hour ports many apps.

But it's fantasy to think half of any users will buy any app. I only bought one webos app ever.

lastly, i don't have or want at tablet. I have a phone. So i'm not gonna be persuaded by saying there are 300k tablet users or they'll make a tablet app. But it's still fantasy. And alot of this is just simply unrealistic. my two cents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vladi View Post
You are looking way too much into it Nobody here is making a commercial mobile OS that will take over the world, this project will be a perfect exercise for all the people that want to contribute and in the end you might end up with OS thats tailored to your needs. Thats all, nothing more than personal satisfaction and hunger for mastery.
I only have interest in a commercial phone OS. I have no interest in some small project. If that's the goal it's way to small for me. cause it's not gonna end up on my phone. I'm convinced the direction most here want webos to go is not remotely what i want in a phone OS. I'd be like burning money to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vladi View Post
Its really not about the apps or number of apps but rather about quality of the apps.
Well, it is about the apps to me. it's simple either you have the app or you don't. a good twitter app doesn't replace no netflix app. You need quality & quantity. not one or the other. I want apps and that this is placed so low as a priority shows me my money would be poorly spent as you don't have the same priorities as me. Apps are a big thing. I do want lots. I want choice and options. Lots of them. And bottom line before you can compare quality you have to actually get the app. But you guys want something different then me. It's a hobbyist project to me. It's small like ubuntu. Not for me. Good luck with it.
__________________
You come at the king. You best not miss.

Last edited by SnotBoogie; 01/08/2012 at 10:53 PM.
SnotBoogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2012, 08:20 PM   #49 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 1,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vistaus View Post
Let's say the app takes 3 hours to port to webOS and it's an app a lot of people see use in
3 hours?!? That is a HUGE assumption. Any app that does anything other than say "Hello, World!" is going to take orders of magnitude longer than 3 hours to port. Sure, sure, you heard all the press that people could port apps to webOS using the PDK in a matter of hours, but if it was really this easy the app catalog would be significantly larger than it is right now.
Mikey47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/08/2012, 09:25 PM   #50 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 157
depends on the app's original platform and IDE. Porting a 3d iOS game is easy-peasy (1-5 man-days by most accounts) because both iOS and WebOS use the open source SDL 3d package and identical resolutions.

Any developer who uses the PhoneGap kit to write apps can port at least some of their app, if not the entire app, to 7 different OSes with minutes of effort.

Otherwise, yeah, it can totally suck. Porting a java-like Android app to anything else, even other versions of Android, can be a pain.
kigmatzomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/09/2012, 10:46 AM   #51 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcedhk View Post
What would motivate them to do that though? Maybe if ICS fails to live up to the hype where usability is concerned...but even then, they could just drop their own interface layer on top of it? Why would a manufacturer pass up the benefits of basing a product on a stable, established ecosystem and work with a struggling one that they don't actually own?

I suppose it would get them a great deal of media attention - the media would be climbing all over themselves to cover it. But then the scrutiny of the device would be intense - it would have to deliver in a big way to keep from being ripped to shreds in the press. Anything less than a great unit would be called a disappointment.

In a word, differentiation. Right now every manufacturer, except possibly Samsung, is struggling to differentiate their phone offerings from all the other dozens of android phones in the market which have nearly identical specs. What this has led to is Android surging up the smartphone marketshare charts, but with firm profits not seeing a comparable surge (Note, I'm not saying the manufacturers are unprofitable, but that Android's skyrocketing marketshare has not translated to skyrocketing profits and in fact the deluge of Android phones is starting to put pressure on margins.)

I will agree that for a manufacturer to go with webOS, it probably needs a reason beyond differentiation. A few ideas just of the top of my head:

1. RIMM realizes it's cheaper to build a BBM differentiation strategy off webOS than maintaining inhouse development and support of its own operating system.

2. Sony sees an opportunity in webOS's flexability to build a differentiation strategy around interconnectivity of its products and content. webOS can run phones, tablets and printers, why couldn't it run a gaming console, or be connected to TV's (I'll let those more versed in the nuts and bolts of technology tell my why this isn't possible.)

3. Something similar for to Sony (minus the gaming console) could be put together for LG and their appliances.


Additionally, there is the reality that every other major operating system now has a "favored" device manufacturer. Apple is a closed shop and both Google and MS have purchased device manufacturers in recent months. Of course, this doesn't mean either Google, or MS, will treat these device manufacturers favorably, or possibly take the OS completely in house, but they could.

These are, of course, ideas for webOS driving to capture the 3rd OS position. To do that, I think, will require a not insignificant investment of effort and resources from HP. How much money and resources they will devote to these efforts remains to be seen. If they simply cut it loose, it will be a hobbyists OS from here on out. If they make and aggressively market a new tablet, it has a puncher's chance. If HP aggressively pursues a tablet line and equally aggressively pursues a phone manufacturer partner, then I would say it is a legitimate contentder for the third spot (which should be the immediate goal).

Gargoyle
gargoylejps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/10/2012, 03:43 PM   #52 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 400
I'm looking at this as a "hope for the best, but plan for the worst" scenario. Best case would be a top tier manufacturer licensing webOS within this year and moving straight into putting out new hardware. A somewhat middling outcome would be for HP to decide to put out new hardware in 2013. Worst case is HP decides not to do any more hardware, no major manufacturer decides to take webOS on, and we have to look to second and third tier manufacturers.

I don't know that we can do anything that will move the needle much for scenarios 1 and 2. I've seen people suggest that we should organize a petition drive to show that the interest is there. A top manufacturer isn't going to make a decision based on that though, the most we could hope is that it would provide some reassurance to one who is already considering webOS, or put it on their radar if they are looking for an alternate OS. And don't forget HP already sent out a survey a couple months ago and determined that they wouldn't put out hardware this year, and out of everybody they are the ones for whom putting out new hardware would have been the easiest decision to make. Furthermore, i would expect that any manufacturer talking to HP about doing webOS hardware would be given access to at least summary findings from that survey, so I'm not sure us doing a petition would convey any sentiments they won't already be aware of. ( I do believe though that we need to organize a series of polls so that we can get a better appreciation of community sentiment on different issues and reach a consensus on the steps we need to take.)

As far as the small manufacturers are concerned, this is where I feel we might be able to influence matters. I know some of you are skeptical about this, and reminding us that HP spent billions on webOS, and that the smaller manufacturers aren't able to commit that level of resources. Agreed. But do they really need to commit anywhere near that much? Some of us don't think so. That then leads to the next question, which is just how much would it take? I don't know, and it seems no one else does either. So lets find out.

The first step is figuring out what we would want/need. In terms of a tablet, as I mentioned before I still consider the TP specs generally current, and that the hardware delivers a good level of performance that will remain current for another 12 months or so. I would however like to see:

A case that is not crack-prone. This might mean switching to a different type of plastic or lightweight metal, or shrinking down the size of the speaker ports, or repositioning them.

A usable camera. Not only is the quality of the camera extremely poor, but it is placed or oriented so badly that it is impossible to use for it's intended purpose. If I am using the tablet, it is not pointing at my face, and during a video chat if I'm looking at the other party on the screen, it is not pointing at my face. The only position in which it shows my face correctly is if I hold the tablet at my waist in portrait mode. I think this is something which need to be improved.

GPS

A Compass

As far as the handsets are concerned, I haven't a clue as I don't have a webOS phone.


Everyone, please feel free to jump in and add your 2 cents...
marcedhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/10/2012, 07:45 PM   #53 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by inertia1 View Post
Fusion Garage has tried to do the same thing on a small scale over the past couple of years and just went bankrupt owing $40 million. Aren't we talking about multiple millions, at least?
I had completely forgotten about Fusion Garage. They were working on tablet devices with their own customized Android, and actually got a couple models to market. The reviews were pretty bad though, so it's not surprising they went under. $40 million in the hole leaves me wondering how much was actually spent on designing the hardware. They had been selling product, so there would have been manufacturing costs and so on.

I saw an interview with their CEO earlier from a few months ago where he said that for their first tablet they had about 8 engineers working on it, but for the last one they had 70 engineers, and apparently they spent a lot of money on a big marketing campaign.

Interestingly, their first round of funding was $2.7 million, and this covered the manufacturing costs of their first tablet device. Much of the development had already been done before that though, so it's not a real indicator of the design and development costs. It'd be good to find out how much it cost a small company to get their prototypes together, before they were in a position to waste the money of outside investors!

What we can conclude from all this though is that we are in fact talking in the millions, not the billions as some had suggested.
marcedhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/10/2012, 10:55 PM   #54 (permalink)
Member
 
SnotBoogie's Avatar
 
Posts: 787
it's billions if you want a mass marketed commercial product with a global launch that is marketed, supported and has adequate advertising to compete with apple, microsoft, google, blackberry and hell even samsung. But i don't think it matters cause nobody's giving anyone multimillions for people with no real plan or decision making power. so millions or billions i don't think it matters because the people doing the work are developers and people like those at webos internals or hp not in this thread where 35 people said they'd give money up front. They are the ones making decisions not a bunch of random people in some precentral message board. billion or millions i don't think it matters. It's like a dwarf trying to dunk.
__________________
You come at the king. You best not miss.
SnotBoogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/11/2012, 03:23 AM   #55 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcedhk View Post
I'm looking at this as a "hope for the best, but plan for the worst" scenario. Best case would be a top tier manufacturer licensing webOS within this year and moving straight into putting out new hardware. A somewhat middling outcome would be for HP to decide to put out new hardware in 2013. Worst case is HP decides not to do any more hardware, no major manufacturer decides to take webOS on, and we have to look to second and third tier manufacturers.
Your best and middling sound about right but worst case is not even close to what could happen. Worst case is that WebOS doesn't come out until fall for open source, is missing many of the good parts because of licensing issues, is already behind the rest of the industry, and is swept under the rug as another write off for HP, never seeing it on any decent hardware as manufactured or even worth the time for independent devs to even port it onto existing hardware.
kalel33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/11/2012, 03:28 AM   #56 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey47 View Post
3 hours?!? That is a HUGE assumption. Any app that does anything other than say "Hello, World!" is going to take orders of magnitude longer than 3 hours to port. Sure, sure, you heard all the press that people could port apps to webOS using the PDK in a matter of hours, but if it was really this easy the app catalog would be significantly larger than it is right now.
Even if it only took a few days, the HP catalog would have over 100,000 apps in it because the ROI would huge when compared to the time put into it. If it's so easy then every major app would grace the catalog. No developer would sit there and say "Nah, I don't want to put in 24/10/3 hours of work because the Touchpad has less than a million customers". That's just common sense and I agree with you.
kalel33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/11/2012, 04:50 AM   #57 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by kigmatzomat View Post
depends on the app's original platform and IDE. Porting a 3d iOS game is easy-peasy (1-5 man-days by most accounts) because both iOS and WebOS use the open source SDL 3d package and identical resolutions.
But iOS is using Objective C and webOS C/C++. I don't think that there's an easy 1:1 translation. Plus you have to convert all calls to SDK library routines (iOS SDK vs. webOS PDK).
__________________
Preł (iPhone 4), TouchPad 32 GB (PlayBook 16 GB)
T-Pad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/11/2012, 04:52 AM   #58 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by renater View Post
Hardware scenario 1 (develop new prototype with community and raise funds to manufacture it)
$$$ =Medium/High (Prototyping is not that cheap yet)
Knowledge = High (some hardware design gurus required)
Risks = Medium/High (if prototype is yesterdays hardware it would likely fail)
Community attractiveness: High (we all want new shiny hardware ;-)
Community involvement: Low (most of us have no clue how to develop hardware)

Hardware scenario 2 (make business case and ask someone to produce)
$$$ = Low (sell a good idea to someone else and make them believe it works for them)
Knowledge = Low/Medium (need some marketing and business case skills)
Risks = Low (low for community, high for manufacturer)
Community attractiveness: High (same as above)
Community involvement: Low/medium (same as above)
I think Hardware scenario 3 (porting webOS to existing hardware) makes most sense until the most important todos in the operating system department are done.
__________________
Preł (iPhone 4), TouchPad 32 GB (PlayBook 16 GB)

Last edited by T-Pad; 01/11/2012 at 05:09 AM.
T-Pad is offline   Reply With Quote
Liked by rammergu likes this.
Old 01/11/2012, 07:30 AM   #59 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
it's billions if you want a mass marketed commercial product with a global launch that is marketed, supported and has adequate advertising to compete with apple, microsoft, google, blackberry and hell even samsung.
Then you don't do a global launch. You target one or 2 territories at a time - the ones that look most promising for sales, the ones that industry watchers and the media play attention to, and you expand from there based on the sort of buzz that is generated. Even huge companies do this kind of thing all the time, soft launching a product in 1 or 2 test markets first before committing more resources to a larger launch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
the people doing the work are developers and people like those at webos internals or hp not in this thread where 35 people said they'd give money up front. They are the ones making decisions not a bunch of random people in some precentral message board.
You're not getting it. One of the things I said at the beginning of this thread is that everyone has a part to play in this. For some it will mean giving feedback on their biggest peeves with webOS that need to be fixed. For some, it will be providing feedback about what critical apps we need to get ported or cloned, what features need to be added or improved on. For some it will mean working out various strategies for how we can get webOS on new hardware, and what that hardware needs to look like. For others it will be about working out a strategy for marketing. For yet others, it will involve actual design and development work, and that's where the Internals people can come in handy.

If you take a poll across the community asking what people what profession people are in, you will find that we have people with experience in marketing, accounting, sales, human resources, management, business administration, software development, international business, law, web and graphic design etc - as a community we probably have experience in almost everything we need to organize ourselves and put a good plan together.

Also, the whole purpose of this thread is not to take the place of the efforts of any group (especially not webOS Internals), it is to organize a framework within which we can ALL work together to move webOS forward, and not waste efforts and resources on duplicated work or working on stuff that doesn't really matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
But i don't think it matters cause nobody's giving anyone multimillions for people with no real plan or decision making power. so millions or billions i don't think it matters
Again, you're not seeing it:

1) When our work here has progressed enough, not only will we have a plan, but we will also have an organization in place with representatives who will implement the plan and decisions the community has taken. Those are the ones who will be able to present a strong case for getting outside companies or investors to spend money on this effort.

2) We as a community, may not need to get our hands on millions ourselves. What we may need to do is convince a small manufacturer or other company to spend millions on this project. That is what Fusion Garage did - they got CSL group (a Malaysian mobile network company) to invest the millions needed to bring their product to market.

3) We will need money however. When this gets underway, we will have to do things like incorporate the foundation and get legal documents drafted. People are going to need to visit HP to discuss licensing. People are going to need to travel to meet and present our plans to venture capitalists or interested companies. People might need to go to Taiwan, Shenzhen, etc to have meetings with hardware manufacturers we are courting. There will be expenses for plane tickets and hotel rooms, and the other miscellaneous things you have to spend money on when you travel.

Those are the things that the money we contribute as a community will have to go into, or where people that work in the travel or hospitality industry that could never contribute a line of code could contribute a complementary airline ticket, upgrade, or night in a hotel. People might be able to contribute airline miles that they will never use, or just feel generous enough to give away. Everyone has a part they can play in this.
marcedhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked By: Daughain
Old 01/11/2012, 09:30 AM   #60 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 227
First, a public service announcement, please don't feed the trolls. They're goal is not to be a productive contributor to the thread. All they want is to feed their ego by being cynical and starting arguments. They're not worth the time.

On with the show. I think a lot of what we as a community can contribute to resurrecting webOS will be dictated by the exact license under which HP decides to release webOS and the governance structure put in place. With that in mind, I think it might be beneficial for one of the developer types on this board to put together a "For Dummies" primer on the major open source licenses and governance structure for those of us not familiar with this world.

Secondly, while a large scale effort is probably not worthwhile until the source code is actually released and the community knows the governance structure within which it must operate, I agree with marcedhk that it behooves us to start getting an understanding of what kind of assets we as a community possess. This could be as simple as a group on LinkedIN. The more organized the community is when the code is actually released, the quicker things will move forward.

Gargoyle
gargoylejps is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked By: Daughain
Reply

 

Thread Tools
Display Modes



 


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0