Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By John Steffes
  • 2 Post By Remy X
  • 1 Post By xandros9
  1. NoApple's Avatar
    Posts
    41 Posts
    Global Posts
    42 Global Posts
       #1  
    According to this report, HP will eventually get back into smartphones. Why not use weOS?

    HP confirms it's back in the smartphone business ? The Register
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by NoApple View Post
    According to this report, HP will eventually get back into smartphones. Why not use weOS?

    HP confirms it's back in the smartphone business ? The Register
    They sold WebOS. They don't own it anymore. Their loss; our loss.
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by Fisack23 View Post
    They sold WebOS. They don't own it anymore. Their loss; our loss.
    Their loss, our gain.

    HP can stick their bottom dollar hardware up you-know-where. The Touchpad and 1st gen netbooks were an exception to that, maybe a few others like the (Palm-branded!) Veer (maybe), but the Pre3, Slate7 and a ton of other products suffer from "Chinese knockoff" quality in one component or another.

    I maybe sound harsh, but i simply have no respect for the majority of what HP builds. Failure rates are too high.

    But open-sourcing and selling webOS is a much better fate than having them just sit on it and ignore it, don't you think?

    @OP, FYI, we already have two threads on this subject
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by Remy X View Post
    but the Pre3, Slate7 and a ton of other products suffer from "Chinese knockoff" quality in one component or another.
    Just out of interest, which component of the Pre3 do you think is 'Chinese knockoff' quality?

    I've been very happy with mine for 2 years and the build quality is significantly better than the Pre- that I used before. It may be lacking a few features and some memory that later phones have had in abundance but I don't see a quality deficit anywhere.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by Remy X View Post
    Their loss, our gain.

    HP can stick their bottom dollar hardware up you-know-where. The Touchpad and 1st gen netbooks were an exception to that, maybe a few others like the (Palm-branded!) Veer (maybe), but the Pre3, Slate7 and a ton of other products suffer from "Chinese knockoff" quality in one component or another.

    I maybe sound harsh, but i simply have no respect for the majority of what HP builds. Failure rates are too high.

    But open-sourcing and selling webOS is a much better fate than having them just sit on it and ignore it, don't you think?

    @OP, FYI, we already have two threads on this subject
    Quote Originally Posted by andyhurley View Post
    Just out of interest, which component of the Pre3 do you think is 'Chinese knockoff' quality?

    I've been very happy with mine for 2 years and the build quality is significantly better than the Pre- that I used before. It may be lacking a few features and some memory that later phones have had in abundance but I don't see a quality deficit anywhere.
    I sort of agree...

    The build quality of the Pre was not so good (I never owned just heard reports)...

    The build quality of the Pixi/PixiPlus/PrePlus/Pre2 seemed to get better...

    The build quality of Veer/Pre3/Touchpad seemed to go the other way...

    Seems companies who make disposable devices, make choices like why put lots of $ into components when they will fail when the battery fails...

    The Touchpad and Veer were designed to fail when their battery fails... Why we are now seeing a lot of NAND lock issues and hardware failure...

    I think the plastic case is another failure point, I have seen plastic fail, but not at the rates I have seen with the touchpad (especially around the speakers)...

    When you design a removable battery you are telling users we built a quality product, it will last way beyond the life of the stock battery...

    I would have preferred HP/Palm not build a disposable touchpad/veer but a long last device, almost like HP decided bet we (HP) are going to fail, so lets not put to much $ into it, lets look like we want to win...
    Remy X and geekpeter like this.
  6. #6  
    @andyhurley,

    HP has a long history of using "time bomb" components that die way before the machine becomes technologically obsolete.

    Anyway...

    From what i've seen, the Pre+/Pixi+/Pre2 have rock-solid electronics, even as the plastic casing, keyboard and slider are a bit on the cheap side. The shells are cheap, but durable, not crummy, while the slider mechanism was under-built and loosens over time.

    But it's not to say that there are no lemons from that era. There are plenty of phones that shipped with bad but usable chips, which gave those phones unique "personalities" as the OS ran into unhandled exceptions. Like the brand new Pre2 that imfallen_angel bought for last Christmas and ended up having to use Nodoze to keep the phone's screen from coming on every 30 seconds.

    The HP-era phones on the other hand have a much more solid hand feel, the slider is snappy, doesn't jiggle or "Oreo" and the Veer's shell itself is very nice. The Pre3 also makes a good first impression. But the quality emphasis is reversed, with the internals being of a cheaper grade of the same chips. Graphics subsystem failure is the number one reason why a Veer eventually gets "totaled" and replaced. In the the "best" case, the cable connecting the screen becomes loose or develops metal fatigue and breaks off, in the worst case, the graphics chip, where ever it is, self-destructs, and you're left with a black screen and a faint glow of backlight. At least a couple of Pre3's have failed in the same way, like the one ka1 was working on a couple of weeks ago.

    To explain this a little better, during the chip manufacturing process, silicon is is etched with hydrofluoric acid, and before that, a laser is used to project the proper pattern onto the chip, selectively burning off a non-reactive layer that masks off some parts of the pattern. As precisely as the process is controlled, the result is still unpredictable, and chips have to be graded post-manufacture. Same with LEDs, since diodes from the same batch will inevitably vary in brightness and color temperature.

    This is the reason why Intel sold Pentium and Celeron processors. The two are based off of an identical design, but the lower-priced Celerons were manufactured with a slightly worn piece of equipment (mask?) and had to be clocked lower to maintain the same level of reliability as the more perfect Pentiums.

    What HP and Chinese knockoff manufacturers alike have done, is buying chips with etching errors and imperfections that over time, under heat and stress turn into "short circuits". The chip manufacturers and OEMs know how much useful life a component has before it "implodes" and the OEMs tend to buy the ones that can make it through the warranty period. The worse components are written off as a manufacturing loss and quietly end up on a gray market in China to be used in blatantly counterfeit goods.


    To return to the subject of Pre3, from what we've found out, based on a handful of facts and informal surveys, is that there were some impeccable "launch day" Pre3's that were supposed to make it into online reviews, and there was also a batch of some crummy ones that were supposed to go on sale later. An age-old trick to fool the customer.

    The latter category has a crumbling screen bezel that flakes off in pieces, even with the gentlest use, something that may have been caused by poor temperature control during the injection-molding process. My guess is that the resin was overheated while they were melting and mixing the pellets and then cooled down to below optimal temperature by the time it went to the molds. The resulting polymer chains were not long and uniform in every direction, but instead like mozzarella cheese, with "strings" and layers, with 70-80% less durability

    Sorry to bore you with the details, though i hope you have enjoyed the explanation

    I just stand by my words, having seen how HP does business. By their standards, "chip rot" and planned obsolescence are acceptable, regardless of the reputation it has earned them in the tech community (and beyond). I personally draw the line at that kind of hardware, unless it's "free", or nearly so.
    xandros9 and RumoredNow like this.
  7. #7  
    theres also the fact that the pre3 wasnt really supposed to go on sale (everything canned on europe launch day), it makes you wonder how many were "nearly finished" on the production line and just got lobbed together (and to hell with Quality Control) just to get rid of them after the apotheclypse arrived.
    Touchpad Keyboard Themes - >> Click Me <<
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Remy X View Post
    HP has a long history of using "time bomb" components that die way before the machine becomes technologically obsolete.
    (I liked your writeup, kudos!)
    Regarding the Pentium/Celeron part, I think the TouchPad saw the same thing, using binned 1.5 GHz processors underclocked to 1.2.

    I've sworn off of them after the Pavilion dv2000 laptop series debacle (Jesus Christ, the most-likely-to-fail parts (CPU, GPU + heatsink assembly) are literally in the hardest-to-access spot, requiring all-but-total disassembly.) and my HP Mini's hinge coming off. They've earned themselves a cheap but lower-quality reputation now that I can see.

    The HP Slate only repulses me right now (ick). Wouldn't buy it even if it had a Palm logo on it.

    I'd be interested in how their smartphone turns out, but not in buying it. But who knows, maybe they fixed themselves, but then again who am I kidding. But im still curious
    m505 > Z|71 > T|C > T|T3 > LifeDrive > iPod touch 4 >
    Pre 2 > Treo Pro > Aria > Treo 650 > Lumia 920 > BB Z10 > BB Q10
    Lumia 830 > 635 > iPhone 5s > Galaxy Alpha > Lumia 640 >
    iPhone 5c > Nexus 5 > Nexus 5X > Blackberry Priv
    My Palm OS Archive
    Remy X likes this.
  9. ewl88's Avatar
    Posts
    201 Posts
    Global Posts
    203 Global Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Remy X View Post
    @andyhurley,

    HP has a long history of using "time bomb" components that die way before the machine becomes technologically obsolete.

    Anyway...

    From what i've seen, the Pre+/Pixi+/Pre2 have rock-solid electronics, even as the plastic casing, keyboard and slider are a bit on the cheap side. The shells are cheap, but durable, not crummy, while the slider mechanism was under-built and loosens over time.

    But it's not to say that there are no lemons from that era. There are plenty of phones that shipped with bad but usable chips, which gave those phones unique "personalities" as the OS ran into unhandled exceptions. Like the brand new Pre2 that imfallen_angel bought for last Christmas and ended up having to use Nodoze to keep the phone's screen from coming on every 30 seconds.

    The HP-era phones on the other hand have a much more solid hand feel, the slider is snappy, doesn't jiggle or "Oreo" and the Veer's shell itself is very nice. The Pre3 also makes a good first impression. But the quality emphasis is reversed, with the internals being of a cheaper grade of the same chips. Graphics subsystem failure is the number one reason why a Veer eventually gets "totaled" and replaced. In the the "best" case, the cable connecting the screen becomes loose or develops metal fatigue and breaks off, in the worst case, the graphics chip, where ever it is, self-destructs, and you're left with a black screen and a faint glow of backlight. At least a couple of Pre3's have failed in the same way, like the one ka1 was working on a couple of weeks ago.

    To explain this a little better, during the chip manufacturing process, silicon is is etched with hydrofluoric acid, and before that, a laser is used to project the proper pattern onto the chip, selectively burning off a non-reactive layer that masks off some parts of the pattern. As precisely as the process is controlled, the result is still unpredictable, and chips have to be graded post-manufacture. Same with LEDs, since diodes from the same batch will inevitably vary in brightness and color temperature.

    This is the reason why Intel sold Pentium and Celeron processors. The two are based off of an identical design, but the lower-priced Celerons were manufactured with a slightly worn piece of equipment (mask?) and had to be clocked lower to maintain the same level of reliability as the more perfect Pentiums.

    What HP and Chinese knockoff manufacturers alike have done, is buying chips with etching errors and imperfections that over time, under heat and stress turn into "short circuits". The chip manufacturers and OEMs know how much useful life a component has before it "implodes" and the OEMs tend to buy the ones that can make it through the warranty period. The worse components are written off as a manufacturing loss and quietly end up on a gray market in China to be used in blatantly counterfeit goods.


    To return to the subject of Pre3, from what we've found out, based on a handful of facts and informal surveys, is that there were some impeccable "launch day" Pre3's that were supposed to make it into online reviews, and there was also a batch of some crummy ones that were supposed to go on sale later. An age-old trick to fool the customer.

    The latter category has a crumbling screen bezel that flakes off in pieces, even with the gentlest use, something that may have been caused by poor temperature control during the injection-molding process. My guess is that the resin was overheated while they were melting and mixing the pellets and then cooled down to below optimal temperature by the time it went to the molds. The resulting polymer chains were not long and uniform in every direction, but instead like mozzarella cheese, with "strings" and layers, with 70-80% less durability

    Sorry to bore you with the details, though i hope you have enjoyed the explanation

    I just stand by my words, having seen how HP does business. By their standards, "chip rot" and planned obsolescence are acceptable, regardless of the reputation it has earned them in the tech community (and beyond). I personally draw the line at that kind of hardware, unless it's "free", or nearly so.
    Sounds plausible and explains how HP ekes a short term profit at the cost of reputation. It's the lessons the PC makers (HP, Dell, etc) have learned and has hurt them as all pcs excluding Apple are commodity items and interchangeable with no loyal user base. (I'm not a Apple fan really but I can appreciate they put much more time and effort into design).

Similar Threads

  1. A Look Back: Top Smartphones 2009 - 2011
    By milominderbinder in forum Other OS's and Devices
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01/12/2012, 07:17 AM
  2. Smartphones on HP just went up $50?
    By joecwv135 in forum HP Veer
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08/25/2011, 03:18 AM
  3. Smartphones on HP just went up $50?
    By joecwv135 in forum HP Veer
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08/24/2011, 04:19 AM
  4. New Smartphones from HP
    By LoneWolf15 in forum Other OS's and Devices
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09/15/2007, 12:00 PM
  5. Smartphones
    By goldbje in forum Palm OS Devices & Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08/24/2002, 12:02 AM

Posting Permissions