Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 96
  1. shotyme's Avatar
    Posts
    168 Posts
    Global Posts
    175 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Lack of funding might excuse cheap build quality. It doesn't excuse bad design/execution decisions such as:

    • Picking hardware that you fail to utilize (e.g. the GPU) with your software
    • Placing a USB port on the side of your device that makes docks inconvenient and adds stress to the plastic, then covering it with a flimsy door
    • Adding insufficient RAM to accomplish the main virtue of your product (i.e. multitasking)
    • Ummm...the Pixi?
    True, but I never said it did.

    Palm is not a fast mover, I agree. They had six month to fix software issues, but didn't really deliver like they should have
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by nappy View Post
    Uh.

    Isn't that the exact opposite of the point you were trying to make?
    taken out of context.... Read the post. If HP leaves Palm intact..and alows them to operate independently ...allowing them to access all of HP resources... It will make all of the diff. Last time I checked... The CEO of Palm is still onboard overseeing operations.
    what is it with people only reading what they want? I think I made that point clearly.
    lets break it down
    big company buys little company
    HP buys Palm
    Big company states they will let Palm operate independently...and allow them access to all of HP resources....
    Palm innovation + HP labs and resources...
    lets see how this acquisition performs...

    I think this combination will bring big improvements to webOS 2.0
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by shotyme View Post
    RIM is also, a much larger company than Palm. They focused on the business word of email and expanded out. It seems you are now trying to expand the question, since I only responded to one bit of your quote. I was merely breaking down how a company like Palm has to break up its staff to do what other companies.

    Apple - revenue is 32+ billion dollars a year. They do both their hardware and software, spawned by iPod sales and overpriced Macs. 34,000+ employees

    Google - revenue is 23+ billion dollars a year. Focus on software entirely, no hardware, spawned by Advertising system from its robust search engine. 20,000+ employees

    HTC - revenue is 4+ billions dollars a year. Focus on hardware, with tweets to software. Spawned by Windows Mobile and Android sales. 5,000+ employees

    Palm - revenue is 700+ million dollars a year. Focus on hardware and software. Spawned first PDA with Treos to follow, now webOS. 1,000+ employees.


    See any disparities?

    If you have the resources, you can do both hardware and software and reap the rewards, otherwise you lose your advantages.

    Just stating differences on how resources can are used
    I see no disparities - differences maybe, but hardly disparities. Palm had the opportunity to scale its efforts to its employee base/funding stream just like all the rest of the companies you list. Your post seems to infer that either Palm was unfairly 'frozen' at 1,000 employees or that Palm's business model wasn't scalable beyond the size created by the Treo. I think the truth lies close to Palm's inability to move effectively beyond the good ideas created using 'viewgraph engineering' to a more 'rubber-meets-the-road' existence.

    That's how companies end up with awesome products on paper, mediocre products on release, and a ton of promises of future greatness for as long as their customer base will swallow it. Those companies are a dime-a-dozen and usually end up like Palm (or worse).

    Successful companies scale their ideas to their talent pool, to their resources, and to their (perceived) market. From that point they grow their ideas/talent pool/resources to satisfy their market or to grow into new markets. Palm tried to take a shortcut, seemingly assuming that their (actually minuscule) Treo market was a guaranteed customer base. Instead, they all but lost the farm.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by clutch1222 View Post
    btw...
    [url= dirty little secret about Google Android | Tech Sanity Check | TechRepublic.com[/url]
    Unfortunately, sales of the Nexus One were tepid and customers were frustrated by Google’s poor customer support. By the time spring rolled around, Verizon was still dragging its feet and eventually the Nexus One on Verizon was canceled and replaced with the HTC Incredible, a nice device that nonetheless completely followed the old carrier model.
    any thoughts :
    mikah
    kupe
    barkeja
    what went wrong there?
    did you read the article? VERY intersting read.
    I see no one cared to comment... No surprise there
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by clutch1222 View Post
    Unfortunately, sales of the Nexus One were tepid and customers were frustrated by Google’s poor customer support. By the time spring rolled around, Verizon was still dragging its feet and eventually the Nexus One on Verizon was canceled and replaced with the HTC Incredible, a nice device that nonetheless completely followed the old carrier model.
    any thoughts :
    mikah
    kupe
    barkeja
    what went wrong there?
    did you read the article? VERY intersting read.
    I see no one cared to comment... No surprise there
    Yes, I read it and like someone already mentioned above it just seems to be a pro-Apple spin.

    I find it difficult to believe that the Nexus One poorly sold due to terrible Google customer service. I'm not saying Google has great customer service but do you honestly believe that enough Nexus One's sold to really flex Google's capabilities of providing quality customer service? No.

    They didn't sell because of what I said above: no subsidizing (T-Mobile only) and online only. Hell, you had to buy the Nexus One without ever have even touched one, not even as much as a demo unit in the T-Mobile store.

    The problem isn't really the manufactures, it's the carriers. I wish the U.S. adopted more of the European model when it came to the mobile market. Apple actually went to Verizon before they ever pitched to AT&T but Verizon wanted more control of the iPhone – Apple wasn't about to let that happen.

    When Android 3.0 hits I would love to see a new license that disallows manufactures from skinning or applying other non-standard applications to the device. Will that happen? Probably not.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by clutch1222 View Post
    big company buys little company
    HP buys Palm
    Big company states they will let Palm operate independently...and allow them access to all of HP resources....

    HP these days (or at least Hurd days) is ALL about cost cutting. They don't - if you listen to angry employees - even support their own R&D, which is at its lowest level ever in the history of the company.

    I don't think, in the best of circumstances, that HP allows Palm "access" to all their resources.

    This is not a blank check, people!
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by clutch1222 View Post
    hmmm.... Who should I believe?
    None of the above. I'm no expert either, but I know "spin" when I hear/read it. Did you expect Rubi to say "yeah, we blew it. But hey, HP's got our back now so we're good"?

    Believe the results, not some CEO spin.

    By the way, how do you believe "the smartphone market was going to explode" and still think the "industry became much more competitive very quickly than we had hoped or could have predicted" at the same time?
  8. #48  
    Those are good links. They provide insight into HP's approach to supporting their new Palm team. As leaders of the Palm WebOS team, those departing employees had a lot of vested interest in its success. Their departure from Palm is a clear indication that things changed with the HP takeover. How and to what magnitude things changed is yet-to-be determined, but the change was enough to make some of the key players in the WebOS world move on to something different (better? certainly in their minds). That doesn't speak well of HP's plans for WebOS.
  9. #49  
    Also...the guy that Apple hired from Palm was a RE-hire. He worked at Apple first, so if anything...Palm was poaching Apple talent...not the other way around.

    Cough....Jon Rubinstein....cough.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Also...the guy that Apple hired from Palm was a RE-hire. He worked at Apple first, so if anything...Palm was poaching Apple talent...not the other way around.

    Cough....Jon Rubinstein....cough.
    Something few people know: Jon Rubinstein used to flip burgers for pocket money as a kid. So Apple poached McDonalds talent long before Palm ever came along.

    And god forbid that anybody would take on a new, more challenging job with better pay at a different company.

    Didn't you know? The first company that hires you - that's the company you belong to for the rest of your life. If you ever switch companies, dark forces are surely at play, usually ones conspiring against Apple, an underground company of ragtag misfits that can never catch a break in its fight against The Man.
  11. shotyme's Avatar
    Posts
    168 Posts
    Global Posts
    175 Global Posts
    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    I see no disparities - differences maybe, but hardly disparities. Palm had the opportunity to scale its efforts to its employee base/funding stream just like all the rest of the companies you list. Your post seems to infer that either Palm was unfairly 'frozen' at 1,000 employees or that Palm's business model wasn't scalable beyond the size created by the Treo. I think the truth lies close to Palm's inability to move effectively beyond the good ideas created using 'viewgraph engineering' to a more 'rubber-meets-the-road' existence.

    That's how companies end up with awesome products on paper, mediocre products on release, and a ton of promises of future greatness for as long as their customer base will swallow it. Those companies are a dime-a-dozen and usually end up like Palm (or worse).

    Successful companies scale their ideas to their talent pool, to their resources, and to their (perceived) market. From that point they grow their ideas/talent pool/resources to satisfy their market or to grow into new markets. Palm tried to take a shortcut, seemingly assuming that their (actually minuscule) Treo market was a guaranteed customer base. Instead, they all but lost the farm.
    You are either not seeing the point I am making or you are refusing to see the point I am making.

    First off, my first response was in regards to a reply

    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    You know what? You're right - the implications that everyone at google is an Android programmer first and a (fill_in_your_secondary_job_here) second is ingenious. Clutch really nailed that one!
    I merely stated that not everyone at Palm is coding for webOS, the same way that not every person who works at Google is not coding for Android.

    Staying on topic, we were talking about updates for Android vs. updates for webOS. I then talked about how they can spend their resources. Google is ONLY working on software. They have other projects, but they are competing with Apple and they have a lot more resources to devote to Android R&D. Every company has talent. So if the talent and Palm and Google are equal, the one with more resources will do better. Also, Google has the ability to use is marketing muscle for another push to android.

    Google is not really focused on hardware, but Palm is. Google just puts its resources within software. Other companies like HTC, Samsung, and Motorola puts their money in the Hardware.

    The only company really putting efforts behind both hardware and software is Apple, but do you think they would be as successful if they did not have their iPod line? Maybe they would, but you can't deny the fact that iPod gave Apple serious brand recognition and revenue to expand the iPod into the iPhone.

    Palm did OK, but they can't really compete with the money rich Google, who focus on Software only not the money rich Apple who focus on both, but have more than 40 times more revenue and 30,000 + more employees.

    I am not trying to get any excuses for Palm. Palm had a slight chance to make a break, but they fumbled their chances. Both Google and Apple have fumbled the ball with their OS, but they were able to recover due to their resources. With CES, Palm cause a lot of hype, but they made that announcement only because they were in dire need of one. Had they been able to launch the next month, we probably would not be writing this in this thread now, but we are.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by clutch1222 View Post
    so.... Apple re- hired . once again... missing the point.

    Apple / Google hired Palm Talent after the HP acquisition.
    I dont care where they worked previously. If they sucked... they would not get rehired. They did an excellent job with webos. Those ex apple employee's were never going to be able to create an OS like webOS or add input for ios at apple with Steve's control issues.
    But the guy Apple hired is one of "those ex apple employee's".

    How does your post disprove my point? Talent is Talent. the guys who helped creeate the ui for Palm webOS were hired by google and apple - period. Maybe Apple is ready to listen to the guy now......
    And we all know how lacking Android ui is compared to ios and webOS.
    Hilarious. They weren't "ready to listen" to this visionary until he showed them what's what by creating notifications for the almighty WebOS. Ok...I guess Steve Jobs looked at the record profit quarters for Apple and the nigh zero percent marketshare for WebOS and said "Man, how wrong was I? Get me Rich Dellinger back here stat!"
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by clutch1222 View Post
    clear indication? realy. get over yourself. It could be any of many reasons why they left. Most likely the #1 reason..big$$$ after proving themselves with webOS. Thats something they could not do wrking for apple and their controlled CEO.
    Wow. So now Steve Jobs is so controlling, he must buy off top shelf designers to get them to stay or come aboard, and they can't make "big $$$$" at HP or Palm? This is an interesting narrative.

    a handful of Palm employees leave... and Palm , with CEO onboard, join a massive company with massive resources ( 47k engineers)... and always...in tru form.. you focus on the few that left... the NEGATIVE.
    It's not focusing on the negative, nor where these merely a handful of employees. This is the top shelf of the WebOS team, the talent behind the intellectual property. Almost all of the most notable figures have left for another company, and they have done it within weeks of each other. That suggests it isn't coincidental. Anyway, according to your perspective...it isn't negative at all.

    The ex-Palm employees get lots of money and a new boss who is ready to listen. Palm gets new HP engineers and lots of money on their own accord. Everybody wins, right?
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by shotyme View Post
    You are either not seeing the point I am making or you are refusing to see the point I am making.

    <snip>

    I am not trying to get any excuses for Palm. Palm had a slight chance to make a break, but they fumbled their chances. Both Google and Apple have fumbled the ball with their OS, but they were able to recover due to their resources. With CES, Palm cause a lot of hype, but they made that announcement only because they were in dire need of one. Had they been able to launch the next month, we probably would not be writing this in this thread now, but we are.
    I see your point - I simply disagree with it. The size of a company and the resources it has access to have very little to do with its chances of success. Period. In general, smaller companies are more agile, responsive, and (perhaps) imaginative than their ponderous larger counterparts. I'd be interested in hearing the story behind your claims of Google's and Apple's OS fumbles (saved by money), because Palm received the equivalent of 1 year's revenue from Elevation Partners as venture capital and couldn't even match the performance they enjoyed before the current management team took over. Palm blew it from top-to-bottom. They went from a clear market leader in smartphones (outside of the Nokia behemoth) to a barely measurable footnote in under 5 years. Think how much more money they would have squandered if they'd had access to it (Foleo 2 maybe? ).
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by shotyme View Post
    Well, look at the pre and tell me how many complaints were toward the hardware vs. the software and that should answer your question. Their focus was software, but I have read all too often of "oreo effect", cracked screens, too many cards, etc. Resources were spent to replace these devices, also, their customer support had to increase since they were getting a lot of returns.

    The only fact I state is that they had to invest in hardware as well as software. If the above doesn't take away resources you can use for software development, then I stand corrected.
    Does Palm (corporate) spend resources on refurbishing phones? (Honest question)

    Also, I think a great majority of returns and support issues are handled by the carriers. At least I know they are for Sprint. Most customers do not deal with Palm directly because it takes 2-3 weeks to receive a replacement. Where the carrier will replace it in-store or within a 1-2 days.

    EDIT: For what it's worth, I (currently) have as many complaints on the software (lag, lack of features, etc.) as I do on the hardware. Now my wife on the other hand, is generally happy on the software side but absolutely frustrated on the hardware side. Which would likely be the case for a high percent of your general consumers (read: not tech obsessed power users ).
  16. #56  
    I've said it before but my gf is the same case.

    She can't STAND the hardware and even has some beefs with the software...but her frustrations with the hardware makes her just hate the phone (and palm) in general.

    Its very easy to lose a customer for life and the way she talks now she doesn't seem to want another Palm device ever again.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by gmanvbva View Post
    Does Palm (corporate) spend resources on refurbishing phones? (Honest question)

    Also, I think a great majority of returns and support issues are handled by the carriers. At least I know they are for Sprint. Most customers do not deal with Palm directly because it takes 2-3 weeks to receive a replacement. Where the carrier will replace it in-store or within a 1-2 days.

    EDIT: For what it's worth, I (currently) have as many complaints on the software (lag, lack of features, etc.) as I do on the hardware. Now my wife on the other hand, is generally happy on the software side but absolutely frustrated on the hardware side. Which would likely be the case for a high percent of your general consumers (read: not tech obsessed power users ).
    Carriers handle inventory and refurbs through a 3rd party. They probably have an arrangement with Palm where there is some sort of charge back or credit based on return and failure rates.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by shotyme View Post
    The carrier is going to complain about the quality of the products they are receiving and ask Palm to correct it. So, yes. A lot of the phones are indeed sent to Sprint., but it does effect quality control. The Pre Plus is a result of Sprint's issues.

    Most of the lag is due to hardware constraints, i.e. processor speed, RAM. I can see your software complaint, in that webOS was not written to take advantage of the GPU, but lack of features is frustrating. Every platform suffers for it, but webOS is getting there.
    Actually, it's software related. You can throw hardware at the problem but that's not really fixing the issue.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    Carriers handle inventory and refurbs through a 3rd party. They probably have an arrangement with Palm where there is some sort of charge back or credit based on return and failure rates.
    That was my understanding as well. But I wasn't 100% sure with regards to Palm. Although I was pretty sure that Palm (corporate) was not dealing with that type of support.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by shotyme View Post
    I deleted my post since the question was answered, but here it is again

    That is why overclocking alleviated a lot of the lag


    If you read the rest of my post, I stated software in that webOS was not written to take advantage of the GPU. See below
    I'm not sure what points you are making and I am guessing I am missing parts of the conversation you are having due to your edit's/deletes?

    Quote Originally Posted by shotyme View Post
    Most of the lag is due to hardware constraints, i.e. processor speed, RAM. I can see your software complaint, in that webOS was not written to take advantage of the GPU, but lack of features is frustrating. Every platform suffers for it, but webOS is getting there.
    Overclocking alleviated the lag (to some extent) because it threw 80%-100% more CPU cycles at the issue. But the core issue is still optimization of the OS and Luna.

    Generally, if you throw twice as many CPU cycles at anything... it's going to get faster.

    I mean think about it. You had to perform that type of OC just to get it to "seem normal and responsive".

    Edit: That is a very drastic OC for any CPU. But especially so for a mobile CPU that has no way to increase heat dispersion and has other components in very close proximity. Unlike desktop CPU's.
    Last edited by gmanvbva; 08/24/2010 at 03:03 PM.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions