|
|
 Originally Posted by Nguyen1
Clarify for me - if LG has the rights to produce a webos phone, why should we care if TCL makes an android phone and puts a Palm label on it? Shouldn't we all hope for an LG webOS phone? Or Google phone with webOS, since Google owns the patents?
- TCL's Blackberry's retain some of the character of the original Blackberrys, certainly in terms of hardware. Even though they run Android, it is more secure and uses some Blackberry apps I think.
- There is therefore a chance that TCL will produce a 'Palm-like' device, though they have already ruled out webOS (it will very likely run Android)
- Though Palm hardware was fairly unique, the main attraction was in the operating systems. It's possible to 'skin' Android to resemble webOS, it's not the same.
- So what will make a TCL/Palm phone different from any other Android slab? This is a key question for both us and TCL. Younger buyers have already forgotten Palm. Palm enthusiasts will not buy a phone just because it has 'Palm' written on it (well, some probably will, but not enough). If they can solve this problem, great! But those nostalgic for Palm will be looking for webOS or even PalmOS. Even something totally new could get good reviews, but will it work commercially?
- As webOS is open-source, pretty much anyone with the resources can make a webOS phone.
- As they own the development team, LG are best placed to do this, but haven't because webOS already failed in the market - a market that has now consolidated to Android & iOS. They've made it work on TVs because the timing was right (earlier smart TVs were not great). TVs only really need to show moving images and play sound, so there's less demand for umpteen apps and a longer product lifespan compared to phones. Those wanting to play games can plug a dedicated machine in.
- We've been waiting for about 4 years for an LG webOS phone - even the watch vanished quickly. Should we continue to wait? No.
- The recent fresh open-sourcing (webOS OSE) might help by speeding development and allowing other manufactures to try webOS (not that they were ever really prevented - see LuneOS), but the difficulty of breaking back into the mobile market with webOS remains.
- Google do not own the patents. What patents there were got sold to Qualcomm - possibly they were mainly hardware patents, given the business of the buyer.
- Google could also make a webOS phone, but they are also tied to the vast Android eco-system, even though they are also developing alternative OSes.
- Any system trying to seriously enter the market will need to be able to run Android apps in order to compete with the incumbents. The only other options are spending huge sums of money on apps developed in house, or waiting for Progressive Web Apps to constitute a significant eco-system of their own. (arguably, webOS apps ARE PWAs and some say it was too soon, though these apps are apparently easier to develop).
|
|
|
Posting Permissions
