Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 144
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Actually, you should reread what I wrote. My point was that price should be a secondary or tertiary concern, not that it shouldn't be a concern at all. But the quality has to come first.
    Then we agree here. I believe quality comes at first at ANY form factor, not just the flagship device


    The problem is, Palm started as a more prestigious brand, and has now tarnished it with crappy hardware and dismal sales. Asian car makers started from the bottom and worked their way up. Despite acquisition from HP, Palm is still in a downward trajectory for the moment. And HP's money and intention to scale WebOS on to everything from slates to printers is no guarantee that they will change Palm's smartphone fortunes.
    Seriously? Though most here like their product (and I'm one of them), when was the last time they were really "prestigious"? They are at the bottom and it would be a mistake to assume because they were popular a decade ago, that they are front runners. A decade is the mobile market is a LIFETIME. They need to come into this like an underdog.

    No disagreement, except to say that the hardware was inadequate, as evidenced by Palm increasing RAM and storage the first chance they got. That's about as explicit an admission of failure as you can get from a manufacturer. Keep in mind, iPhone didn't get a spec bump until they had a significantly different OS two years later. WebOS is still in the beta-ish 1.x doldrums.
    Once again that comes down to quality. So even without a monster device. a better quality product (adequate memory, no keyboard problems, no "oreo" effect, etc) would have produced a much better outcome. A tally of all of those who came in with Palm love but went elsewhere after trying to to love the product is clear evidence of that.

    Surely you jest regarding both of your final sentences. History is littered with "substantive", better-spec'd formats and devices that lost to better-packaged/advertised competition. This is ESPECIALLY true in the tech industry.
    Good point there, but again... if you are working with deficient hardware, all of the advertising in the world would not work - so we haven't even gotten to this point yet. Palm didn't have good hardware OR good ads. Once Palm comes out with a reliable product, then we can play the advertising game. I know lots of people complain about the quality of the ads. they were bad but that may have been a benefit to them. They would be in a much bigger hole if they were able to create a groundswell of excitement in the general public. (not just tech writers and tech nerds) and THEN disappointed.



    That's awesome. Lots of people (myself included) liked the Centro, but Palm's financials didn't particularly care for that rather low margin device. The Pixi is now free almost everywhere you look. Too bad it's not even selling like the Centro.
    Not sure if that is true. Many would contend that the only reason they are still in the game at all was the popularity of the Centro. It's about all they were selling at the end. However, they didn't build on it. Tech does not stand still and they should have come out with a Pre about the same time as the first iPhone were released (or even sooner). Instead they frittered away money on the aborted Foleo.

    And one more time... the vendors discount the devices, typically not the manufacturers. Palm has already been paid. For example the Verizon Pre actually went up in price from its 29 dollar low because of demand.

    The Centro was for a while, one of handful of such devices. It wasn't the most powerful, or the first smartphone, but it was the most reliable. That is why it sold as well as it did.
    (back to my primary point - whatever it is, just make it well.)
    Last edited by C-Note; 05/19/2010 at 01:03 PM.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by JimOhara View Post
    You folks really need to get a life and worry about more important things in life, besides a freaking cell phone. It is a CELL PHONE, not the Holy Grail.
    i'm having a hard time believing that you came to a website built for people to talk about cellphones and made this comment...

    total shock...
  3. #43  
    When Palm first announced the Palm Pre back in early 09 it was a state of the art device for the time, now that a year and half has passed, of course it is dated just like the EVO will be dated a year and half from now, that just exemplifies how dynamic the smartphone industry is at this point in time.

    . I wish I had a crystal ball but I don't, but from judging what device Palm released last year I feel that the next generation will be state of the art. I feel it's absurd to assume what type of device Palm will release on a year and half old device like the Pre. I guess instead of spinning our wheels with unfounded speculation, let's just wait and see what the future brings us.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by netwrkr9 View Post
    When Palm first announced the Palm Pre back in early 09 it was a state of the art device for the time, now that a year and half has passed, of course it is dated just like the EVO will be dated a year and half from now, that just exemplifies how dynamic the smartphone industry is at this point in time.
    Good point! Everyone who posts their polemic about how the Pre is not like the: Incredible, Droid, EVO, {fill in the blank} keeps forgetting that.

    Judge them after their next release.
  5. #45  
    Uh, aside from the processor, what else was state-of-the-art about the Pre hardware in January 2009?

    3.1-inch screen? Nope.
    3MP camera? Nope.
    256MB of RAM? Nope.
    8GB of fixed memory? Nope.

    WebOS? As a UI...indeed. It still is. But that's not all there is to an OS. iPhone 3GS slapped in the same processor, and it is a far speedier, more responsive user experience than even the Pre Plus with double the RAM of iPhone 3GS. Same goes for Droid, which also has half the RAM of a Pre Plus. For better or for worse, WebOS is a speed bottleneck.

    Even taking into account how dynamic and quickly-moving the smartphone industry is, the Pre was always behind the times, both in hardware and in OS performance. HP/Palm can't continue to play catchup.
  6. urkel's Avatar
    Posts
    944 Posts
    Global Posts
    946 Global Posts
    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Note View Post
    Good point! Everyone who posts their polemic about how the Pre is not like the: Incredible, Droid, EVO, {fill in the blank} keeps forgetting that.

    Judge them after their next release.
    I'm not trying to argue, but Why Not? Products should be compared based on whats available on the market currently. If the Hero and EVO are both sold at the same kiosk then it would be fair to compare them, but not the Pre vs EVO?

    As an end user then I feel that Corporate promises are nothing but marketing gimmicks because many times these promises don't live up to the hype. And if Palm is in a transition where they might have scrapped their Summer 2010 device then what exactly should the Pre be compared to? It's not the end users fault that there's nothing new this year.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by Urkel View Post
    I'm not trying to argue, but Why Not? Products should be compared based on whats available on the market currently. If the Hero and EVO are both sold at the same kiosk then it would be fair to compare them, but not the Pre vs EVO?

    As an end user then I feel that Corporate promises are nothing but marketing gimmicks because many times these promises don't live up to the hype. And if Palm is in a transition where they might have scrapped their Summer 2010 device then what exactly should the Pre be compared to? It's not the end users fault that there's nothing new this year.
    You miss the point entirely. To complain about your phone as compared to a phone that was not even available when you purchased yours makes no sense. (Then sell your curent phone and get the new one if you have a problem with your current phone)

    To complain about a phone you purchased when there WAS a better phone on the market is even dumber. (Why did you buy it in the first place?)

    It has nothing to do with corporate promises and everything to do with doing your homework before making a choice AND not succumbing to tech envy whenever something new comes along... but people spend their money however they see fit.
    Last edited by C-Note; 05/19/2010 at 02:20 PM.
  8. Kedar's Avatar
    Posts
    994 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,071 Global Posts
    #48  
    Well, the good thing is that...

    HP + tablets + WebOS = consumer friendly.
    ... The smartphone market really gears toward the higher end... while I can see HP making consumer oriented tablets.
  9. #49  
    Here's some of that HP "low-end hardware" right here:

    High Performance Laptops w/ Free Audio Software | HP Envy Features

    Core i7 in a thin notebook with a high-end graphics chip and 1 gigabyte of VRAM, for the price of Apple's entry-level pokey MacBook Pro.

    Here's another low-end HP:

    HP - Graphic Arts - HP Indigo Digital Portfolio

    The Indigo production inkjet printer, which is one of the fastest and highest quality digital printers in the world for digital production printing.

    HP is a broadline company. They make everything from $199 netbooks to high-end laptops and servers. They make everything from $29 low-end printers up to $500,000 high end production printers.

    They will run the gamut of webOS smartphones from $19 Pixi-style phones up to high-end glass-and-brushed-aluminum business devices. Count on it.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Uh, aside from the processor, what else was state-of-the-art about the Pre hardware in January 2009?

    3.1-inch screen? Nope.
    3MP camera? Nope.
    256MB of RAM? Nope.
    8GB of fixed memory? Nope.

    WebOS? As a UI...indeed. It still is. But that's not all there is to an OS. iPhone 3GS slapped in the same processor, and it is a far speedier, more responsive user experience than even the Pre Plus with double the RAM of iPhone 3GS. Same goes for Droid, which also has half the RAM of a Pre Plus. For better or for worse, WebOS is a speed bottleneck.

    Even taking into account how dynamic and quickly-moving the smartphone industry is, the Pre was always behind the times, both in hardware and in OS performance. HP/Palm can't continue to play catchup.
    Not state of the art but more than adequate, no? Were there other comparable phone that sold better? YES! Blackberry comes to mind. If the phone meets expectations of the user it can be successful. 'Behind the times' only if all that matters is raw power- having the 'best' specs. Behind the 8-Ball on quality. That is the real issue

    Wasn't it your own argument earlier that "the best" doesn't always win out? Your examples make my case... it's not specs, it's quality.

    All phones make trade-offs to meet particular goals. The Pre's problem was the the quality issues meant they could not meet most consumer significant goals other than UI experience and size - which for some is important enough the accept a 3.1 screen over a 4.5 screen. ( Think speed, battery life, reliability)

    The speed issue is a function of not having a PDK available. They may have had a reason for that (limited funds), but IMHO not a one good enough to balance out the hit they have taken on it. Some will say that Apple didn't have one, but it is fair to note that this is a different world that the one which existed when they launched... I'll give you that
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by brmiller1976 View Post
    Here's some of that HP "low-end hardware" right here:

    High Performance Laptops w/ Free Audio Software | HP Envy Features

    Core i7 in a thin notebook with a high-end graphics chip and 1 gigabyte of VRAM, for the price of Apple's entry-level pokey MacBook Pro.

    Here's another low-end HP:

    HP - Graphic Arts - HP Indigo Digital Portfolio

    The Indigo production inkjet printer, which is one of the fastest and highest quality digital printers in the world for digital production printing.

    HP is a broadline company. They make everything from $199 netbooks to high-end laptops and servers. They make everything from $29 low-end printers up to $500,000 high end production printers.

    They will run the gamut of webOS smartphones from $19 Pixi-style phones up to high-end glass-and-brushed-aluminum business devices. Count on it.
    Most people who call HP hardware crappy are seeing only their consumer grade stuff. I've purchased a number of their high end laptops including the ones in this post. They are not bad at all! Most of those are never seen in stores and only in Business to Business settings.
  12. #52  
    Pre/WebOS was neither "the best" in terms of specs or performance nor the best in terms of marketing/popularity/coolness.

    Thus, it floundered. Some of that Palm could control. Some they couldn't. What they could control, they largely bobbled.
  13. #53  
    Again, it's not about hardware. Great hardware + crappy software = crappy product (see Windows 9X for more evidence of that -- Intel hardware has always been vastly superior to "PowerPC," which was slower and more expensive... but the software ruined the experience).

    Android is the late 90s Wintel of the smartphone world. Great hardware, hobbled by atrocious software. So Android folks can talk about their "state of the art phones" that crash several times a day, suffer app incompatibilities, freeze/lock up, and require hacked ROMs downloaded to a rooted phone for OS updates, but that experience isn't going to be good enough for most average consumers.
  14. #54  
    Even the retorts on the Android side remind me of the retorts from Windows 9X users... "you haven't used a Windows 98 machine lately" and "it's not bad as long as you know how to use a computer."
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Pre/WebOS was neither "the best" in terms of specs or performance nor the best in terms of marketing/popularity/coolness.

    Thus, it floundered. Some of that Palm could control. Some they couldn't. What they could control, they largely bobbled.
    Nobody has said it was, this is not an adequate response to my last post.

    Our conversation was about the importance of eye-popping specs vs. quality. I'm not a blind Palm defender so you won't bait me into that sort of a silly argument. My entire point was that quality was lacking. So if this is all you've got, I guess we are done.
  16. #56  
    I think that many people are trying to justify switching to the Evo--which is fine--but trying to do so by coming up with some crazy scenario where Palm doesn't release something with at least a Snapdragon (when everyone else in the world is releasing Snapdragon hardware) is really strange.

    Palm was the first to market with the high-end A8 processor. They did this without the enormous and formidable financial backing of HP.

    Switch to the Evo if you want, but Palm's next handset is going to scream. Count on it.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by brmiller1976 View Post
    Again, it's not about hardware. Great hardware + crappy software = crappy product (see Windows 9X for more evidence of that -- Intel hardware has always been vastly superior to "PowerPC," which was slower and more expensive... but the software ruined the experience).

    Android is the late 90s Wintel of the smartphone world. Great hardware, hobbled by atrocious software. So Android folks can talk about their "state of the art phones" that crash several times a day, suffer app incompatibilities, freeze/lock up, and require hacked ROMs downloaded to a rooted phone for OS updates, but that experience isn't going to be good enough for most average consumers.
    Yoi can keep repeating this nonsense until your face turns blue. No one but you believes it, and Android's surging sales, marketshare, and partnerships make you look like a complete *****.

    Pretty much anything you have to say about Android is as far from the truth as Palm is from first place in the smartphone wars.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiddlekins View Post
    I think that many people are trying to justify switching to the Evo--which is fine--but trying to do so by coming up with some crazy scenario where Palm doesn't release something with at least a Snapdragon (when everyone else in the world is releasing Snapdragon hardware) is really strange.

    Palm was the first to market with the high-end A8 processor. They did this without the enormous and formidable financial backing of HP.

    Switch to the Evo if you want, but Palm's next handset is going to scream. Count on it.
    I actually hope Palm tightens up WebOS a bit more instead of just throwing more processing power at it. Like iPhone level tightness.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedar View Post
    Well, the good thing is that...

    HP + tablets + WebOS = consumer friendly.
    ... The smartphone market really gears toward the higher end... while I can see HP making consumer oriented tablets.
    Your equation for consumer friendly lacks another key variable: compelling software. So far, WebOS has really been slow with this aspect of the complete product.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    LOL, you actually used the word 'premium' to describe Apple hardware? Do you know what's under that nice pretty artsy fartsy skin that seem to attract so many like bait? Pretty much the same stuff that's found in any other major brand. There is no special Steve Jobs-certified manufacturing plant anywhere. They basically put a nice skin on the same stuff and sell them at a 'premium'. So be careful when you throw around the 'cheap' word. If Microsoft didn't pump money into Apple, they'd be dead a long time ago.
    LOL. I guess you're one of those people that see a Aston Martin and say it just has a fancy body. Totally ignoring all the engineering and attention to detail that separates it from a Ford Taurus. Same with Apple, it's the attention to detail that separates them from the rest of the cheap PCs. Like the fact that they have had backlit keyboard for years on their laptops and to this day just a couple of PC manufacturers have started doing that, although that is a great feature to have when you're in a low light situation.

    Or, actually go look at a 15" MacBook Pro and compare to the typical cheap plastic PC laptop. Go look at the typical particle board computer desk and compare it to a real wood computer desk and tell if they are the same? One costs more because it is built with better materials. Like the Macs have an aluminum case and the typical PC laptop is made of plastic. Hence, why Apple is considered a premium product.

    I also suggest you go to ifixit.com and look at any of the tear downs of the Apple stuff and compare it's insides to that of any PC. There is a difference. If you can't see it, then that's your loss. The finer details are typically lost on the average person.

    Ah, the typical myth about Microsoft bailing out Apple. Clueless...

    The 150 million dollars Microsoft gave Apple was a settlement for Apple to drop a lawsuit against Microsoft. Why don't you read the below facts about the Microsoft $150 million. Read the article carefully since you seem to have a problem with details. You know, not being able to see the quality in Apple versus a generic laptop.

    This is the myth that will not die. The $150 million dollars that
    Microsoft "invested" in Apple, was actually the result of a settlement
    between the two companies.
    At the time that Microsoft agreed to make
    this $150 million dollar "investment" (which was sold five years later)
    in Apple stock, Apple had $1.2 billion dollars in cash, but Steve Jobs
    needed Microsoft to restart efforts to complete a new version of Office
    for Mac, which had languished for three years. In turn, Bill Gates
    wanted Apple to use Internet Explorer as their default browser and to
    settle several billion dollar patent disputes involving Windows and
    Quicktime.

    Look and Feel Lawsuit:
    Apple Inc. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In 1997, five years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering
    infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and
    Macintosh GUI, as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against
    Microsoft, were settled when Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the
    default browser over Netscape, and Microsoft agreed to continue
    developing Office and other software for the Mac for the next 5 years,
    and purchased $150 million of non-voting Apple stock.

    Canyon Code Theft Lawsuit:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_

    Later testimony in the U.S. D.O.J. Microsoft anti-turst trial revealed
    that, at the time, Apple was threatening Microsoft with a multi-billion
    dollar lawsuit over the allegedly stolen code, and in return Bill Gates
    was threatening with the cancellation of Office for the Mac. In August
    1997, Apple and Microsoft announced a settlement deal. Apple would drop
    all current lawsuits, including all lingering issues from the "Look &
    Feel" lawsuit and the "QuickTime source code" lawsuit, and agree to make
    Internet Explorer the default browser on the Macintosh unless the user
    explicitly chose the bundled Netscape browser. In return, Microsoft
    agreed to continue developing Office, Internet Explorer, and various
    developer tools and software for the Mac for the next 5 years, and
    purchase $150 million of non-voting Apple stock. The companies also
    agreed to mutual collaboration on Java technologies, and to
    cross-license all existing patents, and patents obtained during the
    five-year deal, with one another.
    So, Apple at that time had $1.2 billion in the bank. So, please tell me how a measly $150 million bailout (the MYTH) was going to help Apple? Although I do find it funny that in 1997 Apple had $1.2 billion dollars in cash at it's lowest point and today in 2010 the whole company of Palm and the $500 million it had in cash was sold to HP for $1.2 billion. Shows you how low in value Palm had fallen.
    Last edited by SoFly; 05/19/2010 at 05:15 PM.
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions