webOS Nation Forums >  webOS Discussion >  Open webOS General Discussion > HP (Palm) Patents list.?
HP (Palm) Patents list.?
  Reply
Like Tree9Likes

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09/03/2012, 10:05 AM   #21 (permalink)
News Contributor
 
akitayo's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
I think you'd have a bigger impact if you wrote a credible memo with details of how Samsung, using open webOS, is going to be more profitable then Samsung using Android. I mean with factual numbers not just they typical i love webos, it has great multitasking, Leo sucked stuff. I mean write a real business plan, with manufacturing estimates, parts prices, domestic and international sales projections, etc. Now i doubt anybody is gonna do that cause that's real work and would take a lot of man hours but that's what really needs to be done. Honestly I think the Patent angle is beyond everyone except knowledgeable patent attorneys and those with a thorough understanding of Samsung's intellectual property needs & actual intellectual property, all the way down to engineering designs and lines of code. regardless, good luck to you. oh you can also do patent searches here on the patent and trademark offices website.
That is a great suggestion but a long man hours on research for a BP.
akitayo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/03/2012, 10:09 AM   #22 (permalink)
News Contributor
 
akitayo's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,116
New question:

Will HP reward OEM`s in this case Samsung to get webOS Open in theirs hardwares as Microsoft did with Nokia for Windows Phone ?
akitayo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/03/2012, 01:01 PM   #23 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 275
Honestly, I say give it a month. Enda said the plan for the future of webOS will be revealed in a month with the release of Open webOS 1.0. I'm going to wait to see what they announce.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
i2y4n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/04/2012, 04:33 AM   #24 (permalink)
Member
 
SnotBoogie's Avatar
 
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by akitayo View Post
That is a great suggestion but a long man hours on research for a BP.
The price of success is hard work.

Well good luck. I simply don't think your approach is close to serious enough to persuade serious business people that require well reasoned forward looking plans to make business decisions about releasing a phone with a different OS. If they are gonna use openwebos what's the point of bringing up old Palm patents? Using open webos doesn't mean Samsung gets a license to use any old palm patents. They'll read this stuff and think, "why is this patent stuff included in this. He doesn't have his argument together. Trash can." You tell them to "go here." From a practical matter if anyone even took the time to read the letter I doubt they are going to links and doing work for you. You say "I think." You should state "I" anything. You simply make the argument. Samsung won't about your personal opinion on what HP should do. Samsung cares about Samsung. At one point you mention some Palm patent for flexible displays. Are you now trying to persuade Samsung to buy Hewlett Packard in order to get all the Palm patents or to make a webos phone because you don't need the patents to make a phone. And I didn't read much of the linked patent but if samsung already has flexible displays i'm gonna guess they don't need an old Palm tech. Maybe but considering they make screens i'm gonna guess they have that covered. Also, if Samsung is really is interested in the patent it can simply seek a license without having to use Webos. I mean reading this it's just logically all over the place. I just think if you wanna be taken seriously it requires a ton of work and a more professional approach. Regardless, i wish you the best in your efforts and I hope you get what you want.
__________________
You come at the king. You best not miss.
SnotBoogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/04/2012, 05:14 AM   #25 (permalink)
Member
 
Loiter's Avatar
 
Posts: 682
What about the wireless charging presented for the new Lumias and reminds of the TS charging?
Is it the same technology?
Loiter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/05/2012, 08:33 PM   #26 (permalink)
News Contributor
 
akitayo's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
The price of success is hard work.

Well good luck. I simply don't think your approach is close to serious enough to persuade serious business people that require well reasoned forward looking plans to make business decisions about releasing a phone with a different OS. If they are gonna use openwebos what's the point of bringing up old Palm patents? Using open webos doesn't mean Samsung gets a license to use any old palm patents. They'll read this stuff and think, "why is this patent stuff included in this. He doesn't have his argument together. Trash can." You tell them to "go here." From a practical matter if anyone even took the time to read the letter I doubt they are going to links and doing work for you. You say "I think." You should state "I" anything. You simply make the argument. Samsung won't about your personal opinion on what HP should do. Samsung cares about Samsung. At one point you mention some Palm patent for flexible displays. Are you now trying to persuade Samsung to buy Hewlett Packard in order to get all the Palm patents or to make a webos phone because you don't need the patents to make a phone. And I didn't read much of the linked patent but if samsung already has flexible displays i'm gonna guess they don't need an old Palm tech. Maybe but considering they make screens i'm gonna guess they have that covered. Also, if Samsung is really is interested in the patent it can simply seek a license without having to use Webos. I mean reading this it's just logically all over the place. I just think if you wanna be taken seriously it requires a ton of work and a more professional approach. Regardless, i wish you the best in your efforts and I hope you get what you want.
The BP work should be reserved for HP. They are who have to offer the webOS Open with value of more than 1,2 biliion at this time, to OEM`s . The prototype, the patents package proof and the BP.

The companies who want to embrace webOS like Samsung and others OEM`s worldwide know how to make a BP, as well. They have to make that work too, according to the different markets, they would like to target.

We can only contribute encouraging the market players to try webOS, giving some lights.

Part of the the Palm Inc patents are of not ever made devices, some of them ahead of the times as it happened with webOS as a Software in 2009. Now everybody is multitasking.

The patent of Palm Inc, I linked to flexible/unfoldable displays was ahead of it times, so ahead that it is not even made a device like that, but will for 2013.

HP, Samsung , LG and a few others have the flexible smart display screen technology now . Samsung has already made demonstrations of their smart flexible screens for smartphones. However not a flexible mobile they have made at this time yet, to the market.

webOS could work as a software for that technology. I am a not developer but I dare to say with a few changes to make it work.

If anyone of us have lights to help in some way to others, is much better to say them than stay mute.IMHO

By the other way thanks for your wishes.
akitayo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/05/2012, 08:39 PM   #27 (permalink)
News Contributor
 
akitayo's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loiter View Post
What about the wireless charging presented for the new Lumias and reminds of the TS charging?
Is it the same technology?
Nokia is using a wireles charging tech for the Lumia 920 called "Built in Wireless Charging with fatboy pillow" You can find more information on this link: http://www.nokia.com/global/products/accessory/dt-900/

Last edited by akitayo; 09/05/2012 at 10:06 PM.
akitayo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/05/2012, 09:18 PM   #28 (permalink)
Member
 
webos_ftw's Avatar
 
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loiter View Post
What about the wireless charging presented for the new Lumias and reminds of the TS charging?
Is it the same technology?
I was wondering the same thing. Looks really similar, but the tech could be completely different. (and then I read the next post down. oops :/) And, what about Phoenix Devices... aren't they making or planning to make an Open webOS device?
webos_ftw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/05/2012, 11:17 PM   #29 (permalink)
Member
 
slbailey1's Avatar
 
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by akitayo View Post
Nokia is using a wireles charging tech for the Lumia 920 called "Built in Wireless Charging with fatboy pillow" You can find more information on this link: Nokia Wireless Charging Plate. - Nokia
I like the Nokia charging stand. It can run a pre-selected application while it is charging. Here's a link:
Nokia Wireless Charging Stand. - Nokia
slbailey1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/06/2012, 12:45 AM   #30 (permalink)
News Contributor
 
akitayo's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by slbailey1 View Post
I like the Nokia charging stand. It can run a pre-selected application while it is charging. Here's a link:
Nokia Wireless Charging Stand. - Nokia
looks cool thanks
akitayo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/07/2012, 02:17 PM   #31 (permalink)
Member
 
SnotBoogie's Avatar
 
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by akitayo View Post
The BP work should be reserved for HP. They are who have to offer the webOS Open with value of more than 1,2 biliion at this time, to OEM`s . The prototype, the patents package proof and the BP.

The companies who want to embrace webOS like Samsung and others OEM`s worldwide know how to make a BP, as well. They have to make that work too, according to the different markets, they would like to target.

We can only contribute encouraging the market players to try webOS, giving some lights.

Part of the the Palm Inc patents are of not ever made devices, some of them ahead of the times as it happened with webOS as a Software in 2009. Now everybody is multitasking.

The patent of Palm Inc, I linked to flexible/unfoldable displays was ahead of it times, so ahead that it is not even made a device like that, but will for 2013.

HP, Samsung , LG and a few others have the flexible smart display screen technology now . Samsung has already made demonstrations of their smart flexible screens for smartphones. However not a flexible mobile they have made at this time yet, to the market.

webOS could work as a software for that technology. I am a not developer but I dare to say with a few changes to make it work.

If anyone of us have lights to help in some way to others, is much better to say them than stay mute.IMHO

By the other way thanks for your wishes.
But you're the one trying to write something with the purpose of persuading Samsung. HP is not. It's your paper. It's not incumbent on HP. They aren't the author. it's incumbent on you as the author. So if you want to have an impact you can write that unfocused stuff, with little support other than links rather then persuasive arguement, focusing on things that are not important or related to webos like a screen patent tangent, and deliver it by way of twitter and come off sorry, but completely unprofessional but sorry, it will go nowhere.

You're discussion of patents illustrates a misunderstand of how patents work. First off to use that patent Samsung would have to buy Hewlett Packard that owns that patent or ask them to be granted a license to use it. They wouldn't get to use it simply because they decide to make phone with webos just like the fact that a company that makes and android phone doesn't get a right to use any patent that Google owns. Further, Samsung has flexible screens already they don't need an old patent from palm to put it in a phone, any phone. Also, no patent is gonna prevent people from making phones with flexible screens that uses a completely different technology that is not this Palm patent. Patents don't prevent the idea of making a phone with a flexible screen just that specific method of make a phone with that flexible screen. It is however, likely not the only method. They are perfectly in their right to make a phone with a flexible screen based on the tech Samsung already has meaning they have no need for that patent. And you've failed to illustrate with any precision why Samsung even needs such a patent.

Second, if they wanted to use Palms patent that there is no need to use webos at all anyways as that's not a patent related to webos. Webos isn't required. It's as far as i can see for old Palm non-webos devices. So if the idea is to persuade them to make a webos phone you're doing it by offering something, again they'd need buy a company for but even more that they don't need webos to use.

That piece is full of supposition and speculation. "Samsung could..." Samsung could do all kinds of things. "webos could work on a software for that technology..." Why? What software? It's a flexible screen. How do you know it even needs special software? Why do you need software at all to work the screen? Part of that patent is a method. How do you know that method is evne applicable with advances in modern displays? If Samsung has a flexible screen why in God's Name would they need more? How do you know their tech isn't better then this already if you're not having engineers look at the two techs? Why would webos be needed and not some other code or software? The whole patent issue distracts from your goal of getting Samsung to use Webos phones. I don't offer those questions cause i want you to respond, i don't care about the answers. But rather, to offer what would immediately be a asked by any person with decision making power upon reading this. And really people don't do what i suggested, write in detail, because it's hard and it involves actually making a credible case for webos on a phone rather then conjecture that doesn't show how it makes economic sense to make a webos phone. It forces people to make arguments that stand up the scrutiny they'd face in the market rather then a loyal but frankly utterly biased lack of scrutiny in a webos focused forum. To offer what you've presented as persuasive and think that will have any influence is pure nativity. That's not how you persuade people in a professional setting. Sorry to be harsh. It's not personal. But i don't find what's been written persuasive. But if this hit my desk i'd read about 4 lines and delete it. If you wanted me to spend a hundreds of millions of dollars on a phone line from a failed operating system the argument better be really solid.
__________________
You come at the king. You best not miss.
SnotBoogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/07/2012, 07:07 PM   #32 (permalink)
News Contributor
 
akitayo's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
But you're the one trying to write something with the purpose of persuading Samsung. HP is not. It's your paper. It's not incumbent on HP. They aren't the author. it's incumbent on you as the author. So if you want to have an impact you can write that unfocused stuff, with little support other than links rather then persuasive arguement, focusing on things that are not important or related to webos like a screen patent tangent, and deliver it by way of twitter and come off sorry, but completely unprofessional but sorry, it will go nowhere.

You're discussion of patents illustrates a misunderstand of how patents work. First off to use that patent Samsung would have to buy Hewlett Packard that owns that patent or ask them to be granted a license to use it. They wouldn't get to use it simply because they decide to make phone with webos just like the fact that a company that makes and android phone doesn't get a right to use any patent that Google owns. Further, Samsung has flexible screens already they don't need an old patent from palm to put it in a phone, any phone. Also, no patent is gonna prevent people from making phones with flexible screens that uses a completely different technology that is not this Palm patent. Patents don't prevent the idea of making a phone with a flexible screen just that specific method of make a phone with that flexible screen. It is however, likely not the only method. They are perfectly in their right to make a phone with a flexible screen based on the tech Samsung already has meaning they have no need for that patent. And you've failed to illustrate with any precision why Samsung even needs such a patent.

Second, if they wanted to use Palms patent that there is no need to use webos at all anyways as that's not a patent related to webos. Webos isn't required. It's as far as i can see for old Palm non-webos devices. So if the idea is to persuade them to make a webos phone you're doing it by offering something, again they'd need buy a company for but even more that they don't need webos to use.

That piece is full of supposition and speculation. "Samsung could..." Samsung could do all kinds of things. "webos could work on a software for that technology..." Why? What software? It's a flexible screen. How do you know it even needs special software? Why do you need software at all to work the screen? Part of that patent is a method. How do you know that method is evne applicable with advances in modern displays? If Samsung has a flexible screen why in God's Name would they need more? How do you know their tech isn't better then this already if you're not having engineers look at the two techs? Why would webos be needed and not some other code or software? The whole patent issue distracts from your goal of getting Samsung to use Webos phones. I don't offer those questions cause i want you to respond, i don't care about the answers. But rather, to offer what would immediately be a asked by any person with decision making power upon reading this. And really people don't do what i suggested, write in detail, because it's hard and it involves actually making a credible case for webos on a phone rather then conjecture that doesn't show how it makes economic sense to make a webos phone. It forces people to make arguments that stand up the scrutiny they'd face in the market rather then a loyal but frankly utterly biased lack of scrutiny in a webos focused forum. To offer what you've presented as persuasive and think that will have any influence is pure nativity. That's not how you persuade people in a professional setting. Sorry to be harsh. It's not personal. But i don't find what's been written persuasive. But if this hit my desk i'd read about 4 lines and delete it. If you wanted me to spend a hundreds of millions of dollars on a phone line from a failed operating system the argument better be really solid.
Time will tell if any OEM at least will take in consideration to contact HP about webOS Open, The message have been sent to all the OEM`s via twitter If they read the post I don`t know but I hope.

I canīt link you to my blog because the forum rules but I suggest you to read one related to Trends 2013 make a Google search.
akitayo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/08/2012, 01:30 PM   #33 (permalink)
pivotCE Developer
 
RumoredNow's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,231
With all due respect, akitayo...

The lawsuits notwithstanding, facts are that Samsung is #1 with sales of Android devices and the only OEM to earn consistent profits with those sales lately. They have pledged support to Tizen and are helping to fold their own, proprietary OS (Bada) into Tizen to not only advance it rapidly, but put their own mark on it.

Why would they give up their Android throne at this point? Yes the lawsuits cost them money... Continued Android sales are the surest way for them to recoup that loss. Why would they need to develop another alternative? They already have sunk money into one.

I understand. You are looking at courting a giant for webOS to partner with. IMHO it is the wrong giant.

You are looking at Palm patents. As others have mentioned, Palm patents are still owned (now by HP which bought them all when they acquired Palm) and really have no relevance with adopting an OPEN SOURCE operating system. Use of these patents still requires purchasing the patents or paying licensing fees for their use. It is the wrong tactic, IMHO.

Sony is a hugely successful corporation that makes no money in mobile at this point (OK mobile game players yes - not mobile phones and tablets). LG is a hugely successful corporation that makes no money in mobile at this point. Panasonic is a hugely successful corporation that makes no money in mobile at this point.

The hugely successful corporation that does make money in mobile (Samsung) does not need an alternate strategy to Android. There is zero economic incentive in webOS for them.

At some high level within the corporate structure of companies like Sony, LG, Panasonic and others - there must be a lot of pressure being brought to bear on mobile divisions. These companies want a share of the wealth that the growing mobile market represents. We know they want a piece of that pie as they keep marketing and manufacturing for it. Android is costing them money. They want that to stop. These are the types of companies that need an alternative and have the resources to wait it out while that alternative builds to profitability. They manufacture or buy in bulk components in quantities that give them the best prices so they have reduced manufacturing costs. Sony and LG have established relationships with carriers.

But they want a shortcut as well. Building a new OS and ecosystem is not attractive. It is a leader loss that promises huge R&D expenditures with no guarantee of success.

Palm's patents are not an attractive incentive as they have a cost associated to them and do not necessarily apply to the development problem at hand.

The best incentive is that webOS will be Open Source. That means no patent acquisition or licensing fees required for the shell. Cost reduced to R&D for and purchase of hardware drivers. The next incarnation is the 4th generation of a field tested operating system. R&D effort already advanced through real world trial and error over 3 generations of heavy use and that knowledge folded into the way the OS behaves.

If HP doesn't it up and Open Source is compatible with the App catalog (and we get some key developers on board to ensure smoothing out compatibility) then the cost of creating an ecosystem drops way down or is eliminated. Sure it isn't a huge ecosystem, but there are a lot of very good things in there and something free is much more attractive than starting from scratch and dumping tens of millions of dollars into getting an App catalog going.

If OpenMobile doesn't up ACL and Open Source gets access to the Android Market - that is a low cost, bulk license entrance to a huge, established ecosystem. Or if ACL is available for individual users of Open webOS then it is a viable, consumer purchased alternative that cost the OEM nothing, yet they can still use for marketing purposes.

Yours is a noble idea, and I applaud the effort.

However, I believe your targeting is faulty and you are pushing the wrong selling points.

I'm still waiting to see what Open Source truly offers and if ACL yields any promise.

I don't think we have all the puzzle pieces for our side of the picture just yet...

If everything pans out in the next two months (I think the true state of Open won't be known until our worthy Internals team and other established developers have had a chance to look under the hood) and the OS looks like a living, breathing, embeddable OS and ACL is not just vaporware then it will be game on and time to court a few giants who are looking for a way to make money in mobile.

Meanwhile, I'm fairly certain Samsung will stick with what has been making them profit in order to pay down the loss from Apple's successful lawsuit.
__________________
Lumia 1520.3 (the Beastly Unicorn): Windows 10 Mobile

Windows Central Senior Ambassador

Mobile Nations Devotee
RumoredNow is offline   Reply With Quote
Liked by akitayo, i2y4n and SnotBoogie like this.
Old 09/08/2012, 04:24 PM   #34 (permalink)
News Contributor
 
akitayo's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by RumoredNow View Post
With all due respect, akitayo...

The lawsuits notwithstanding, facts are that Samsung is #1 with sales of Android devices and the only OEM to earn consistent profits with those sales lately. They have pledged support to Tizen and are helping to fold their own, proprietary OS (Bada) into Tizen to not only advance it rapidly, but put their own mark on it.

Why would they give up their Android throne at this point? Yes the lawsuits cost them money... Continued Android sales are the surest way for them to recoup that loss. Why would they need to develop another alternative? They already have sunk money into one.

I understand. You are looking at courting a giant for webOS to partner with. IMHO it is the wrong giant.

You are looking at Palm patents. As others have mentioned, Palm patents are still owned (now by HP which bought them all when they acquired Palm) and really have no relevance with adopting an OPEN SOURCE operating system. Use of these patents still requires purchasing the patents or paying licensing fees for their use. It is the wrong tactic, IMHO.


Sony is a hugely successful corporation that makes no money in mobile at this point (OK mobile game players yes - not mobile phones and tablets). LG is a hugely successful corporation that makes no money in mobile at this point. Panasonic is a hugely successful corporation that makes no money in mobile at this point.

The hugely successful corporation that does make money in mobile (Samsung) does not need an alternate strategy to Android. There is zero economic incentive in webOS for them.

At some high level within the corporate structure of companies like Sony, LG, Panasonic and others - there must be a lot of pressure being brought to bear on mobile divisions. These companies want a share of the wealth that the growing mobile market represents. We know they want a piece of that pie as they keep marketing and manufacturing for it. Android is costing them money. They want that to stop. These are the types of companies that need an alternative and have the resources to wait it out while that alternative builds to profitability. They manufacture or buy in bulk components in quantities that give them the best prices so they have reduced manufacturing costs. Sony and LG have established relationships with carriers.

But they want a shortcut as well. Building a new OS and ecosystem is not attractive. It is a leader loss that promises huge R&D expenditures with no guarantee of success.

Palm's patents are not an attractive incentive as they have a cost associated to them and do not necessarily apply to the development problem at hand.

The best incentive is that webOS will be Open Source. That means no patent acquisition or licensing fees required for the shell. Cost reduced to R&D for and purchase of hardware drivers. The next incarnation is the 4th generation of a field tested operating system. R&D effort already advanced through real world trial and error over 3 generations of heavy use and that knowledge folded into the way the OS behaves.

If HP doesn't it up and Open Source is compatible with the App catalog (and we get some key developers on board to ensure smoothing out compatibility) then the cost of creating an ecosystem drops way down or is eliminated. Sure it isn't a huge ecosystem, but there are a lot of very good things in there and something free is much more attractive than starting from scratch and dumping tens of millions of dollars into getting an App catalog going.

If OpenMobile doesn't up ACL and Open Source gets access to the Android Market - that is a low cost, bulk license entrance to a huge, established ecosystem. Or if ACL is available for individual users of Open webOS then it is a viable, consumer purchased alternative that cost the OEM nothing, yet they can still use for marketing purposes.

Yours is a noble idea, and I applaud the effort.

However, I believe your targeting is faulty and you are pushing the wrong selling points.

I'm still waiting to see what Open Source truly offers and if ACL yields any promise.

I don't think we have all the puzzle pieces for our side of the picture just yet...

If everything pans out in the next two months (I think the true state of Open won't be known until our worthy Internals team and other established developers have had a chance to look under the hood) and the OS looks like a living, breathing, embeddable OS and ACL is not just vaporware then it will be game on and time to court a few giants who are looking for a way to make money in mobile.

Meanwhile, I'm fairly certain Samsung will stick with what has been making them profit in order to pay down the loss from Apple's successful lawsuit.
Samsung at this time is testing as you said Tizen but Bada as well. I don`t know if LG, SONY, HTC. Huawei, ZTE may be trying some own mobile OS at least in secrecy., but still coming with Android.

The window opportunity is open to all of them, after Apple unfair or not, has succeed in the USA one of the biggest world market in a lawsuit against Samsung. However the final word of the Supreme Court will take some time yet.

The OEM`s are scared about that California court resolution and despite they have said will continue with Android, who have to make all the changes to the OS to not continue with Apple`s patent violation, they are looking now for alternatives. ( There is a link to that article about this information, I don`t remember now).

HP (Palm) patents are of software and hardware. We have to forget maybe most of the old Palm OS used on Treos, but not webOS`s.

Palm Inc hardware patents of not made products, are hundreds of them ,maybe. Some of them might be interesting or not at this time. Some of them are or were ahead of its time

So the only weapon HP has is just webOS patents that was also ahead of its time and if HP is smart they have to come with something else beyond of what is now on Androids , iPhones, WP8 and maybe some new features to come on BB10. Because all of them have catched up webOS. I mean dazzle with it, to make the package offer more desirable. However if it is FREE why not to try it.

What OEM will try webOS Open first?

I think HP have to make a great show of webOS Open 1.0 working on all kind of devices prototypes, smartphones, features phones, tablets, laptops,ultrabooks, hybrids and desktops to the world and for to demo OEM`s at webOS Open launch time in September, besides all the additional marketing stuff.

Last edited by akitayo; 09/08/2012 at 11:38 PM.
akitayo is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked By: RumoredNow
Old 09/08/2012, 04:53 PM   #35 (permalink)
pivotCE Developer
 
RumoredNow's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by akitayo View Post
I think HP have to make a great show of webOS Open 1.0 working on all kind of devices, smartphones, features phones, tablets, laptops,ultrabooks, hybrids and desktops to the world and for to demo OEM`s at webOS Open launch time in September, besides all the additional marketing stuff.
Agreed, but...

Apothoker gutted hardware for mobile. The board doesn't want to spend to rebuild that in most likelihood.

I believe that a few ports on modern equipment would make a good showing. That probably rests in the hands of this community and the Internals Team. If Palm patents lead to hardware drivers only solid R&D will tell and that requires licensing if it is to be released into the wild.

Drivers are a huge obstacle. Freeware drivers are the best solution but may not really pan out. Licensing drivers requires cash that a community driven effort won't be able to sustain easily if at all.

Ports won't save webOS. They may just help get the notice of OEMs by showing what is possible though. That's why I think we won't attract notice of those corporate giants until Open is tested in real world application and the fate of ACL gets revealed.

__________________
Lumia 1520.3 (the Beastly Unicorn): Windows 10 Mobile

Windows Central Senior Ambassador

Mobile Nations Devotee
RumoredNow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09/08/2012, 11:35 PM   #36 (permalink)
News Contributor
 
akitayo's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by RumoredNow View Post
Agreed, but...

Apothoker gutted hardware for mobile. The board doesn't want to spend to rebuild that in most likelihood.

I believe that a few ports on modern equipment would make a good showing. That probably rests in the hands of this community and the Internals Team. If Palm patents lead to hardware drivers only solid R&D will tell and that requires licensing if it is to be released into the wild.

Drivers are a huge obstacle. Freeware drivers are the best solution but may not really pan out. Licensing drivers requires cash that a community driven effort won't be able to sustain easily if at all.

Ports won't save webOS. They may just help get the notice of OEMs by showing what is possible though. That's why I think we won't attract notice of those corporate giants until Open is tested in real world application and the fate of ACL gets revealed.

I forgot to say prototypes of every kind of mobile devices and desktops only for webOS Open demos on them.
akitayo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

 

Thread Tools
Display Modes



 


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0