Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
Honestly, you might want to save some of the embarrassment for yourself.

Think your counterpoint through...there's no output to substantiate it. Did marketing dramatically increase? Nope. Development? No...WebOS 2.0 still came out in the time frame hinted at before acquisition except they still didn't get all of the promised features in 2.0's initial release. New product? Nope. HP bankrolled the Palm Pre 2 finally hitting the market four months later.

If Palm had remained "judicious" with their cash, the result would've been worse: EOL handsets with no replacement on Sprint and Verizon to bring in new revenue, except they would've exhausted their cash to bring the Palm Pre 2 to market...and still been rejected by carrier after carrier. Or maybe not bothered and just died quietly with the existing stock gathering dust in stockrooms. They certainly couldn't have afforded to pay people with bundles and giftcards to take the remaining stock like HP did.

Either way, virtually no real revenue was coming and the burn rate couldn't have been reduced further without compromising their ability to operate at even their lowly market status.

Paczkowski's take was only proven to be right given what we've seen HP Palm accomplish since.
Investments in R&D and personnel wouldn't necessarily have any external manifestations during the months since acquisition.

I agree with almost everything that you are saying in this thread and elsewhere (which makes your antagonistic opening response all the more disappointing) but the fact remains that it is a mistake for Paczkowski to use Palm's post-acquisition spending as somehow being indicative of what their non-acquisition spending would have been. This is hilariously flawed logic, and it shouldn't be excused just because he reaches a compelling conclusion.

I'm obviously not attempting to assert that Palm could have made it on their own. That would be a ridiculous position for anyone to take.