Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    Why do we have Palm shipments (hardware maker) listed with shipments of WM (software) ? I am having trouble making useful comparisons this way.
    Answered earlier, because Palm is a proxy for PalmOS. If we were to plot PalmOS it would look rather nastier, in that its possible that shipments of PalmOS dropped bellow 1 million this last quarter, if Palm sold > 130 000 Treo 700w's. Unfortunately we have no idea what POS shipments are this quarter.


    And if we ignore that for a second, why isn't there mention of MS's drop from 24% to 15%
    Because we are plotting absolute numbers, not percentages. Wm absolute numbers trebled, while it market share dropped. At the same time POS numbers remained static, while its market share dropped.

    Finally, no mention of Linux ?

    http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-6099...9688&subj=news

    Moto just sold 1 million units of their Ming phone in China....no where else but China !
    Symbian leads in OS share, with 67%, a year-on-year rise, but a sequential fall
    Microsoft in second with share at 15%, ahead of RIM on 6%
    Lets see - Symbian =67% WM = 15% RIM = 6% POS=6(ish)% Total= 94%

    Therefore ? Linux = 6%, which = 1136657 units.

    Surur
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Because we are plotting absolute numbers, not percentages.
    Well I plotted percentages but, yes, while these are sort of interesting to see whose winning, they're really not the important thing (to me).

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Wm absolute numbers trebled, while it market share dropped. At the same time POS numbers remained static, while its market share dropped.
    What I'm really interested in is sustainability. WM: for sure. Palm OS: will these numbers be enough to keep it going until ALP (/Palm's Linux offereing)? Certainly helps that the major licensee is profitable, but flat or declining numbers, deserting developers, major licensee using another OS too ... a doomsday scenario isn't hard to imagine.
  3. #23  
    I think market react about 1 year slower than the phone release schedule. Palm had done absolutely nothing in 2005 yet the 650 was selling well. Now the market is punishing them for being a lazy *** earlier. I think people will pick up the goodness of 700p soon. They do need to make different looking phone soon.

    BTW why bother with Nokia? All they ever did was keeping stuffing smart phone OS into keyboardless dumb phones. If you put PalmOS in a Motorola T720, does it make it a smart phone?
  4.    #24  
    Regarding sustainability, WM is clearly not as profitable as MS's main cash cows, but due to concerns that MS is too dependent on their OS and Office areas, they really need the good news that they have a high growth profitable venture (one of their very few actually) so as WM has become profitable they are starting to appear on more and more slides, and will hopefully be less neglected than usual.

    See here:



    http://msmobiles.com/news.php/5422.html

    You can see, besides productivity, its really the only current profitable good news story. Its clear MS is in for the long term despite Gates's well known antipathy to Windows Mobile, and his love affair with tablet pc's)

    Surur
  5.    #25  
    Hey!!! I just found the source of that picture of the Treo Lennon!!! Its on that second slide, as a "compelling windows mobile device"!!!

    Surur
  6. #26  
    A lot of people still think that the Palm OS-based Treo is superior to any and all of the WM-based offerings. These numbers show that WM sales are up while Palm OS ain't looking so good. You can certainly make the case that these numbers prove that WM is the better platform and Palm OS is dead/dying. But I have another theory...

    What we're seeing here is simply that PalmSource has done an awful job of marketing what it already has and finishing Palm OS' next version / successor. For all intents and purposes, there's only one company selling Palm OS mobile phones: Palm. The Treo is a great product (still the best for many of us), but it's just one product. One form-factor and feature-set. Like it or hate it. WM offers choice. Different form-factors, some with thumbboards, some without. Some with Treo-like form-factors and 240x240 screens, some with wider screens, etc. It used to be that Palm OS was the platform that offered consumers design choices while most WM devices looked about the same.

    I don't think that we can expect Palm to do it all on its own. They're simply not a large enough company to offer several different Palm OS-based form-factors. Nokia has those deep pockets, Palm does not.

    Some are holding out hope for Access/PalmSource's next OS, but at this point we don't know when that will be ready. If it's still a ways off, my biggest complaint would be that Access' first order of business when buying PalmSource should have been to revive OS5 development, make a few enhancements here or there, and market it heavily. Yes, OS5 is a bit fragile, after pushing it beyond what it was originally intended to do, but as the Palm OS Treo community here often makes known, it still holds up well against the competition.

    What if Samsung was still making Palm OS smartphones? An OS5 update of the SPH-i500, with Treo-like D-Pad integration, could be a great seller. I'd probably suggest that they ditch the tiny Graffiti panel altogether.

    Again, I think the problem here is that Access is letting OS5 sit on the shelf and is focusing *too much* on the next OS. If that thing is really close to release, they have some interested licensees lined up, and it turns out to be great, then that will be fine. But if we're still a year away from seeing an ALP-based phone, I really think they will have screwed up by not trying to revive the marketing/sales effort for OS5 after buying PalmSource. IMO, their first order of business should have been to hire a branding company and come up with a great new name and spent some ad dollars making sure everyone knew that what used to be called Palm OS is now called XXXXX. With palmOne buying the Palm name and Access oblivious to the impact of that, we've watched as the world has equated the Palm OS with Palm, the hardware company.
    Now THIS is the future of smartphones.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Therefore ? Linux = 6%, which = 1136657 units.
    Now ya catchin on..... something's funky cause it's not very hard, as pereviously posted, to find a hundred published sources showing Linux well situated in the number two spot.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Regarding sustainability, WM is clearly not as profitable as MS's main cash cows, but due to concerns that MS is too dependent on their OS and Office areas, they really need the good news that they have a high growth profitable venture (one of their very few actually) so as WM has become profitable they are starting to appear on more and more slides, and will hopefully be less neglected than usual.
    No time to dig it up right now but thewre was an article on Cnet just a day or 2 ago about MS trying to apply their "X-Box strategy" to WM......basically use the obscene profits levels from Windows to offset year after year losses in the phone market.
  9.    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    No time to dig it up right now but thewre was an article on Cnet just a day or 2 ago about MS trying to apply their "X-Box strategy" to WM......basically use the obscene profits levels from Windows to offset year after year losses in the phone market.
    Thats a bit unfair. WM was never very far from profitable. I suspect PSRC lost more money over their existence than WM devision, and now they are profitable, and projected to continue to be profitable. If they were planning to subsidize WM they would have projected a loss, like for xbox.

    Surur
  10. #30  
    Edit: there seems to be a story that Palm and Palm Source are falling out... I don't think whoever posted the story actually read it correctly... I think it says "may" end 2 Dec 06, but some are taking it as "will" end 2 Dec 06. /end edit...

    Thought you number guys/gals would like this report from the Palm: Form 10-K
    Annual Report, Filed Jul 28, 2006

    http://investor.palm.com/secfiling.c...3125-06-155911

    Good reading.... on some stuff... I never actually knew the numbers...

    Product Information

    Palm sells products in two product lines: smartphones and handheld computers. Revenues by product line are as follows (in thousands):




    Years Ended May 31,
    2006 2005 2004
    Revenues:

    Smartphones $ 1,088,312 $ 587,740 $ 168,446
    Handheld computers 490,197 682,670 781,208

    $ 1,578,509 $ 1,270,410 $ 949,654

    The market for smartphone and handheld products is volatile, and changing market conditions, or failure to adjust to changing market conditions, may adversely affect our revenues, results of operations and financial condition, particularly given our size, limited resources and lack of diversification.

    We operate in the mobile computing device market which includes both smartphone and handheld products. Over the last few years, we have seen year-over-year declines in the volume of handheld devices while demand for smartphone devices has increased. Although we are the leading provider of handheld products and while we intend to maintain this leadership position, we continue to shift our investment towards smartphone products in response to forecasted market demand trends. We cannot assure you that declines in the volume of handheld device units will not continue or that the growth of smartphone devices will offset any decline in handheld device sales. If we are unable to adequately respond to changes in demand for smartphone and handheld products, our revenues and results of operations could be adversely affected. In addition, as our products and product categories mature and face greater competition, we may experience pressure on our product pricing to preserve demand for our products, which would adversely affect our margins, results of operations and financial condition.

    This reliance on the success of and trends in our industry is compounded by the size of our organization and our focus on smartphone and handheld products. These factors also make us more dependent on investments of our limited resources. For example, we face many resource allocation decisions, such as: where to focus our research and development, geographic sales and marketing and partnering efforts; which aspects of our business to outsource; which operating systems and email solutions to support; and the balance between our smartphone and handheld products. Our smartphone products-related revenue grew to approximately 69% of our total revenue during fiscal year 2006 from approximately 46% of our total revenue during fiscal year 2005, causing us to shift the focus of a large portion of our engineering resources towards the smartphone opportunity as well as hire and integrate new employees. Given the size and undiversified nature of our organization, any error in investment strategy could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.
    Last edited by theog; 07/29/2006 at 09:31 PM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog
    Edit: there seems to be a story that Palm and Palm Source are falling out... I don't think whoever posted the story actually read it correctly... I think it says "may" end 2 Dec 06, but some are taking it as "will" end 2 Dec 06. /end edit...

    Thought you number guys/gals would like this report from the Palm: Form 10-K
    Annual Report, Filed Jul 28, 2006

    http://investor.palm.com/secfiling.c...3125-06-155911
    What DID happen is that the contract to pay ACCESS another $65 million over the next 3 years has expired, because Access defaulted on the terms and conditions, mainly involving making Palm's next generation OS. Now Palm only has to pay a per device license fee until 2009. This means they are much less beholding to Access and also that Access failed them.

    Now the question is, is the divorce final, and will Palm go its separate way and make its own OS, or will they still hang on for ALP, despite Access not producing the goods on time.

    Also they MAY need permission from Access to make their own OS, and Access MAY refuse to give them that permission.

    Those are the three MAYs. The DID is that Palm and Access's relationship changed significantly, and Access is $65 million poorer over the next 3 years.

    Surur
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Thats a bit unfair. WM was never very far from profitable. I suspect PSRC lost more money over their existence than WM devision, and now they are profitable, and projected to continue to be profitable. If they were planning to subsidize WM they would have projected a loss, like for xbox.

    Surur
    The basis was with regard to MS's Zune project and next month's I-phone and how MS plas to compete by throwing windows money at it.
  13.    #33  
    Actually when I looked at the numbers, the mobile and embedded devision has cost MS around $1.2 billion since 2002, and made $815 in revenue., which is much much more than PalmSource ever made or lost. I am sure however PSRC lost more in stockholder value in that time.

    Surur
  14. #34  
    I don't think I understand where you are going. McDonalds sold more hamburgers than my local Bar and Grille....how does that tarnslete into "they made a better burger" ?

    My comment was in relation to the fact that since MS sold DOS and then immediately then went out and bought it from someone else, they have always conquered new markets not by building a better product but by using monies from other divisions to quash competition.

    They are again prepared to use the monies taken in from overcharging for Windows to conquer other markets not by designing a better product but by using economic pressures to compete.....for example we know the Moto Q costs $159 to build.....MS won't build a better Q but they can build something like it that costs them $179 to build and then sell it for $129 for years until the competition gives up.
  15. jlczl's Avatar
    Posts
    905 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,936 Global Posts
    #35  
    I have a different opinion and I would like to use your McDonald's example. I believe McDonald's does have a better burger than your local grill. Why? Because it is about much more than just taste. It's also about value and accessibility. McDonald's would get squashed by local competition if it didn't provide the "total package". Likewise, MS delivers a comprehensive package which includes more than just "taste". They also provide "value" and "accessibility", among other things, which account for their dominance. Just like I choose McDonald's over a local burger joint many times for reasons other than taste, I too choose MS over it's competitors at times for reasons other than "elegance of OS" or "ease of use" (which some people believe Palm has proprietary priviledge over). And you know what? I leave "McDonald's" pretty satisfied . That being said, if I find some other "burger" that fulfills my desires AND needs, I'll jump on it in a heartbeat.
    Palm VII-Palm Vx-Palm M125-Clie T615-Sony NZ90-Sony NX80-Toshiba E800-Sony NZ90 (again)-Treo 600-HP 6315-Treo 650-Moto MPX220-SX66-Treo 650 (again)-QTek 9100-HP6515-Cingular 8125-Moto Q (10 days)-Cingular 8125 (again)-Nokia 9300-Cingular 2125 & Nokia E62-ETen M600+-Cingular 3125-Treo 750 & Samsung Blackjack-Cingular 8525-iPhone-Moto Q9-at&t Tilt-iPhone3G-Nokia E71-HTC Diamond-Blackberry Bold-at&t Fuze-SE Xperia X1a-Treo Pro.

    Be very, very quiet. I'm gonna catch me a rhinoceros.
  16. #36  
    You need to see Morgan Sperlock's "SuperSize" me. The thought of eating what the court called "Frankenchicken" is something I find pretty scary. McDonalds is the Marlboro of the new millenium .... outfit reponsible for killing more people than anyone else. Granted it's the consumer's choice and I am not in favor of suing corporations for it but I can't think of a worse thing to put in ya body than fast food.

    http://www.easternct.edu/depts/urel/..._spurlock.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Spurlock

    Spurlock was of above-average health for his age in 2003, when he undertook the project shown in Super Size Me, which was released in the U.S. on May 7, 2004, and later nominated for an Academy Award for best documentary feature. In the film, he ate three McDonald's meals a day every day for 30 days, taking the 'super-size' option whenever it was offered, the end result being a diet with twice the food energy recommended by the USDA. Further, Spurlock attempted to curtail his physical activity to better match the exercise habits of the average American (he walked about 3 miles a day whereas the average American walks 1.5 miles). His health declined dramatically: he gained 25 pounds (11 kg), suffered severe liver dysfunction and developed symptoms of depression. Spurlock's supervising physicians noted the effects caused by his high-fat, high-carb diet—one even comparing it to a case of severe binge alcoholism.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Lets see - Symbian =67% WM = 15% RIM = 6% POS=6(ish)% Total= 94%

    Therefore ? Linux = 6%, which = 1136657 units.
    Again, off base.....Linux's share of the "advanced" phone market ( A phone with an OS) is 23%, no argument possible there, those are the published numbers. ....if we look at the more traditional "smartphone" market it is closer to 10%.

    http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS2198773219.html

    but again Gartner, IDC and others do NOT include the Treo in this category so suppositions from publications like this are always fraught with uncertainties.
  18.    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    Again, off base.....Linux's share of the "advanced" phone market ( A phone with an OS) is 23%, no argument possible there, those are the published numbers. ....if we look at the more traditional "smartphone" market it is closer to 10%.

    http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS2198773219.html

    but again Gartner, IDC and others do NOT include the Treo in this category so suppositions from publications like this are always fraught with uncertainties.
    So, you disagree with Canalys, or me?

    Your statement does not even make sense, and you are parsing that sentence incorrectly.

    Smartphones, such as those based on Linux, currently represent about a tenth of the wireless phone market, In-Stat says. The research firm expects smartphones to account for a quarter of mobile phone sales within five years, however.
    IE smartphones represents 10% of the cellphone market, not Linux represents 10% of the cellphone market.


    Surur
  19. #39  
    I didn't see Canalys reporting Linux numbers nor any OS numbers.....I saw hardware vendors. It's not arguable that Linux is in 23% of todays phones. It's been published too many times from different sources. I belive it was you that authored a thread about RIM some time back which you compared RIM to palm saying RIM rules because of these published numbers (from IDC IIRC).....after some research it was pointed out that the reporting agency did NOT consisder a Treo in the same category as the BB and therefore the Treo sales were not included in Palm's totals making the comparison totally bogus.

    In this thread the implication is that hardware sales can be used as a tool to project OS sales and its simply not possible. The major vendors offer devices on multiple OS's so trying to say for example that all Nokia's sales are Symbian is a falsehood.

    IDC, Canalys, Gartner all define a smartphone differently. If Linux is on 23% of all phones with an OS and smartphones represent only 10% of all phones, it' safe to say that a lot of the stuff that Linux is on is not what these reporting agencies would squeeze into their definition of a smartphone.

    So what I am saying is if some of that 23% has to be discounted because some of that 23% doesn't fit that arbitrary "smartphone" category which seems to differ by who is reporting the numbers. The other published numbers, by no. of OS licenses doesn't fall into the problem of who put what on what hardware, it's just a tally of how many people licensed a particular OS...no math necessary.

    Having no other numbers, using 41% as the Treo's share of Palm's business last year, I then took 41% of the 23% and came up with 9.43 % which I rounded to 10%. This year I read now that it was 58% so I'd up my number to 13% in thre "Treo like" category

    But if ya gonna argue my logic at reducing the number, we are still left with the 23%.
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    I didn't see Canalys reporting Linux numbers nor any OS numbers.....I saw hardware vendors. It's not arguable that Linux is in 23% of todays phones. It's been published too many times from different sources. I belive it was you that authored a thread about RIM some time back which you compared RIM to palm saying RIM rules because of these published numbers (from IDC IIRC).....after some research it was pointed out that the reporting agency did NOT consisder a Treo in the same category as the BB and therefore the Treo sales were not included in Palm's totals making the comparison totally bogus.

    In this thread the implication is that hardware sales can be used as a tool to project OS sales and its simply not possible. The major vendors offer devices on multiple OS's so trying to say for example that all Nokia's sales are Symbian is a falsehood.

    IDC, Canalys, Gartner all define a smartphone differently. If Linux is on 23% of all phones with an OS and smartphones represent only 10% of all phones, it' safe to say that a lot of the stuff that Linux is on is not what these reporting agencies would squeeze into their definition of a smartphone.

    So what I am saying is if some of that 23% has to be discounted because some of that 23% doesn't fit that arbitrary "smartphone" category which seems to differ by who is reporting the numbers. The other published numbers, by no. of OS licenses doesn't fall into the problem of who put what on what hardware, it's just a tally of how many people licensed a particular OS...no math necessary.

    Having no other numbers, using 41% as the Treo's share of Palm's business last year, I then took 41% of the 23% and came up with 9.43 % which I rounded to 10%. This year I read now that it was 58% so I'd up my number to 13% in thre "Treo like" category

    But if ya gonna argue my logic at reducing the number, we are still left with the 23%.
    Can you quite those Linux research numbers again. I did not find any recent research which suggests that percentage at all, even on Linuxdevices.com

    Surur
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions