Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37
  1. #21  
    Hang on a sec. Palm launched with Sprint, a great carrier but not the biggest. Palm gain some other no US companies but that was late in the year. Supply was VERY tight. Remember the first day of sales? We were lucky if there were more than 4 phones per store. And many of the non-Sprint stores had zero for weeks.

    Now that production is up, supply is much better. "V", O2, Bell and many other are fully on board. Then there is the 4G of Sprint. If palm is in on that too then all of this combined should be one of Palms best years to date.

    The only company that IMO Palm should keep an eye on is Google. I think that they are down right scary with the money and power they have and are gaining. They could turn this whole market over on it's head. And all Goole has to do is snap it's fingers.
  2. emuneee's Avatar
    Posts
    96 Posts
    Global Posts
    123 Global Posts
    #22  
    Gartner is pretty accurate. I was aan engineer at a top 5 handset manufacturer and internet market analysis reports were done using Gartner data. We even had data broken down by region and segment.

    And Nokia does do 80 million/year in smartphone sales because Symbian is a very popular OS outside the US.

    I don't see WebOS mimicking the same growth Android experienced in its early years because Android has more manufacturers behind it and way more form factors and higher carrier availability. Same responce for RIM as well. RIM has far more resources at its disposal so it can churn out devices across many different form factors and carriers in a given year.

    The positive thing is, Palm doesn't have to sell 25 million handsets a year to be successful. The smartphone segment is growing at a rapid pace so Palm just needs to continue to be competitive
  3. #23  
    This is a thread well worth reading, kudos to everyone for the great comments and facts.
    It seems to me that Palm just started pushing the advertising( to co-incide with the release of 1.4 which they had hoped to debut last week)? If so, I wonder if they will get increased sales from the early disappointing Verizon sales and also [favorable] reviews from the press once 1.4 comes out.
    If so, could be interesting.
    The person I recommended the phone to just asked me today why the phone is not being advertised versus "the droid which is all over the place."
  4. #24  
    I'd like to see individual phone comparisons. 1.2 million for 2 phones compared to the x many Android phones doesn't sound like a comparison. But agree, doesn't seem like Palm had that exponential growth. I'm starting to not care anymore, as long as I am happy with this powerhouse machine, i'm fine.
    ***I Twitter***

    Stop complaining & start doing ---> Leave feedback/suggestions for Palm here
  5. gbp
    gbp is offline
    gbp's Avatar
    Posts
    2,506 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,543 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by emuneee View Post
    Gartner is pretty accurate. I was aan engineer at a top 5 handset manufacturer and internet market analysis reports were done using Gartner data. We even had data broken down by region and segment.

    And Nokia does do 80 million/year in smartphone sales because Symbian is a very popular OS outside the US.

    I don't see WebOS mimicking the same growth Android experienced in its early years because Android has more manufacturers behind it and way more form factors and higher carrier availability. Same responce for RIM as well. RIM has far more resources at its disposal so it can churn out devices across many different form factors and carriers in a given year.

    The positive thing is, Palm doesn't have to sell 25 million handsets a year to be successful. The smartphone segment is growing at a rapid pace so Palm just needs to continue to be competitive
    Thanks for the post. Do you know how they will get their information ? from distribution channels ? or manufacturers ? or from Sales ? I am sure this is complicated , no wonder they are Gartner , but was curious how they get the numbers ? My pessimistic estimate based on the app catalog is 1.4 million.
  6. gbp
    gbp is offline
    gbp's Avatar
    Posts
    2,506 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,543 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by RanGT View Post
    I'd like to see individual phone comparisons. 1.2 million for 2 phones compared to the x many Android phones doesn't sound like a comparison. But agree, doesn't seem like Palm had that exponential growth. I'm starting to not care anymore, as long as I am happy with this powerhouse machine, i'm fine.
    Android is selling on three carriers(Verizon,TMo, Sprint) And the models include G1,G2, (aka MyTouch),Moment,Hero/Droid Eris,Droid, Nexus One. That's six models on three carriers.

    PALM Pre was only on SPRINT (remember its 2009 only) with two handsets.

    I am pessimistic about the Pre sales on Verizon. I have a strong feeling that Pre on ATT will be the real seller for PALM. First it will give the iPhone bored boys a fresh new phone. Plus it can do Voice and Data simultaneously on ATT 3G network (I know I know it sucks , but I am looking at the initial spike of sales). More over ATT has more educated customers than Verizon , thanks to APPLE. They can buy more Pres than Verizon.
  7. Me2
    Me2 is offline
    Me2's Avatar
    Posts
    185 Posts
    Global Posts
    336 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardfan View Post
    Consumers see hardware first. Before too much nitipicking about the OS, Palm has to make the hardware a winner. Too many defective units, too cheap feeling, pales in comparison to solid phones like the iphone & droid. Especially if Palm isn't going to advertise the software strengths.
    You hit the nail on the head. Take a look at the phone store where the Pre is pitched side by side with the sleek glass & chrome iPhone and brushed aluminium Nokias with their totally solid build.

    Palm's products don't come near - even before you start to look at the internals. The housing is my biggest issue with the Pre. It uses the same materials as the Centro and Pro, and despite a change of manufacturer, all of them suffer the same cheap look and feel. They just don't ooze enough style or quality to attract the High Street shopper, and they look too low-end and fragile to be accepted in the boardroom. At the Pre's price level, you've got to give people a good feeling that's better than the competition as soon as they pick up the phone on the shop display, and then every time they use it, so they continue to justify the spend to themselves and their peers.

    With Palm's constant costcutting on their hardware, it's not surprising that it gets passed over in the shop - especially as most retail samples are dummy units so the potential buyers have made a judgement before they get to see WebOS in action. Feel the build quality of the iPhone, N97 mini and HTC Hero with the same price tags and the Palm is left standing. Everytime someone feels the 100% plastic case, the top wobble, the slider snag, the battery cover creak, the keys crunch, or their mates say 'this one's much cooler', that's a lost sale. The user experience begins long before you turn it on, and nothing from Palm feels anything more than a budget device.

    One public reaction which sums this up:


    Obvious iPhone bias and exaggerated for effect of course, but all the same the "cheap tracky plastic" comments ring all too true. If the first sight and touch of the Pre had been "ooh" she may have even queued. Don't forget this is Palm's target audience...
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Me2 View Post
    You hit the nail on the head. Take a look at the phone store where the Pre is pitched side by side with the sleek glass & chrome iPhone and brushed aluminium Nokias with their totally solid build.

    Palm's products don't come near - even before you start to look at the internals. The housing is my biggest issue with the Pre. It uses the same materials as the Centro and Pro, and despite a change of manufacturer, all of them suffer the same cheap look and feel. They just don't ooze enough style or quality to attract the High Street shopper, and they look too low-end and fragile to be accepted in the boardroom. At the Pre's price level, you've got to give people a good feeling that's better than the competition as soon as they pick up the phone on the shop display, and then every time they use it, so they continue to justify the spend to themselves and their peers.

    With Palm's constant costcutting on their hardware, it's not surprising that it gets passed over in the shop - especially as most retail samples are dummy units so the potential buyers have made a judgement before they get to see WebOS in action. Feel the build quality of the iPhone, N97 mini and HTC Hero with the same price tags and the Palm is left standing. Everytime someone feels the 100% plastic case, the top wobble, the slider snag, the battery cover creak, the keys crunch, or their mates say 'this one's much cooler', that's a lost sale. The user experience begins long before you turn it on, and nothing from Palm feels anything more than a budget device.

    One public reaction which sums this up:


    Obvious iPhone bias and exaggerated for effect of course, but all the same the "cheap tracky plastic" comments ring all too true. If the first sight and touch of the Pre had been "ooh" she may have even queued. Don't forget this is Palm's target audience...
    my palm pre feels and looks great. had it for 8 months very happy with it!
  9. #29  
    How do so many people purport to know what number of sales is good or bad for Palm?

    Not every business model is "Sell as many as you can as fast as you can!"

    Anyone who's worked in manufacturing knows there is a comfort zone for what kind of volume you can handle. While more sales always seems like a good idea, that also increases overhead exponentially. The increased demand on support, potential higher cost or sacrificing quality of material for exceeding forecasted levels, and the increased strain on logistics could eventually build to the point where you're actually hurting the company as a whole. You can make record sales, but what good is it to have $100 in sales when it costs you $120 to produce the product?

    I don't know if Palm's numbers are good or bad as I'm not privy to that information (and I doubt anyone here is either). But comparing the performance of companies with such vastly different business structures is useless. And it's not necessarily that Palm may be doing OK because they're small, it's the fact they don't have billions of dollars pouring in from other revenue streams like the others to fall back on should they hit a bump.

    With a hard advertising push, could they have pushed closer to those Android type numbers? Who's to say. But there's a good chance that if they had, they would be in no better a financial position.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Mo View Post
    How do so many people purport to know what number of sales is good or bad for Palm?

    Not every business model is "Sell as many as you can as fast as you can!"
    You seriously think part of the business model of a major manufacturer with less than a half-million in the bank after having tapped both their parent investors and stock offerings is to sell through (not just sell to carriers, but also to customers) at a rate less than "as quickly as possible"?

    Trust me...they wanted to sell far more WebOS phones than they have. But even if there was a fantasy world in which they wanted nothing more than the amount of WebOS devices currently shipped, they still listed (by their own earnings numbers) six figure plus amounts of unsold devices just sitting on store shelves ignored. Not good at all.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    You seriously think part of the business model of a major manufacturer with less than a half-million in the bank after having tapped both their parent investors and stock offerings is to sell through (not just sell to carriers, but also to customers) at a rate less than "as quickly as possible"?
    I'm saying you can sell at a level past what you can reliably produce. They weren't just cranking out a new Treo with a new iteration of PalmOS, you're talking about basically an entirely new product with almost all new people behind it from a company that was reeling. It can go either way. Do you go all out with a chance to make a huge profit, but also risk breaking yourself? Or do you go for a much smaller margin with a much higher chance of viability? Not saying that either is the right choice, but hey are both valid.

    Trust me...they wanted to sell far more WebOS phones than they have. But even if there was a fantasy world in which they wanted nothing more than the amount of WebOS devices currently shipped, they still listed (by their own earnings numbers) six figure plus amounts of unsold devices just sitting on store shelves ignored. Not good at all.
    There would be an agreement of shipped vs actual units sold, but that can still be accounted. If a vendor places an order, the vendor is on the hook for at least part of the cost to the manufacturer. In Palm's case, I would imagine they're on the small side of liability. Selling every unit would obviously be the best case scenario, but not doing so doesn't mean near failure. It could merely be a matter of different margins.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Mo View Post
    I'm saying you can sell at a level past what you can reliably produce. They weren't just cranking out a new Treo with a new iteration of PalmOS, you're talking about basically an entirely new product with almost all new people behind it from a company that was reeling. It can go either way. Do you go all out with a chance to make a huge profit, but also risk breaking yourself? Or do you go for a much smaller margin with a much higher chance of viability? Not saying that either is the right choice, but hey are both valid.
    It's not an either/or situation. Palm's been in the smartphone business long enough to know how things work. They should have been fully prepared to to produce a heck of a lot more phones to capitalize on the early release buzz setting themselves up for even more rapid growth. Instead they came out of the gate last June with too few phones, too few advertising dollars, and too little buzz. All the CES hype they generated (and maintained somewhat in the ensuing months) disappeared in a few short weeks last summer.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Mo View Post
    How do so many people purport to know what number of sales is good or bad for Palm?

    Not every business model is "Sell as many as you can as fast as you can!"
    I'll always remember a 2010 CES interview where Rubinstein says for now, he just wants to get back in the game and be in the top 5. Don't have to be number one.

    Sounds like you are holding up the "Quality, not Quantity" flag. With the previous poster...after hardware fixes, hopefully we will have perfected quality. But WebOS has achived the nice quality to a certain degree. Even though most of the patches aren't incorporated, the OS allows the brewing of such patches from the dev community.
    ***I Twitter***

    Stop complaining & start doing ---> Leave feedback/suggestions for Palm here
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    It's not an either/or situation. Palm's been in the smartphone business long enough to know how things work. They should have been fully prepared to to produce a heck of a lot more phones to capitalize on the early release buzz setting themselves up for even more rapid growth. Instead they came out of the gate last June with too few phones, too few advertising dollars, and too little buzz. All the CES hype they generated (and maintained somewhat in the ensuing months) disappeared in a few short weeks last summer.
    Were you going to put up the capital they didn't have to manufacture these phones? It has nothing to do with the "smartphone" business; it's a basic law of manufacturing: it isn't free.

    People need to be realistic. I'm sure they would have liked to have sold 5 million phones last year but they didn't have the resources to do it. You're not in a good position to take on such an endeavor when your stock is in the $2 range.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by rush View Post
    I really think that if palm improve on there hardware... there would definitely see a huge sale on their device,inwhich other carriers would most likely sell their phones. I love my palm pre a lot.
    what a joke
  16. #36  
    Folks on this board can point to hardware, not enough models or the typical stuff you see here as to why Palm is where they're at. WebOs started at the bottom and is still there. Why do some act as though it is a surprise. I'm not amazed at the analyst comments anymore b/c anyone can see that the motivations for calling Palm a $20 stock has nothing to do with looking at the state of affairs. There was nothing before WebOS launched or after that would make anyone think that the stock would hit $20. It just goes to show that some on Wall Street have learned nothing from the prior collapse. Its the same rampant speculation driven by hidden motives. The truth is that with the shape Palm was in, most honest analysts didn't expect them to turn a profit until 2011 or 2012 with total sales hitting slightly over 2 million in 2010.

    WebOs is right where it should be and where anyone that was intellectually honest expected it to be. We're talking about a company that was a $2 stock, created a whole new operating system with new phones, and started their comeback on the network that was and is still bleeding customers all the while lacking in buzz b/c of a lack of advertising and good advertising at that.

    We can talk about the 'buzz' created from CES 2009 all we want but in reality the average consumer prolly didn't remember Palm Pre when June 2009 rolled around. It was buzz to the people that follow this stuff but not to the average folk.
    Are you trying to hurt me?
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by RanGT View Post
    I'll always remember a 2010 CES interview where Rubinstein says for now, he just wants to get back in the game and be in the top 5. Don't have to be number one.

    Sounds like you are holding up the "Quality, not Quantity" flag. With the previous poster...after hardware fixes, hopefully we will have perfected quality. But WebOS has achived the nice quality to a certain degree. Even though most of the patches aren't incorporated, the OS allows the brewing of such patches from the dev community.
    It's more I understand that there's no way a $700M company like Palm that lost a few hundred million last year can operate the same way a $40B company like Google that profited $6B.

    And obviously with the likes of Google and Apple, all those resources aren't behind their cell phone products. But I wouldn't be surprised if the other companies didn't have at least 20 times the amount of resources Palm has pushing their cell phone division.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions