|
 Originally Posted by UntidyGuy
It matters very little whether HP is legally or morally obliged to do something for Palm users. What matters a lot more is what they feel it is in their best interest to do. Here's what we have seen:
The CEO says "We didn't buy Palm to get into the smartphone business." Some people didn't want to believe his so they accepted a clarification and ran with it.
Todd Bradley goes on CNBC saying that "...we bought webOS from Palm" as if the OS is the asset and Palm isn't what they wanted.
A significant brain-drain of upper Palm management in subsequent months.
Elimination of Palm branding on any of their newly announced hardware or platform.
Fragmentation of the platform, leaving behind almost all of the current hardware base - basically, any Palm branded device.
Conclusion - HP doesn't consider Palm's legacy, devices, or user base to be mission critical to the future of webOS.
1) A CEO who is no longer with the company. It may be true.. but if you cherry pick the public statements you like, you'll always get the answer you are looking for. Public statements have gone both ways
2) They did buy it for the OS. Nobody thought they would continue to sell the Pre forever. Even if Palm survived as an independent company, they would have move the product ahead as the market evolves. The OS is the asset, the hardware just a vehicle, that true of all mobile OS's or would you rather use an original iPhone over the iPhone 4?
3) I happens in the case of every merger. I've been through a few. Besides, if they were as incompetent as some in these forums proclaim, how is that a problem? 
4) See #2 - The name matter only for sentimental reasons. Could have easily been named 3Com or US Robotics OS based on past owners.
5) Incorrect - that would be like saying that 8080 based computers have been "fragmented" becasue they can only support DOS and Windows 3.1. The OS has been improved and in the short lifespan of mobile tech, the Pre is a senior citizen. Nor it it any longer in production.
The conclusion is mostly correct - because in this world it's "what have you done for me lately". If HP crippled their future by trying to keep the OS running on legacy devices... all of their critics would be in full voice on these forums.
If they are smart, they will make a significant goodwill gesture to current users, even if only for PRPRPR $purposes$. $But$ $using$ $cold$ $logic$, $why$ $please$ $the$ $minority$ at the expense of the majority? With that reasoning, why not make the OS backward compatible to the Treo?
C
|
|
|