Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
Like Tree1Likes
  1.    #1  
    After playing with the Samsung Epic 4G Touch and really wanting to see webOS on it, I started to formulate an idea. Please understand that I don't know anything about the cell phone business so if you are an industry insider don't take offense to the simplicity of what I am about to say. I believe that HP and the webOS community as a whole have gotten so hung up about licensing webOS to another hardware partner. Most of the potential partners out there don't want to take the chance at supporting yet another mobile OS and, given the fact that HP quickly abandoned webOS hardware without a plan, don't want to chance it with webOS. My idea is this: HP, don't license webOS to another hardware partner, license/commission existing hardware from that partner and put webOS on it.

    Think about it. Why should Samsung take a chance with webOS if they don't have to? The app infrastructure is just not there and that will be one more mouth to feed. Why should Samsung hire a webOS team to place the OS on their hardware and maintain it? HP already has a competent webOS team that should be a one stop shop for porting and issue resolution.

    Here is how I envision this working: Samsung (or HTC) produces a hot new Android phone line for the major carriers. Samsung takes the phone through the carrier and FCC trials and puts the phone line on the market. HP buys a vanilla (no OS, no labeling) version of the phone at a discounted price for volume, ports webOS to it, then sells the phone under an HP name and logo to the carriers to be place right along side of the Android version of the phone. HP maintains sole responsibility for hardware and software support on the phone. HP sets up a warranty program with Samsung for hardware defects where HP is solely responsible for recovering the losses for a defective unit from Samsung. In other words the customer only deals with HP.

    HP's management just needs to put together a team of software engineers that will be capable for porting webOS to the vanilla Samsung (or HTC) phone and pushing it through new carrier trials all in less than two months.

    I think this is a win win for everyone involved. Samsung (or HTC) can sell more hardware and not have to worry about software support (or paying $15 per unit to HP or Microsoft (for Android)). HP can get webOS onto more hardware without having to produce it themselves. The carrier gets an already proven piece of hardware with webOS on it. HP will lose $10-15 per device for licensing fees, but they could recoup it in higher carrier cost (get a webOS Galaxy S II for $210 instead of $199) or content licensing. HP could also build enough of a webOS user base on the hardware maker's own platforms to make them think twice about licensing webOS themselves.

    Instead of getting overzealous with this I think HP should start small. They should order about 100,000 units plus spares to begin with and only order more units as needed. Their team needs to be able to receive the new units in one central location, image them, test them, and get them out to the carriers in under a week.

    I think this is a good idea. I would love to see webOS on the Galaxy S II line. However, it's my idea so I am a little biased. What do you folks think?

    Edit: I should have been in bed two hours ago so I apologize up front for any grammar or spelling errors.
    Last edited by k4ever; 09/29/2011 at 10:53 PM.
    un_designer likes this.
  2. tvouge's Avatar
    Posts
    26 Posts
    Global Posts
    248 Global Posts
    #2  
    Sounds like a good idea. Which is why it will never happen. I'm convinced HP just wants to dump webOS.
  3. #3  
    One of the best ideas I've heard in a while

    -- Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities
  4. samab's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,060 Global Posts
    #4  
    WebOS is pretty much hardwired to specific Qualcomm chipsets.

    We are talking about RIM having to massively delay their Blackberry 7 phones because they decided to switch from Marvell chipsets to Qualcomm chipsets. We are talking about Honeycomb being tegra 2 only. We are talking about Windows Mobile being Qualcomm only and Nokia has to ditch their beloved TI chipsets.

    The rate of "progess" is so fast that they only have ONE video card driver, ONE wifi driver, ONE accelerometer driver...
  5.    #5  
    WebOS is pretty much hardwired to specific Qualcomm chipsets.

    We are talking about RIM having to massively delay their Blackberry 7 phones because they decided to switch from Marvell chipsets to Qualcomm chipsets. We are talking about Honeycomb being tegra 2 only. We are talking about Windows Mobile being Qualcomm only and Nokia has to ditch their beloved TI chipsets.

    The rate of "progess" is so fast that they only have ONE video card driver, ONE wifi driver, ONE accelerometer driver...
    I was under the impression that the Galaxy S II line ran on Qualcomm chips. Even if it doesn't HP should have the ability to make it run on any ARM based hardware.


    -- Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities
  6. #6  
    Not a bad idea, but i think there is a much tighter relationship between carriers and manufacturers than any of us know.

    Look at the phone you mentioned, the Epic 4g, do you see it on any other carrier? No. The Pre line of phonnowas the first time you saw the same phone on multiple carriers. I think it's because Palm was os provider and manufacturer.
  7. #7  
    Great idea. Regardless of relationship with carriers, compatibility with chipsets, or "how to best leverege webOS", we can only hope webOS is revived someday. We need more clear and positive thinkers like you. HP has one already so hopefully Ms. Whitman asks Todd Bradley, to save webOS soon.
    Last edited by fred1955; 09/30/2011 at 07:39 AM.
  8.    #8  
    Mikey47, the Epic 4G Touch is Sprint's version of the Galaxy S II. I believe that every major carrier carries a Galaxy S II with a different name, cellular radio, and carry specific apps. The rest of the hardware is essentially the same.
  9.    #9  
    What is the best way to get this idea to HP's executives?
  10. #10  
    I've had the same thought about them licensing hardware. It makes sense to me. A third party gets to sell more hardware, and they don't have to take any risk, if they are using that same hardware for an Android system anyway. I also think that If PSG is going to be making tablets that run Windows 8 (which is supposed to run on ARM, no?), the webOS team should target that same family of hardware.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    I was under the impression that the Galaxy S II line ran on Qualcomm chips. Even if it doesn't HP should have the ability to make it run on any ARM based hardware.


    -- Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities
    Galaxy s II line runs on multiple chipsets, epic touch runs on Samsung's Exynos running at 1.2 GHz where as t-Mobile version will reportedly run on Qualcom S3 (1.5 GHz dual core snapdragon). Performance wise 1.5 GHz S3 should be on par with 1.2 GHz Exynos. So yes, they can port webOS to Tmobile version of galaxy S II as it is the same chipset that powers Touchpad (wifi version does not have cell radios radio however 3G version which was never shipped (but manufactured) used the same chipset).
  12. #12  
    A webOS phone with four buttons along the bottom and no gesture area?
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by jrstinkfish View Post
    A webOS phone with four buttons along the bottom and no gesture area?
    Yes, the gesture is essential. I *like* webOS on the TP, but I *love* it on my Pre 2 where the combination of the gestures (including advanced) and card manipulation that can be done with one thumb while naturally holding the phone in one hand is awesome.
  14.    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by jrstinkfish View Post
    A webOS phone with four buttons along the bottom and no gesture area?
    The keys can be remapped. Doesn't the TouchPad use part of the screen as a gesture area? If they can pull off that with the TouchPad, they should be able to pull it off with a phone.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    Mikey47, the Epic 4G Touch is Sprint's version of the Galaxy S II. I believe that every major carrier carries a Galaxy S II with a different name, cellular radio, and carry specific apps. The rest of the hardware is essentially the same.
    Oops, when I originally read your post I thought you just said Epic 4G -- which has a keyboard and none of the other line of those devices does.

    However, I still stand by my statement -- each carrier's version is a little different. While they all are Galaxy S II's they are still individual phones. It is not the same phone with a different radio (GSM, CDMA).
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by samab View Post
    WebOS is pretty much hardwired to specific Qualcomm chipsets.

    We are talking about RIM having to massively delay their Blackberry 7 phones because they decided to switch from Marvell chipsets to Qualcomm chipsets. We are talking about Honeycomb being tegra 2 only. We are talking about Windows Mobile being Qualcomm only and Nokia has to ditch their beloved TI chipsets.

    The rate of "progess" is so fast that they only have ONE video card driver, ONE wifi driver, ONE accelerometer driver...
    This is not correct guys, it was based misinformation from an old article somewhere. webOS has already been run on non-Qualcomm processors! The original Pre- for instance was using a Texas Instruments (TI) OMAP 3430 chip! Any ARM architecture chip should be fairly easy to use and maintain app binary compatibility for that matter. Even further case in point, if you look at the webOS emulator, it is able to run in an x86 architecture PC virtual machine, and has even been demonstrated to boot straight from a PC. Recompiling the OS to a different chipset isn't a big deal aside from changing some drivers, especially if it's the same architecture.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    What is the best way to get this idea to HP's executives?
    You can contact HP CEO Meg Whitman on Twitter. Just search for her name on Twitter.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    After playing with the Samsung Epic 4G Touch and really wanting to see webOS on it, I started to formulate an idea. Please understand that I don't know anything about the cell phone business so if you are an industry insider don't take offense to the simplicity of what I am about to say. I believe that HP and the webOS community as a whole have gotten so hung up about licensing webOS to another hardware partner. Most of the potential partners out there don't want to take the chance at supporting yet another mobile OS and, given the fact that HP quickly abandoned webOS hardware without a plan, don't want to chance it with webOS. My idea is this: HP, don't license webOS to another hardware partner, license/commission existing hardware from that partner and put webOS on it.

    Think about it. Why should Samsung take a chance with webOS if they don't have to? The app infrastructure is just not there and that will be one more mouth to feed. Why should Samsung hire a webOS team to place the OS on their hardware and maintain it? HP already has a competent webOS team that should be a one stop shop for porting and issue resolution.

    Here is how I envision this working: Samsung (or HTC) produces a hot new Android phone line for the major carriers. Samsung takes the phone through the carrier and FCC trials and puts the phone line on the market. HP buys a vanilla (no OS, no labeling) version of the phone at a discounted price for volume, ports webOS to it, then sells the phone under an HP name and logo to the carriers to be place right along side of the Android version of the phone. HP maintains sole responsibility for hardware and software support on the phone. HP sets up a warranty program with Samsung for hardware defects where HP is solely responsible for recovering the losses for a defective unit from Samsung. In other words the customer only deals with HP.

    HP's management just needs to put together a team of software engineers that will be capable for porting webOS to the vanilla Samsung (or HTC) phone and pushing it through new carrier trials all in less than two months.

    I think this is a win win for everyone involved. Samsung (or HTC) can sell more hardware and not have to worry about software support (or paying $15 per unit to HP or Microsoft (for Android)). HP can get webOS onto more hardware without having to produce it themselves. The carrier gets an already proven piece of hardware with webOS on it. HP will lose $10-15 per device for licensing fees, but they could recoup it in higher carrier cost (get a webOS Galaxy S II for $210 instead of $199) or content licensing. HP could also build enough of a webOS user base on the hardware maker's own platforms to make them think twice about licensing webOS themselves.

    Instead of getting overzealous with this I think HP should start small. They should order about 100,000 units plus spares to begin with and only order more units as needed. Their team needs to be able to receive the new units in one central location, image them, test them, and get them out to the carriers in under a week.

    I think this is a good idea. I would love to see webOS on the Galaxy S II line. However, it's my idea so I am a little biased. What do you folks think?

    Edit: I should have been in bed two hours ago so I apologize up front for any grammar or spelling errors.
    Isn't this what Google did to launch the first Android phone? Of course that's an odd example, they really did that to create developer devices.

    There are plenty of examples in other industries, including consumer electronics. I wonder if these sort of deals already exist in the cellular equipment space?
    Kookaroo, the Roku remote for webOS
    Amtrak Commuter, Check your Train schedule
    GPortal Google shortcuts for Google Plus, Google Voice, Google Tasks and other Google Services
    SiteStatus and SiteStatusPro website monitoring tools for webOS
  19. samab's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,060 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    I was under the impression that the Galaxy S II line ran on Qualcomm chips. Even if it doesn't HP should have the ability to make it run on any ARM based hardware.
    -- Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities
    Samsung had their variants months later. Months later and we are talking about quad core tablets and phones.

    Quote Originally Posted by sq5 View Post
    This is not correct guys, it was based misinformation from an old article somewhere. webOS has already been run on non-Qualcomm processors! The original Pre- for instance was using a Texas Instruments (TI) OMAP 3430 chip! Any ARM architecture chip should be fairly easy to use and maintain app binary compatibility for that matter. Even further case in point, if you look at the webOS emulator, it is able to run in an x86 architecture PC virtual machine, and has even been demonstrated to boot straight from a PC. Recompiling the OS to a different chipset isn't a big deal aside from changing some drivers, especially if it's the same architecture.
    That's like saying that Microsoft had Windows Mobile 6 running on multiple ARM chips, so it should be easy for Microsoft to make Windows Mobile 7 and 7.5 to work on multiple ARM chips. That's like saying that Google had Android 1.x and 2.x running on multiple ARM chips, so it should be easy for Google to make Android 3.x to run on multiple ARM chips. Well, it's not easy, isn't it? We are still having Windows Mobile 7 being on Qualcomm only and Honeycomb being Tegra 2.

    Nobody said that webos/WM7/Honeycomb won't boot on other chipsets. It is just that there is a lot of hand-tuning in these systems in order to give you decent battery life.
    Last edited by samab; 09/30/2011 at 12:45 PM.
  20.    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by samab View Post
    Samsung had their variants months later. Months later and we are talking about quad core tablets and phones.



    That's like saying that Microsoft had Windows Mobile 6 running on multiple ARM chips, so it should be easy for Microsoft to make Windows Mobile 7 and 7.5 to work on multiple ARM chips. That's like saying that Google had Android 1.x and 2.x running on multiple ARM chips, so it should be easy for Google to make Android 3.x to run on multiple ARM chips. Well, it's not easy, isn't it? We are still having Windows Mobile 7 being on Qualcomm only and Honeycomb being Tegra 2.

    Nobody said that webos/WM7/Honeycomb won't boot on other chipsets. It is just that there is a lot of hand-tuning in these systems in order to give you decent battery life.
    For your first point, when the quad-cores hit the market, HP can license a vanilla quad-core device and do the same thing.

    On your second point, with a little bit of motivation, man power, and know how you can do wonderful things in a little time. We are talking about subtle differences within the same architecture (ARM). If Microsoft can do it in the computing world with the x86 architecture, HP should be able to do it in the mobile space with ARM.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions