Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by neurocutie View Post
    You haven't produced one shred of evidence to support your claim that Palm didn't start working on a successor to PalmOS until 1.5 years ago. In fact as I said, that assertion alone is ridiculous en face... to think that Palm hadn't thought about, starting conceiving, spec'ing and design a new PalmOS until 1.5 years is absolutely insane...

    Just a cursory search reveals a number of reports and PRPRPR'$s$ $in$ $the$ $2001$ $and$ $2002$ $time$ $frame$ $in$ $which$ $PalmOS$ $6$ ($Cobalt$) $is$ $discussed$, $and$ $the$ $future$ $roadmap$ $of$ $PalmOS$ -- $obviously$ $Palm$ $had$ $to$ $have$ $been$ $working$ $on$ $the$ $future$ $PalmOS$ $for$ $at$ $least$ $months$ $prior$ $to$ $any$ $such$ $reports$.

    Furthermore, I'm sure you'll remember that Palm acquired BeOS in mid-2001 (7 years ago), with the express purpose of building a foundation for a new PalmOS. Here is what was written in 2001 about it:Now, you don't just decide to acquire a whole company and OS technology in one day. But if you want to call me "wrong" in believing that Palm had been planning their new OS strategy for at least many months (i.e. 8 years ago) prior to their acquisition of Be, Inc in mid-2001, fine, call me "wrong"...

    In any case, since you asked... you also stated:
    Maybe you'd be willing to admit that that statement of yours is wrong...
    You said, "Palm has known and *supposedly* been working on a successor to PalmOS for at least 8 years if not more."

    Palm had no legal right to modify PalmOS between 2003 and Dec 2006.

    I never said that all of these blunders were made after the spinoff... obviously the waste of BeOS and the failure of Cobalt were two big blunders made before *and* after the spinoff.

    Yes, we agree that the spinoff was a HUGE mistake, but my issue with your viewpoint is that you seem to think that its "okay" to blame EVERYTHING about their current OS problems on that ONE mistake -- a single-point failure, as it were... and I think that's nonsense. Palm made serious mistakes *before* 2003 and *after* 2003.

    Its obviously difficult to be able to accurately pin point specific mistakes on issues like this unless you have insider knowledge -- certainly even Palm admits the Foleo was a mistake that drained precious resources from their main missions (which includes the PalmOS successor). And whether Palm could have worked things out much better with Access/ALP than simply snub their noses at ALP and decide to roll their own new Linux PalmOS... again hard to guess.

    But as Phone Diva has argued... that was 2003... Palm says no new OS til 2009... that's SIX YEARS!!! It really doesn't matter whether we on the outside can accurately pinpoint specific mistakes and blunders... the bottomline speaks for itself... if it takes SIX YEARS (or 8 years) to come up with a successor to PalmOS, then ipso facto, *huge* mistakes and blunders were made (not just one mistake in 2003)...

    How long did it take Apple, Google, Limo, Motorola, etc to produce each of their new phone OS's ? Not 6 years... I know... (string of excuses about Garnet compatibility, Access licensing, limited resources of Palm as a small company, yadayada...)... sorry, doesn't cut it, bottomline... just ask the market if it will accept Palm's excuses...
    So the mistakes you cite are:
    1. Not signing up for ALP.
    Given that ACCESS/PalmSource is to blame for not producing an update to PalmOS for so many years, do you really think it would have been smarter to continue to depend on them?
    2. Wasting resources on Foleo.
    Since ACCESS only agreed to sell the rights to modify PalmOS in December 2006, and we know that work on the new OS was done in parallel with Foleo development, how many months do you think Foleo delayed the new PalmOS?


    In the beginning of 2004, Palm had a choice, given that the development of PalmOS was uncertain and out of its control. It could develop its own OS, which could NOT incorporate any Garnet code. It could find a new third-party mobile OS, such as Windows or Symbian. Or it could do nothing. Developing PalmOS was not an option. What would you have done?

    We know that Palm chose to go with Windows Mobile. And that worked out very well for them. Windows now makes up about half their sales.


    I agree that Palm made many mistakes over the years. Foleo was a mistake. Incremental hardware improvements was a mistake. No new form factors was a mistake. Weak product specs was a mistake. Limited bundled software was a mistake. Poor marketing was a mistake. Not hiring the right management talent earlier on was a mistake. But none of those things change the fact that they had no legal ability to modify Garnet before December 2006.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You said, "Palm has known (that it needed) and *supposedly* been working on a successor to PalmOS for at least 8 years if not more."
    Yes, I said that, and I believed that I demonstrated that fact... that Palm *had* known for at least 8 years (probably longer) that it needed a successor to PalmOS and that it *had* initiated plans, designs, concepts, etc aka "work" on a successor to PalmOS. It knew that it needed a new OS to compete with Windows Mobile (WinCE/PPC), and it was aiming for a 32-bit multitasking, multimedia-capable OS. Acquiring BeOS was part of that plan... one of the failed dead-ends...
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Palm had no legal right to modify PalmOS between 2003 and Dec 2006.
    You seemed obsessed with this fact, as if it granted Palm absolution from all responsibility in pursuing and/or developing a new OS. Also you seem to assume that Palm's ability to modify Garnet was a sine qua non of obtaining a new OS... that's very restrictive thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    So the mistakes you cite are:
    1. Not signing up for ALP.
    2. Wasting resources on Foleo.
    I didn't say Palm should sign up with ALP (Palm already had for a time...). What I said was that it is possible that Palm could have worked harder with Access to make ALP more of what they wanted and had it completed sooner, instead of thumbing their noses at ALP with a classic NIH attitude (Not Invented Here).

    It doesn't matter what mistakes I cited or can point out. As I said, the fact that they *knew* they had to have a new OS 8 years ago and they didn't have one in time is IPSO FACTO evidence that many mistakes were made, not just one...
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    In the beginning of 2004, Palm had a choice, given that the development of PalmOS was uncertain and out of its control. It could develop its own OS, which could NOT incorporate any Garnet code. It could find a new third-party mobile OS, such as Windows or Symbian. Or it could do nothing. Developing PalmOS was not an option.
    There you go again, assume that just because you don't have rights to modify Garnet, you can't create a new OS as a successor to it. Linux is one of many examples of re-implementing the *entire* Unix OS environment with *no* access to the original source code. And I don't know the details of StyleTap, but I see no reason that one couldn't do what they did in building a PalmOS-compatible environment from scratch, built on top of some decent modern multi-tasking OS (BeOS, Linux, home-brew, whatever). Or not. The point is that Palm could have done any of a number of things... and they *should* have done *several* of these things just to be sure that they'd have something in the end when they needed it. Android, OSX/iPhone, Limo and others were all implemented well within this same time frame, so it's really inexcuseable that Palm has nothing... until 2009.
  3. #23  
    PalmSource repeatedly missed contractual obligations and deadlines, thus the license agreement for OS5 (the predecessor to Garnet) was amended prior to its acquisition by Access. Nobody ever licensed Cobalt and PalmSource's effort on an OS on a Linux kernel was abandoned on the acquisition. Essentially PalmSource delivered from 1993 to 2006 only a few minor modifications to OS5.

    Most licensing agreements have non-compete clauses and poison pills in the event of acquisition by a competitor.

    The licensing agreement Palm now has with Access permits them to leverage parts of PalmOS but not Palm Desktop or Hotsync. Any effort Palm could have made before the agreement with Access would have required them to abandon all existing compatibility as it would have ended up a patent violation. Would you care to discuss the Graffiti and Xerox litigation and settlement?
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    PalmSource repeatedly missed contractual obligations and deadlines...
    ok, so the blunders that began within Palm continued into PalmSource... yes... (so? all just continues the theme of incompetence of the software folks at Palm and those that followed in PalmSource)
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    Most licensing agreements have non-compete clauses and poison pills in the event of acquisition by a competitor.
    Not sure what you mean to imply here... but unless you know of specific prohibitions that would have prevented Palm from developing another OS, I fail to see how this is relevant (and after all, Palm did also successfully deploy WM/PPC)...
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    Any effort Palm could have made before the agreement with Access would have required them to abandon all existing compatibility as it would have ended up a patent violation.
    Well now, please tell us how you know this, specifically... And how is StyleTap able to offer Garnet compatibility without violation of whatever patents you are refering to ?
    And even if it were true (which is far, far from a certain conclusion), doesn't mean that it might not have been reasonable to develop a new OS that was "loosely compatible" with PalmOS. The kernel of the new OS is/was going to be completely different than PalmOS anyways. So the only issue in question was whether to offer strict binary emulation/compatibility in the new OS, or only "loose compatibility" to allow easy porting of apps. I don't think it is/was a foregone conclusion that to not offer binary compatibility would have been fatal to the new OS -- loose compatibility like that between the Windows 32-bit API and WinCE/WM, may well have been sufficient. Or Palm could have offered StyleTap for binary compatibility, or written its own StyleTap, or license a full copy of Garnet to run in a VM atop the new OS, or... or... the point is that there were *many* ways that Palm could have gone to deliver a viable new OS over the years... the fact that Palm couldn't deliver on ANY of those ways (not until 2009 anyways) is what is particularly damning... don't need to believe in what I say, just ask the market...
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    Would you care to discuss the Graffiti and Xerox litigation and settlement?
    No clue why you think this is relevant. The Graffiti case was a typical patent case, it went back and forth several times, with a number of appeals. In the end Palm and Xerox agreed not to sue each other any more. I don't see the relevance, except as a general, totally not on point example of a patent case. See wikipedia.orgfor more ... not much more to discuss in this context, except perhaps, that because of the suit and during the suit, Palm devised a WORKAROUND (Jot/Graffiti2) -- so yes an example of Palm engineering/developing around a legal/licensing restriction -- part of my point, that is unbelieveable that Palm was so totally incapable of finding *some* solution, *some* kind of workaround or whatever to solve its problems with Access, etc.

    The other point about Graffiti is: well WM/PPC comes with Block Recognizer, which is 98% identical to Graffiti 1... no problems there, apparently...

    BTW, if you know in fact that Palm, in spinning off PalmSource, signed specific agreements to not develop its own OS or other software solutions that would have been needed in developing a new OS, then you can add that brilliant stupidity to the list of blunders and mistakes of Palm over the past 8 years...
  5. #25  
    They put themselves in the position of having their hands tied. No matter what you come up with, the fact STILL remains that Palm's choices are what delayed the new OS.

    Of course they are valid points, I'm not saying that you aren't correct. I'm just saying that Palm gave up it's control over it's own OS and that was the true cause of the delay. All the stuff that happened(or didn't happen is more like it) with Palm Source was because of Palm's action of splitting off the company. They should have researched that action more thoroughly. Apparently Palm Source had lead in it's you-know-what or something! How did Palm not have a clue this could be the case? But why even give up control of your pride and joy in the first place?
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    In the beginning of 2004, Palm had a choice, given that the development of PalmOS was uncertain and out of its control. It could develop its own OS, which could NOT incorporate any Garnet code. What would you have done?
    Ok, for the sake of argument and pushing this thread forward, I'll make a specific proposal/answer to your question.

    Yes, Palm did chose to offer WM and it was a smart thing to do. But you'll remember that WM in 2004 was absolutely horrid. And even today it is clear that WM doesn't meet everyone's needs and that PalmOS, from a UI perspective still is favored by many over WM. So, in 2004, as today, the rationale was/is strong for Palm to offer an alternative to WM that would be the market successor to PalmOS. But how...

    I will put forth, at least for the sake of discussion, that Palm in 2004 would now have been in a better position by developing a non-binary Garnet compatible OS that they could have released in 2007, instead of waiting for a (presumably) Garnet-binary compatible (Nova) OS in 2009. This hypothetical OS would have to be:
    - multitasking, multithreaded, 32-bit, etc, etc.
    - offer "loose" compatibility with Garnet to allow "easy porting" of apps
    - binary compatibility of Garnet apps could be achieved with either Styletap-like emulation or running a full, licensed copy of Garnet in a VM.
    - retain the general ease-of-use of Garnet, with a brand new skin, UI, etc, and without being open to a "look and feel" lawsuit from Access.

    Given that the new OS was going to have full preemptive multitasking anyways (and they knew this in 2000-2001), it probably would be much easier just to mandate non-binary compatibility anyways, and only allow for "easy porting". This situation was mirrored in the transition from the Windows 16-bit API, which was based on cooperative multitasking, to the Windows 32-bit API (Win32, the transition from Windows 3.X to Windows 95), for identical reasons. In fact full Garnet binary compatibility is probably one of the more difficult features to implement.

    So I'm saying (for sake of discussion), that Palm would have been better off in 2004 developing its own, non-binary Garnet compatible OS to be released 3 years later (2007) (and sure continue negotiating with Access on the side), rather than wasting the 3 years from 2004-2007 and start the development of Nova in 2007.
  7. #27  
    The OS features you describe in the above post could well have been in the contractual deliverables that PalmSource failed to meet. In 2004 it was not yet clear how significant the failure would be.

    The spinoff of PalmSource was also the result of pressure from other PalmOS licensees who felt it unfair that their hardware competitor also had total control of the OS.

    Had Palm been developing a competing OS immediately upon the spinoff of PalmSource, there probably would have been legal matters brought by the other PalmOS licensees.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    In 2004 it was not yet clear how significant the failure would be.
    That's somewhat true, but you also said:
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    PalmSource repeatedly missed contractual obligations and deadlines...
    So Palm had *plenty* of prior history to suspect that PalmSource would have trouble delivering, and *should* therefore have formulated Plan B, Plan C, etc (e.g. developing another new OS just in case)... i.e. have alternatives and backup plans. If they didn't... another piece of their stupidity.
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    The spinoff of PalmSource was also the result of pressure from other PalmOS licensees who felt it unfair that their hardware competitor also had total control of the OS.
    True, but Palm had a fiduciary responsibility to look out for Palm's best interests *first*, so that's really not enough of an excuse...
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    Had Palm been developing a competing OS immediately upon the spinoff of PalmSource, there probably would have been legal matters brought by the other PalmOS licensees.
    Could you be any more vague... "legal matters" ? sheesh... PalmOS OEMs would have had *no* standing or cause of action against Palm had Palm worked on a new OS (unless you're thinking of some kind of antitrust action, which never would have gone anywhere since MS was growing and Symbian was pretty alive as well).
  9. #29  
    Palm got OS4 out on schedule. When PalmSource was spun off the delays and failures to deliver were not anticipated (the BEOs folks went with PalmSource). Until the acquisition of Handspring, Palm had little experience dealing with the demands of carriers, thus it is possible not enough resources were focused on demanding that PalmSource deliver.

    PalmSource would have sued Palm if Palm decided to build their own OS; similarly they would have gone after Sony and the others. Perhaps you should review some SEC filings and other websites (and here as well) to gather information as this has been discussed quite extensively.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    PalmSource would have sued Palm if Palm decided to build their own OS; similarly they would have gone after Sony and the others.
    Any evidence you can muster to support that idea ? Because unless that was specifically in the agreements signed by Palm, I find it highly unlikely that PalmSource would have a cause of action. And "gone after Sony and others" ? please... absolutely no cause of action.

    Two more data points on topic:
    1) Palm *did* adopt Windows Mobile for its products -- no lawsuit there. So there's no reason to suspect that PalmSource would/could have sued Palm for either developing their own OS or adopting yet another OS from another company.
    2) Palm *is* developing their own OS now and in fact announced that they would quite a while ago when they gave notice that they would not use ALP -- no lawsuit now or then.

    So unless you can offer some real evidence otherwise, I don't see any reason to believe that PalmSource would/could sue Palm for developing or having someone else develop for them, another OS.
  11. #31  
    Licensing a competing OS for use on one's hardware is very different to developing an OS in-house. The Garnet license agreement, signed with Access, provides entirely different rights than prior OS5 license agreements signed with PalmSource. I had read the PalmSource Licensing Agreements but there are no longer SEC filings available for public viewing. As to the Access agreement, review Palm's press releases.
  12. #32  
    You still haven't come up with *any* concrete evidence supporting your position. Actually you haven't even stated a clear position... just vague comments about "legal matters"...

    If you have specific knowledge about precise provisions and stipulations that Palm had with PalmSource that are relevant to this discussion, why not state them, clearly, instead of vague and indirect references that are impossible to verify...

    What exactly was Palm prohibited from doing with its agreements with PalmSource ?
  13. #33  
    It is not possible to provide information that has been deemed confidential in SEC filings subsequent to EDGAR filings. At one time I read the unredacted licensing agreements and there were very specific deliverables and non-compete clauses. As I do not have the files or a photographic memory, I am unable to regurgitate them on an item-by-item basis. You may be able to reconstruct some of the deliverables if you choose to dig around the Palminfocenter archives.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    You may be able to reconstruct some of the deliverables if you choose to dig around the Palminfocenter archives.
    This might be one (2002)...

    This Development Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of November 26, 2002 (the “Effective Date”) by and between PalmSource, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 1240 Crossman Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94059 (“PalmSource”) and Palm, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 400 N. McCarthy Boulevard, Milpitas, CA 95035 (“Developer”)......

    And another (2001)...

    This Business Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) is executed on May 9, 2002 and made effective as of December 3, 2001 (the “Effective Date”), between Palm Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Palm”), having an office at 5470 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, CA 95054 and PalmSource, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“PalmSource”), having an office at 5470 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, California, 95054....

    There is also this mention recently:
    Now, in Palm's newly released annual report, is a note that PalmSource and its new owner Access have failed to meet the established milestones. This has the effect of voiding Palm's agreement to make the minimum payments to PalmSource after December 2, 2006.

    An alternate interpretation is that Palm Inc.'s own development is dependent on intellectual property still owned by PalmSource, and that without this they cannot continue their own projects, which might include a more "classic" version of Access Linux.
    Update/Comment: I was under the impression/common knowledge that Palm, Inc. was forbidden to develop any replacement OS that
    1. Used the "PalmOS" name (or variants thereof like "PalmLinux")
    2. Looked and functioned like PalmOS

    In other words, had Palm, Inc. wanted to develop something like WM for themselves, they could have. Had they wanted to devleop something like "PalmOS II" they could not since PalmSource/Access owned just enough IP to prevent anyone else from using the name or likeness of PalmOS (Garnet). StyleTap does not count since it is an emulator and not an OS--I'm also confident the legal team at StyleTap knows the fine line to walk between emulator and OS.

    The only way out was a technical one: poison pill. Once Access failed to meet certain milestones, they forfeited any contractual obligation to Palm and had to renegotiate the terms at which point Palm won back (bought back) just enough IP to allow them to go forward with a new OS with the "PalmOS" name and likeness ergo they can do backwards compatibility now, which they seem to value.
    "The agreement also grants Palm the right to use Palm OS Garnet in whole, or in part, in any product from Palm and together with any other system technologies."
    From Access's FAQ on the deal...
    Palm will only be able to use the Palm OS trademark for products that meet the compatibility requirements, verified through the compatibility test harness used by ACCESS and Palm.

    Under terms of the agreement Palm may modify Palm OS Garnet as part of its efforts to differentiate Palm products. ACCESS and Palm have agreed to continue to use a compatibility test harness that will ensure that a common set of API's are available on future versions of Palm OS Garnet from ACCESS as well as on Palm's modified version.

    Palm will be able to use any portion of the Palm OS Garnet code in their products. Palm is required to indicate Palm OS Garnet compatibility following the branding guidelines agreed by the two companies. The agreement also grants Palm the right to integrate Palm OS Garnet on top of other operating systems.
    This was all in late 2006/early 2007. Until that new contract, Palm, Inc. could not touch the source code to Garnet, nor could they make an OS that looked like Garnet nor offer backwards compatibility. They would have had to literally start from scratch in terms of UI, previous features and abandon the entire Palm community. Ouch--not an option one would want to take, since you basically just lost your entire identity.

    Palm, Inc. initially worked with Access on ALP but something along the way went sour and Palm did not like the terms--they probably wanted full control of the OS, just a hunch.

    I think detective has the more accurate history of the situation.
    Last edited by Malatesta; 03/10/2008 at 08:30 PM.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    This might be one (2002)...
    Update/Comment: I was under the impression/common knowledge that Palm, Inc. was forbidden to develop any replacement OS that
    1. Used the "PalmOS" name (or variants thereof like "PalmLinux")
    2. Looked and functioned like PalmOS

    In other words, had Palm, Inc. wanted to develop something like WM for themselves, they could have. Had they wanted to devleop something like "PalmOS II" they could not since PalmSource/Access owned just enough IP to prevent anyone else from using the name or likeness of PalmOS (Garnet).
    Oh, I'm sure what you say here is true... Palm would not have been able to call a new OS "PalmOS", nor adopt any "look and feel" aspects of PalmOS. But I've perused those docs/contracts and I saw nothing that would have precluded them from either, as you suggest, developing a new OS themselves (like WM or whatever), or contracting someone else to do it. If they did themselves, they could have adopted "clean room" techniques to ensure no crossover/appearance of crossover.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    StyleTap does not count since it is an emulator and not an OS--I'm also confident the legal team at StyleTap knows the fine line to walk between emulator and OS.
    Yes, but it seems that Palm *could* have provided StyleTap as a means for some compatibility (StyleTap runs on WM Treos, no problem there...), or they could have run a licensed copy of PalmOS in a VM (I run the Palm Emulator on my Windows 2000 machine -- works fine, most apps work just fine).
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    They would have had to literally start from scratch in terms of UI, previous features and abandon the entire Palm community. Ouch--not an option one would want to take, since you basically just lost your entire identity.
    Yes, true... that may still be better than being 2-3 years later to market. At least it is/was an option that should have been explored...
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    Palm, Inc. initially worked with Access on ALP but something along the way went sour and Palm did not like the terms--they probably wanted full control of the OS, just a hunch.
    Again, hard to know for sure, but one can't help but wonder if Palm shouldn't have also kept that option open, pushing Access harder to deliver exactly what Palm wanted, and sooner...

    All this part of the discussion was a result of trying to answer the question posed "What would you have done in 2004 ?". I agree that the decisions in 2002/2003 were huge mistakes that backed Palm into a corner of sorts. But Palm had a responsibility to get themselves out of that jam, and aggressively so... I think Palm should have worked on several solutions in parallel, just to ensure that they could deliver *something* in 2007. I realize that they *did* deliver WM Treos... and that was/is good. But burning their bridges with Access/ALP instead of pushing them hard from the "inside", I think was probably a mistake.

    And not developing a new OS that didn't use the PalmOS IP was also a mistake IMHO -- I'm going guess that by the time Nova OS *actually* ships, binary compatibility for Garnet apps won't be a very important feature anyways. (I'm sure you know that *real* software companies work on *many* solutions and marketable possibilities in parallel, sometimes pitting several in-house teams against each other to see who comes up with the best solution. What the market sees on the outside is simply the chosen winner of such in-house development competitions. Palm should have done this...)

    Back to the original point: Palm *knew* and were planning for the new PalmOS back in 2000... to think that it won't ship til 2009 is just a sad disaster...
  16. #36  
    What part of "PalmSource failed to meet established milestones" do you not comprehend? Palm did not fail to hold up their end of the contracts, PalmSource failed. The extent of this failure was not apparent until the Cobalt debacle, which was after 2004.
  17. #37  
    I'm not questioning the fact that Palmsource failed. However Palm, as you're pointing out, was/is an *independent* corporate entity, and thus has its own independent responsibility, fiduciary and otherwise, to plan for contingencies and ensure its own future. And again as you said, PalmSource repeatedly failed to make deadlines. So its not as if there was no warning signs...

    Are you saying that it was correct for Palm to be *completely* beholden to and at the mercy of PalmSource for whatever performance or lack of performance PS could deliver ? Is it really too much to expect that Palm should have put into motion backup plans and alternates in case PS failed to deliver given there were already plenty of signs that PS might fail?

    Basically what you are saying is that after 2002/2003, the die was cast, Palm's fate was sealed and there was absolutely *nothing* that Palm could or should have done in the software/OS arena that could have changed the very poor position they are in today and forwards to at least 2009... That during those years, Palm had/has no other choice but just to sit back and wait for its software fate to take its course -- it was *all* out of Palm's hands. Do you really think that ?
  18. #38  
    Other than to license WM or to start from scratch with a new OS having zero IP similarities and no backward compatibility, Palm was at the mercy of PalmSource. The failures were not particularly evident until nobody licensed Cobalt and more deliverables on Garnet were missed. That would have been in the 2005 timeframe.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    Other than to license WM or to start from scratch with a new OS having zero IP similarities and no backward compatibility, Palm was at the mercy of PalmSource. The failures were not particularly evident until nobody licensed Cobalt and more deliverables on Garnet were missed. That would have been in the 2005 timeframe.
    That's my exact thought on the matter...

    Had they made their own OS without consent from Access, I have a sneaky suspicion that Access would have had their lawyers watching every move and feature with a file for injunction waiting--after all, they have insider knowledge on how the OS works and is designed. With OEMs getting sued for CallerID screens, keyboards, chips, etc. this is a very lucrative market (e.g. Palm & Handspring settled with RIM over they front qwerty).

    Likewise, they would have had to abandon the entire developer community which would have just looked bad.

    The 700w was released 1/06. Early interviews said Palm and MS had negotiated and worked on this phone for about 2 years--so sometime 2004, which is right when everything was starting to go sour and Palm did the smart thing: planned for some alternative.

    Of course no one disputes that Palm put themselves in this position but I would dispute the notion that Palm could have easily avoided this mess once the split occurred.

    No one saw Access buying PalmSource...it was a big "huh?" to everyone at the time. Once it happened, Palm went for the ride and tried to work with Access on a new OS.

    Access failed to reach the milestones and were flubbing along the way and so Palm grabbed the opportunity to regain it's independence by breaking off the contract. Risky move on Palm's part; we'll see if it pans out.

    I dunno, this stuff seems relatively straight forward. Palm so far as avoided just becoming a OS rebrander and as I have said before, there is no room in the market for a company
    1. Who doesn't make their own OS
    2. Who doesn't make their own hardware
    3. But who slaps other companies' OSs onto other companies' hardware

    Why have a middle man taking a slice of the action when HTC can do it all in-house or Google gives away the OS? But, make your own OS and design your own hardware (Palm, Apple)...that's something that can and has worked.
    Last edited by Malatesta; 03/12/2008 at 01:35 PM.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    as I have said before, there is no room in the market for a company
    1. Who doesn't make their own OS
    2. Who doesn't make their own hardware
    3. But who slaps other companies' OSs onto other companies' hardware
    MS doesn't make any hardware.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions