Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe
    You apparently have an internet connection so you can do the research yourself (hint: try "flash memory chip price" with or without the quotes). When you find some prices, remember the following:

    1. I am referring to the difference in price, not the actual chip price.
    2. Companies like Palm (or their manufacturer, HTC) buy in bulk, well in advance of the actual manufacturing time frame. Flash chips (NAND and otherwise) have experienced a glut in the past 3 years - lowest prices ever.
    3. The cost of a 500 MB NAND chip (like for your iPod) is around $10-$15 in bulk.
    4. Last January when I researched it, bulk 64 MB NAND (the more expensive flash memory at the time) was $9-$10 and 32 MB NAND was $5-$8 depending on the source of the information and the day the information was retrieved. You do the math.

    You're right, this was not a $3.14 decision - it was a $3.14 x total number of Treo 700s to be built decision. Add to that decision the likelihood of HTC having a warehouse full of 32MB chips from the Treo 650 and Palm's choice became even more obvious.

    In any case, like Treoshmeo says, a sub-$10 per unit decision like this one was at best cheezy cheap. More likely it was intentionally Machiavellian.
    Granted, from one point of view the actual hard cost of the increased RAM would seem like only a small cost of the entire phone to Palm.

    But the hard cost of the RAM upgrade is only part of the total cost - who knows if any other hardware changes would need to be made in order to accomodate the extra RAM? Something like that could totally make the "$3.14 decision into a $103.14 decision pretty easily depending upon what the necessary changes were (not to mention the delay that would certainly mean). There are also internal and external stakeholders who have a big say in this (Verizon for one, Microsoft another) and who knows what the decision making process was there. Perhaps in testing the 64MB chip drained the battery too fast. Perhaps there wasn't enough time before product release to certify the device with 64MB. Verizon is putting pressure on Palm to get this out ASAP of course, Microsoft the same.

    I agree that from the user point of view this seems like a no brainer to put as much RAM on the device as possible. BUT I think it's naive to just write it off as "cheesy cheepskate" mentality on the part of Palm when you're not part of the design team that put this together and you don't really understand all of the technical details that go into making these devices. And didn't you read the thread in here where that guy gave his 700w to PocketPC Techs to upgrade? And when they booted the device after putting the new RAM in it didn't work right? That *could* be a clue to a major architecture issue that would preclude the possibility of simply popping open the case and snapping in a new RAM chip...these aren't PC's after all, they are highly specialized devices.
    Siemens S46 -> Siemens S56 -> Motorola MPx200 -> Moto v600 -> Audiovox SMT5600 -> Treo 650 -> Motorola Q (14 days) -> Treo 650 -> Treo 700w -> Treo 750
  2. #22  
    If the 700w had 64MB RAM, this wouldn't even be an issue for me.

    As is, NetFront, FlexMail, etc are all but useless on the 700w(specially when running together - and these are not apps you want to close and restart every time you need them). I'd take the 6700 over the 700w.
    A new Avatar to commemorate Silly Season.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by seaflipper
    There are also internal and external stakeholders who have a big say in this (Verizon for one, Microsoft another) and who knows what the decision making process was there. Perhaps in testing the 64MB chip drained the battery too fast. Perhaps there wasn't enough time before product release to certify the device with 64MB. Verizon is putting pressure on Palm to get this out ASAP of course, Microsoft the same.

    I agree that from the user point of view this seems like a no brainer to put as much RAM on the device as possible. BUT I think it's naive to just write it off as "cheesy cheepskate" mentality on the part of Palm when you're not part of the design team that put this together and you don't really understand all of the technical details that go into making these devices. And didn't you read the thread in here where that guy gave his 700w to PocketPC Techs to upgrade? And when they booted the device after putting the new RAM in it didn't work right? That *could* be a clue to a major architecture issue that would preclude the possibility of simply popping open the case and snapping in a new RAM chip...these aren't PC's after all, they are highly specialized devices.
    Since EVERY OTHER PHONE has 64MB of RAM then the decision to go with 32MB should leave you shaking your head. If Palm couldn't get it's version of the Treo 700w to work with 64MB then... well, we all know that is BS. In fact, given this information there is no compelling reason whatsoever to go with 32MB of RAM except financial or desire. The battery life would be arguably similar since you wouldn't need to quit and launch apps (and reboot) every 5 minutes.

    Regarding the PPC Techs issue, it has nothing to do with 64MB of RAM being unable to work technically. It is about PPC Techs needing to guess where to turn on the connection for using the 64MB chip because Palm doesn't care to help them. If you read the thread, with Palm's help this could be easily accomplished.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe
    You obviously haven't tried the WM5.0 version of the i730. I currently use both the i730 and 700w and any advantages the 700w might have once had in one-handed usability have are pretty well gone. Add to that the i730's 520 MHz speed, 39 mb of free program memory after boot up, built in task manager, and 320x240 screen and the 1 extra button push required to lookup/dial a number doesn't seem to matter so much (plus, it runs the Treo's SpeedDial program).

    ????

    WM 5.0 version? Is this official?
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by seaflipper
    There are also internal and external stakeholders who have a big say in this (Verizon for one, Microsoft another) and who knows what the decision making process was there. Perhaps in testing the 64MB chip drained the battery too fast. Perhaps there wasn't enough time before product release to certify the device with 64MB. Verizon is putting pressure on Palm to get this out ASAP of course, Microsoft the same.
    Those arguments are a Red Herring. The PPC-6700 faced the very same issues, was built by the very same company (HTC) yet came to the Verizon market ~the same time as the Treo 700w (several months earlier at Sprint). The 6700 somehow managed to crack the great mystery on how to incorporate 64MB in a timely and affordable fashion.
  6. #26  
    AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK $however$, $there$ $aren$'$t$ $many$ $enhancements$ $to$ $the$ $WM5$ $OS$ $in$ $the$ $6700$ $to$ $allow$ $for$ $expanded$ $one$ $handed$ $operation$....$so$ $I$ $would$ $think$ $that$ $this$ $device$ $had$ $to$ $be$ $in$ $testers$ $hands$ $well$ $before$ $then$ $6700$ $did$ $so$ $as$ $to$ $allow$ $for$ $this$ $tweaking$.

    As a 1st effort it's a pretty good one to my mind.....then again, I am not quite sure Colligan didn't have this deficiency in mind so as to make the "700 plus" look wonderful by comparison. I mean how many multi OS devices are out there that we can have side by side w/ different OS's ? Once the trade press gets the 700p, the invariable comparisions will result in, comemnts that on the same hardware, WM5 just doesn't stand up. That's gotta make a lot of people w/ HP's, Dell's or whatever take notice.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe
    Those arguments are a Red Herring. The PPC-6700 faced the very same issues, was built by the very same company (HTC) yet came to the Verizon market ~the same time as the Treo 700w (several months earlier at Sprint). The 6700 somehow managed to crack the great mystery on how to incorporate 64MB in a timely and affordable fashion.
    Kupe, that argument is not a red herring, it's the TRUTH. That is how products are designed.

    And comparing the PPC-6700 to the Treo 700w is apples and oranges. They don't share the same main board, they don't share the same radio stack they don't share the same just about everything else - they are totally different designs and totally different phones. It simply does not logically follow to assume with that just because one has 64MB of RAM that the other must be capable of having 64MB or RAM too. And searching on the web for prices of NAND ram has nothing to do with what Palm actually pays for their BGA RAM modules for these devices.

    The fact of the matter is that the Treo700w is basically a Treo650 with a few enhancements. Palm took a product that was designed for a totally different OS and put WM5 on it. By doing so they probably brought a WM5 on the Treo form factor to the market MUCH faster than if they would had to start from scratch. Sure, it ain't perfect - but then again neither are ANY of the alternatives.
    Siemens S46 -> Siemens S56 -> Motorola MPx200 -> Moto v600 -> Audiovox SMT5600 -> Treo 650 -> Motorola Q (14 days) -> Treo 650 -> Treo 700w -> Treo 750
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions