Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 70 of 70
Like Tree17Likes
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by mafu6 View Post
    Just a little off topic question does anyone know who else was interested in buying Palm before HP did?
    Apple Tried To Buy Palm Before HP Won The Bidding War -- And RIM Completely Blew The Deal - Business Insider

    BTW Yahoo uses Bing nowadays.
  2. mafu6's Avatar
    Posts
    110 Posts
    Global Posts
    272 Global Posts
    #62  
    Interesting...

    Just think what could have been if Apple had gotton its hands on Palm!

    Question is if HP have no future for webOS and they are spending alot of money on R&D then why dont they sell it on, cut their losses and all that good stuff, or am i missing a point?

    Isn't Microsoft looking at buyinh RIM?

    If HP decided to sell Palm/webOS do you think Apple would try and buy it again?
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by mafu6 View Post
    Isn't Microsoft looking at buyinh RIM?
    MS is going to buy Nokia soon
    Last edited by johnnygewitter; 06/02/2012 at 02:36 PM. Reason: sp
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by Lansing2002 View Post
    However HP proceeds, they need to resurrect their tablet division. Putting all their eggs in a basket (Windows), will not do the trick. Leaving room for webOS as a secondary OS gives them some latitude to conquer the concerns being expressed by business analysts.
    HP already put their eggs in the WebOS tablet business. It didn't workout.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by mafu6 View Post
    ...Just think what could have been if Apple had gotton its hands on Palm!

    ...
    WebOS with a straightjacket on? No thanks.
    War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left...
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy1969 View Post
    WebOS with a straightjacket on? No thanks.
    If Apple bought Palm, I don't think webOS would exist anymore, I guess they would have bought Palm for the patents and talent.
  7. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #67  
    The challenge for companies like HP is this: As profits from one line/market begin to slow,investors attempt to reign in spending to protect profits. Shareholders also get jittery about any sort of direction that involves risk. So risk and spending are halted. Meanwhile while the current market shrinks, new markets are expanding at a huge rate. Companies who got into the new market early or had deeper pockets to enter the market suck up the lion's share, making it even more costly and more risky for new entrants. Without significant investment and determination on the part of the shareholders, a company cannot and will not enter the market. Shareholders may pressure a company to get into the market, but then limit how much they can spend to get there. Limiting the spending reduces the likelihood that they can get in and stay in the market. We already saw that with webOS under Palm and HP.

    We're also seeing something similar with RIM; They rushed to market thinking that they had time to gain customers AND refine their product, and they didn't. Now as the shareholders begin to squeeze them to retain profits, they are headed down the same death spiral as Palm.

    Until Meg Whitman or someone within HP can convince the board and the shareholders that they need to spend big (billions) and stick to it (3-5 year effort) then they will continue to see their PC market erode and with it printer sales and enterprise business services. It's really a race to the bottom if they don't take on some big risks and make some significant investment in R&D and new product lines.

    Mobile will largely consume the PC market over the next few years. It's time for HP, Samsung, Nokia, Sony and others to step up, lobby to eliminate carrier lock-in, and start driving some big innovations in the mobile space. Right now they're using the PC way of marketing: Same old product, New packaging. That's why when you get a new laptop it seems all shiny at first, but then after a week it feels just as old and slow as the old laptop. Phones are the same way right now: Samsung Galaxy S GIGIGI now with more G's.
  8. #68  
    .
    With the recent reports that Microsoft will be charging $85 to put their OS on a tablet - as opposed to whatever fees are incurred via Android & Google (patent suits, royalties ... still much less), the bean counters at HP must be considering how that will impact their re-emergence into the Tablet market.

    Will the $85 price of Windows 8 RT Doom Windows 8 tablets? Probably Not. | Ubergizmo

    Android obviously is an option, but going that route could put another blight on HP's reputation. Right now, Goodwill needs to be kept in the thought process - for HP's Shareholders to remain positive, and to dispel HP's reputation as a company that is not grounded.
    .

    For the most part, webOS will be much cheaper to run with - revenue & expense debates aside. HP's Windows tablets (with the ~ $85 OS cost), will put those tablets (as the article states), into a premium price range. That factor might convince HP to offer two options. Windows & webOS on a dual boot, or each separately - with the cheaper tablets effectively being webOS exclusively.

    I realize some opinions believe that HP is just open sourcing webOS as an exercise by HP to smooth the stock market jitters, and will be abandoned in due process. But as time goes on, HP has to be having some doubt as to why Leo made such a foolish error - and why they followed him so blindly. The reasons may seem small - in keeping webOS - but as they all add up (MS fees, Apple lawsuits, Google going hardware, etc.), it becomes apparent that abandonment may not be a wise option.

    .
  9. bearda's Avatar
    Posts
    68 Posts
    Global Posts
    301 Global Posts
    #69  
    I have a really hard time believing the $85 licensing fee. OEMs pay significantly less than that to license Windows 7 for PCs now, and Windows Mobile/embedded image royalties have never been even remotely close to that.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by bearda View Post
    I have a really hard time believing the $85 licensing fee. OEMs pay significantly less than that to license Windows 7 for PCs now, and Windows Mobile/embedded image royalties have never been even remotely close to that.
    Microsoft charges Tablet OEMs a whopping $85 for Windows RT by VR-Zone.com

    --------------

    ZDNET - To put this into comparison, it’s rumored that Microsoft charges OEMs about $30 per Windows Phone license for a smartphone, and around $50 for a Windows 7 Home Premium license for a PC.

    If this pricing is accurate — and it does correspond to rumors and whispers that I’ve heard from OEMs — then it could have far-ranging implications for Windows RT and Windows-powered tablets.
    Microsoft's pricing could kill Windows RT, Windows-powered ARM tablets | ZDNet

    ----------

    We (and other publications) have reached out to Microsoft, plaintively pleading for a rebuttal — a damning condemnation of these rumored Windows RT license fees — but so far Redmond is resolutely refusing to comment.
    Windows RT will cost OEMs $85: Harakiri, or a Microsoft’s plan to capture the high-end market from Apple? | ExtremeTech

    .
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions