|
I think there is still place for webOS in comming years. First few prerequisites are met - webOS is not anymore HP's Achilles heel, and second, usage of webOS wouldn't bring direct money to HP. Since almost all players in mobile space are direct HP's competition, all of them ware eager to prolong HP's agony with webOS. I think this was the main reason that no one was interested in webOS, because more HP is struggling with webOS, that's better for all the rest. Now that is over, and not using webOS would not harm HP in any way, but also using webOS will not bring some significant success to HP either.
WebOS history is full of disappointments, but not all of them are related to lack of performance and features. WebOS failed not because it's slow booting or slow loading of apps. It mainly failed because so many important doors has been closed in front of it. Those same doors will be probbably also closed to Tizen or Geko. This charade with Netflix and Hulu support for TP are best example how you can kill platform using third party assassins. TP is capable to support many services, but service providers are not willing to write app for webOS or to give APIs to webOS developers. Try to imagine some TV networks won't play their content on some TV sets, like yeah, we only support Samsung TV sets, but you can't see us on LG TV's!? Well, this is situation currently in mobile market.
Entertaintment and content providers should be forced to openly post their technical and security demands and should be forced to permit access to their services for any platform that can meet their standards. This conspiracy theory is reviled in article describing mad S. Jobs ****ed by webOS Facebook app, demanding from Zuckerberg to deny APIs to webOS developers.
So, I think, market success of Open webOS is more tied to this games behind curtains than QtWebKit implementation
|
|
|