[rsanchez1]

I love the title of this thread. Whenever people complain about nothing with respect to webOS (such as how the hardware sucks, how they've been with Palm for 10 years and expect better, how they threaten to switch to Android, etc.), I always tell them something to the effect of "I'll let them know how much they owe you."

[UncleVanya]

I meant, relatively speaking, compared to the other OS' out there.

Sorry I guess that makes sense but when HP has only one mobile OS base and turns an asset into a potential liability by mismanaging the communication of this very lousy news - I'm not sure that you are all that far off the future numbers!

Many will think I'm nuts but I think they should have formulated their strategy for 2.x Legacy and run it by the development community and gotten a feel for the pain. Then if they had released a clear roadmap for how they would keep Mojo viable during the Enyo conversion it might have been easier to sell.

Look at nDrive. They have a product ready to go - but they can't market it. They claim that the app cat is not ready for 2.x apps (which is odd because I think they are not the first to go ahead with 2.x only apps).

One way or another HP mismanaged this whole thing. Maybe you see otherwise but I see poor strategic thinking. I am disappointed about the 2.x code not being released to legacy - but mainly because of the fragmentation effects which we are already experiencing and the lack of lifespan to the 1.x OS. The fact that apps will not make it to my phone because they are written with 2.x in mind is galling but worse are the apps that will make it to 1.x only for the time being limiting webOS adoption and future.

I say again...

<sigh>

Understand I am NOT totally unsympathetic to the point made that HP doesn't necessarily owe the 1.x device owners 2.x - I'm only pointing out that I think there may be a case for legal obligation and that they have mismanaged their information flow on this point. Either be mum longer or have a plan. They did neither.

[jthore]

the "publication" of a promise doesn't make it a contract. It would still be unenforceable as a contract with only the doctrine of estoppel to fall back on (as previously elaborated).

Again, the date of your purchase is RELEVANT (not sure why we are using caps there) because it tells us whether that promise was part of your contract or not. If you had already purchased your phone, what consideration (legal term) did you give in order to enforce that promise? If it was part of a spec sheet at the time of your purchase, that may be a completely different story.

Would you please point out exactly where I said something that led you to say "the "publication" of a promise doesn't make it a contract." (I didn't). I said that (imo) publishing a promise makes it an obligation (imo) which makes it more than a promise that can be offhandedly broken.

I won't try to argue along the lines of legality, much less of enforceability.

This is not a matter of legality. It's a matter of honor, which is far more clear cut (to me at least).

BTW - are you a lawyer?

[deesugar]

I would have a tremendous amount of understanding for HP if they would want to sweep the Pre nightmare-hardware launch on Sprint under a dozen of rugs... Drop the Pre, drop Sprint users, and move forward...

That's not what a lot of people want to hear but I've witnessed a lot of typical Sprint Pre horror tales on this forum. No wonder no one wants to offer support for first day Pres running software they were never intended to run.
It's like going back to the future in a DeLorean (but without 'the class').

They don't make that Pre anymore so I'm not sure what you're saying?

[UncleVanya]

I won't try to argue along the lines of legality, much less of enforceability.

This is not a matter of legality. It's a matter of honor, which is far more clear cut (to me at least).

BTW - are you a lawyer?

I'm not a lawyer.

But I have worked in investment banking (technology side) for years. One legal obligation we forget sometimes is that public companies are legally obligated to the shareholders and this can often trump what seems moral or just to outside view.

I'm not defending this - just pointing it out. It's hard to be in these positions of power (CEO, CFO, etc.) and harder still to understand the decisions from outside the walls...

[ekuns]

As another poster mentioned, when a company buys another company, it also assumes its contractual obligations. So even if HP had not promised the 2.0 update, it would STILL be obliged to deliver it one way (as in OTA) or another.

When I bought my Pre, I didn't sign any contract that obligated Palm to provide a 2.0 update. Unless you did, they have no *contractual* obligation to provide 2.0. A *contract* has to exist before a company can be held contractually liable. I strongly doubt that a stated promise to the public by a company to do something falls into the same category as a verbal contract.

Of course, if a company makes a public promise and later changes their mind, there are business costs and risks to doing so. There may be a significant loss of good will, and their future business may be damaged. But this is in a different category.

Disclaimer: IANAL (and I don't play one on TV)

I would say that HP is neither contractually nor morally required to deliver 2.0 to "legacy" devices. Honor bound to do so? Yes. But morally required to? No. Much as we may wish otherwise.

[UncleVanya]

They don't make that Pre anymore so I'm not sure what you're saying?

I think he's saying that given all of the headache's that this particular hardware had - he's sympathetic to any model that HP might have that cuts that segment of the webOS devices out of the path to the future.

[Courousant]

Would you please point out exactly where I said something that led you to say "the "publication" of a promise doesn't make it a contract." (I didn't). I said that (imo) publishing a promise makes it an obligation (imo) which makes it more than a promise that can be offhandedly broken.

I won't try to argue along the lines of legality, much less of enforceability.

This is not a matter of legality. It's a matter of honor, which is far more clear cut (to me at least).

BTW - are you a lawyer?

ah; well, I 100% agree with you in terms of honor etc..., my comments were only in terms of legality and enforceability.

BTW - Yes, but please don't take my words as official legal advice, because I can't vouch for all jurisdictions and I'm relying on what people say in these blogs as far as what promises were made and not doing any independent fact checking whatsoever.

[UncleVanya]

THEY OWE ME A....shrubbery?

LOL - Love this.

[GenTarkin]

So, Im curious, what do you all think would be a fair compensation for our current legacy devices and not being able to have webos 2.0 on them?

I was thinking, well they cant really offer us any sort of software upgrade then...cuz that would be pointless, if its not the next webos then what?

So, that got me thinking, would they run some sort of rebate / coupon program towards purchase of a Pre 3 or something?
That I would like very much =)

Any other ways ya guys can think of?

[dbdoinit]

So, Im curious, what do you all think would be a fair compensation for our current legacy devices and not being able to have webos 2.0 on them?

I was thinking, well they cant really offer us any sort of software upgrade then...cuz that would be pointless, if its not the next webos then what?

So, that got me thinking, would they run some sort of rebate / coupon program towards purchase of a Pre 3 or something?
That I would like very much =)

Any other ways ya guys can think of?

I'm running outta popcorn.
How about popcorn?

[UncleVanya]

So, Im curious, what do you all think would be a fair compensation for our current legacy devices and not being able to have webos 2.0 on them?

I was thinking, well they cant really offer us any sort of software upgrade then...cuz that would be pointless, if its not the next webos then what?

So, that got me thinking, would they run some sort of rebate / coupon program towards purchase of a Pre 3 or something?
That I would like very much =)

Any other ways ya guys can think of?

There are a number of threads that specualated on this. I'm personally interested to see what if anything HP does but more interested in the ecosystem impact that they may be able to ease. If they make keeping Mojo apps development in sync with Enyo easier through some magic (I can't see how by the way) then a simple 1.5 with flash would make most of it right. If they added Voice API on top of this I'd be ecstatic - but only if they find a way to keep development for Mojo and not leave the community totally fragmented.

[dbdoinit]

They could put a million in webos-internals's bank account.
Any currency.

Yes!

One million popcorns!




Better yet-

FIVE MILLION POPCORNS!!

[GuyFromNam]

They should throw us a party.
Fly in everyone. I know a nice beach where we could organize that.

[verwon]

Candy canes, but the good gourmet ones, not the cheapos.

A box for everyone!

Sent from my eVo

[shadavis08]

They should throw us a party.
Fly in everyone. I know a nice beach where we could organize that.

My beach is better ! It's so white it's blinding without sun glasses !! Woo hoo !! Just sayin .

-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums

[dbdoinit]

My beach is better ! It's so white it's blinding without sun glasses !! Woo hoo !! Just sayin.

lol lol, Shane, if i didn't know you better, i'd say that's a racist statement.

[s1241sm]

Maybe the reason for the delay to Market with the Phones is because Hpalm is waiting for Sprint to get off the fence in regards to WimAX or LTE? Palm doesn't know what radio build is needed. Just a thought

[ijip]

i love HP~! can i get a new touchpad now? -=X

[verwon]

Maybe the reason for the delay to Market with the Phones is because Hpalm is waiting for Sprint to get off the fence in regards to WimAX or LTE? Palm doesn't know what radio build is needed. Just a thought

What?

Methinks wrong thread!

Sent from my eVo