I feel your pain... As we've talked through Epics and such, I loved my Palm Pre, but came to the same conclusion a bit earlier and moved on to the Samsung Epic... I do love my new Android Phone... I also tried to no avail to get one of the $99 HP Touchpads...
Yes, you were right. But you can see by my reply that I mostly agreed with you, and I was really just hoping that they'd eventually get it together. I thought they took a lot of great steps to make the platform more viable after you wrote that article. There's evidence that they had been trying to seduce Sprint with a roided out phone and offered them exclusivity on both the phone and the new version of WebOS. They kept dangling us along with "leaks" and "rumors" but in the end, they couldn't reach a deal with Sprint and there certainly weren't enough new customers on Verizon and AT&T to carry on the platform. I think HP even tried to suggest that we stick with our original Palm Pres and instead of upgrading, get a HP Touchpad that you can connect to the phone through bluetooth, or something really lame like that.
Interesting stuff; didn't know all that was happening behind the scenes of the WebOS community.
I would say it's highly probable that WebOS would have died sooner had it not been for the homebrew community. There were times when I could tell that Palm was really in over their heads.
All dev issues aside, I think palm could've been a contender had it refreshed quickly with a superphone. The hardware was just sooooo uninspiring for an enthusiast-positioned product.
All dev issues aside, I think palm could've been a contender had it refreshed quickly with a superphone. The hardware was just sooooo uninspiring for an enthusiast-positioned product.
I want many of webOS' UI innovations on Android.
The keyword there being "quickly" they had the Pre 2 and Pre 3, which would have been great had each phone been released about 6 months earlier, and been picked up by Sprint. They also had at one point toyed with the mother of all slabs, which was rumored to have actually been designed by Samsung, but it only existed in rumors and a shoddy photo.
I'm still using a Pre Plus, but I would not call myself a smart phone enthusiast. I actually think guys like me are a massive part of the market. We want email, a good calender, basic web browser, and to flick the occasional angry bird, location services for google maps, a facebook update from time to time, its all I really want.
They could have gone to market saying, here we are, the smart phone for practical sensible people. Maybe even the smart phone for business as an alternative to the offerings from RIM, but they did nothing to differentiate in marketing and so this wonderful portable OS goes to waste.
I had some hope for them when HP showed up to buy, but if Palm marketed poorly, HP was completely incompetent. My hope is that HP will cut its losses and just make it open source as a PR move rather than just kill it forever.
You're right, Cliff. My dad is like you. He had a Palm Pre and it was perfect for him. He wanted GPS and Gmaps, email, and pictures. Now he has an Android phone and he doesn't like it. It's too complicated for him.
I mean, at the end of the day, iPhone/webOS/Android have pretty much the same UI. Click icons, read what buttons say, press buttons. Like, I don't get how one is more complicated than another.
I mean, at the end of the day, iPhone/webOS/Android have pretty much the same UI. Click icons, read what buttons say, press buttons. Like, I don't get how one is more complicated than another.
WebOS is just more natural and logical in its design. The gestures just make sense. If you have used WebOS 2.0 the card stacking and fanning for multitasking is brilliant. The simple ability to "minimize" apps and scroll through them one at a time, or stack them, and when you are done simply flick them away. The added touch sensitive area under the touch screen, a point of contention for some, I think its brilliant to swipe back to go back, its extraordinarily natural once you use it. The way notifications are managed, easily accessed, or flicked away, is also very nice.
To me, IOS and Android don't feel like a UI, they just feel like a collection of application launchers.
In turn, one could argue that memorizing Palm's array of non-standard gestures is more complicated then simply pressing "home" when you're done with an app or "back" if you want to go back a screen.
If anything, Android and iOS are most like windows. Minimize the app and click an icon to start another one. That's what people are familiar with, not Palm's way.
I will not argue that Palm's way isn't brilliant... just not any "easier".
I do kind of wish WebOS had taken off more. Their hacker/homebrew community was impressive, even when compared to Androids and that UI was sexy. Alas, HP's stupidity won out over their innovation.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me think if HTC is going to buy webos, they are going to announce it in the next few days. The platform loses a ton of value if HTC does not retain at least some of the essential HR that built it. HP is going to lay off the staff because it pressures another company in to buying the platform quickly and gives them negotiation clout (that and there is no reason to keep this huge staff).
Samsung has their own, seemingly well made, OS to use against Google if necessary. Nokia seems to be stuck with Windows Mobile. I just don't know who else would buy it ... come on HTC....do it!
I think HTC is happy enough being a "me too" supplier of Android phones. I hope you are right, I just don't think we will see it.
I don't see anyone paying anything substantial for WebOS at this point. There is no money to be made developing for the fifth place platform. The only way HP can spin anything positive out of this debacle is to open it up and give it to the home brew community to do whatever they want with it. They can spin it as a gift to the world.
The only other possibility I can see is maybe one of the pre paid carriers looks at it as a differentiated platform they can offer customers without paying exorbitant licencing fees, lowering the cost of pre paid smart phones. I could see a company like Cricket doing it if they could partner with their hardware vendors to make really inexpensive smart phones to compete in that space of the pre paid market. That first cost is such a huge driver for the consumer, when they compare and Iphone with a two year contract and going pre paid all they can see is $200 for the top of the line, vs. $250 for a gimped android 1.6 phone on a pre paid carrier. Does not matter to them that they will save as much as $700 over the life of the phone all they see is that first cost. I could see a pre paid provider saying, okay, if we could completely get away from license fees on handsets and offer our vendors an opportunity to build around the WebOS software platform, could we build cheap smart phones.... Maybe then it would be valued as a way for pre paid to compete. And just think of the great tech headlines, Pre now pre paid....
If only HP had handled the WebOS thing better, they might have had a shot at actually licensing it out to other companies. They actually said that they were going to do that, but the way they did it was basically like saying "We're going to license WebOS out, but not make devices because you just can't make money selling WebOS devices."
Well if HTC doesn't buy WebOS, they may end up with meego or their own in house OS. If they want to stop paying such hefty royalties for Android while at the same time protect themselves from that Motorola acquisition ... they need to do something. HTC has the potential to provide the sexy hardware to webOS that HP could not. The culture of innovation at HTC trumps HP imo, and I think they could actually pull of a third time's the charm with WebOS. Whatever Wang does, she will go full force with it and pull it off...just like she did getting first to market with touch screens.
HTC using WebOS, Meego, or just about anything else isn't going to help protect them from the royalties they are paying right now. The fact of the matter is, Microsoft, Apple and a million other tech companies have patents that cover ridiculously basic functionality which makes Meego, WebOS, etc. just as vulnerable as Android is.
With regards to your statement about protecting themselves from the Motorola acquisition, that's just patently false. In fact, Google already sold them 100 patents from the Motorola library with which to defend themselves against Apple's lawsuits. Google has made it quite clear that they plan on using the Motorola Mobility patents to protect their Android partners, not to attack them.
With regards to your statement about protecting themselves from the Motorola acquisition, that's just patently false....
Zing! I guess I am speaking to broad and setting myself up for this sort of thing.
Puns aside, I'm talking about the $5 per android device HTC has to pay to Microsoft. as a result of HTC vs Microsoft litigation. They wouldn't have to do that for WebOS based phones.
Meanwhile, when I say protect themselves from the Motorola acquisition, I mean protect themselves from the future prospect of Google keeping the most competitive and/or newest Android builds in house and thus charming significant portions of consumers in to buying Motorola devices instead of HTC (or Samsung for that matter).
On top of that it gives them more freedom regarding innovation. It's forward integration, and although NEITHER OF US can say what the future holds ALL I AM SAYING is that IMHO there is good chance HTC acquires or develops it's own OS and I hope they choose WebOS.
Now let me have my opinion and share it too. (cake pun)
Meanwhile, when I say protect themselves from the Motorola acquisition, I mean protect themselves from the future prospect of Google keeping the most competitive and/or newest Android builds in house and thus charming significant portions of consumers in to buying Motorola devices instead of HTC (or Samsung for that matter).
The only evidence we have on this topic is contradictory, wisely so. It would be suicidal for the Android platform to lock down in this manner.
Puns aside, I'm talking about the $5 per android device HTC has to pay to Microsoft. as a result of HTC vs Microsoft litigation. They wouldn't have to do that for WebOS based phones.
[citation needed]
From what I've seen, what HTC is paying Microsoft for has more to do with the Linux underpinnings of Android (which are shared by Meego and WebOS) than anything else. The only company, which I'm aware of, that has litigated for anything that is Android specific is Oracle suing Google over the implementation of Java in Android. All the other Android-related litigation (once again, that I'm aware of) has to do with generic mobile technologies that likely apply to every other system out there as well. Android is just the target because they're the biggest player in the game currently.
That is counter to what you are seeing in every way.
Per Thrax's comment, if Google used Motorola as their "Prime" platform (sort of like how they are using Samsung right now) from here on out, then Motorola would get a significant sales edge. How is that suicidal? They can trickle the newer versions of Android to the other OEMs 3 months later and slowly garnish big market shares without killing the platform.
1) Don't shit where you sleep. The OEMs would find a way to bail.
2) Don't shit where you sleep. Competing against your own manufacturers is a bad idea.
3) Don't shit where you sleep. Risking the business model that gave you 40% of the smartphone market for ultimately meaningless preferential treatment is no benefit.
4) Potential anti-trust concerns.
5) Less flexibility for consumers, which Google has a pretty sterling track record of avoiding.
That is counter to what you are seeing in every way.
No, it is not. It does not actually say what the patents are for. That's the point. I never disputed that HTC was paying Microsoft licensing fees on it's Android phones. The patents are most likely not exclusively violated by Android. Most of the patent attacks on Android have to do with extremely generic concepts that any other mobile platform would be just as susceptible to. Until you show exactly what patents they are licensing and demonstrate that WebOS or Meego do not violate any of these patents, my point stands.
Oh my gosh, you guys. Will keep this all in mind in the future when I speculate .. I'm trying to tell you this is my opinion and you two are like ... ya well YOU'RE WRONG!
Ardi:
I gave you the citation you requested.
You said: The only company, which I'm aware of, that has litigated for anything that is Android specific is Oracle suing Google over the implementation of Java in Android.
My citation says: Microsoft is suing other Android phone makers, and it’s looking for $7.50 to $12.50 per device, says Pritchard.
which IS counter to what you said when you had to jump in here and pull the your opinion is wrong jig.
If you want to know the exact details of that lawsuit, and I get them for you, and I'm right that HTC will NOT have to pay Microsoft the same royalty fee if they acquire WebOS ... then you agree to buy me a beer right now otherwise I'm not looking it up. Of course, I will buy you a beer if I am wrong.
What say you?
Per Thrax's where to and not to shit analysis:
Yes, you could be right. Companies shit in a lot of places though, and the certainly flat out say a lot of things. Well see what the future holds.
Duder, Ardichoke is saying that Oracle is suing Android specifically because a specific component of Android allegedly violates an Oracle patent.
Microsoft's suit is different because it is based on alleged ownership of technologies in Linux. Android is not the only thing Microsoft has gone after on this premise. What Ardi is saying is legal teams pick and choose their battles, and Android was a very lucrative one to pursue. And (this being the important point), webOS is Linux-based and therefore subject to the very same suits. It was too small a fish to fry before, but what if a major OEM like HTC picks it up? Well hello revenue stream.
Microsoft's suit is different because it is based on alleged ownership of technologies in Linux.
This is the entire assumption that I am saying could be false. So I went ahead and did my homework here even though Ardichoke didn't agree to buy me a beer if I was right.
That patent agreement between HTC and Microsoft is not public. You can skip the rest of this knowing none of us can find out if the above assumption is true.
After reading a ton of other speculation about exactly what technologies the HTC Android devices infringed on ... I gave up and wrote requests for information to Microsoft and HTC's PR departments. I told them I was a business analyst representing an important group of investors (Thrax and Ardichoke).
We all know they are going to delete my emails and not respond.
With that said, all the speculation by those who actually looked over Microsoft's patent base and the HTC Android device capabilities, the only two patents it seems the Internet collectively agrees on are about ActiveSync and ClearType ... neither of which are specific to generalized Linux technologies.
Another thing not being mentioned here is that Microsoft is in general (Apple too for that matter) trying to make it difficult on OEMs to produce Android phones. It isn't about the relatively small revenue streams they get from their IP agreements. It's about fighting for their own respective platforms.
That being said I otherwise agree on the concept that companies only for patent infringement when it makes sense ... ie. revenue stream.
I still don't think HTC would have publicly admitted considering the purchase of WebOS if they thought it was going to
1. Not alleviate them from the patent pressures in some way
2. Not provide them with some level of protection from Google that comes with owning your software platform.
I guess what this comes down to is two arguments AND two schools of thought for each:
The Protection Theory Argument
1. The Motorola acquisition was done by Google to protect OEMs who want to sell Android devices from IP infringement lawsuits
or
2. The Motorola acquisition was Google integrating in to a new market that it actually plans to compete in on it's own
The Bigger Reason for IP Agreement Theory
1. Microsoft goes after Android platforms to restrict the competitiveness of the Android platform
or
2. Microsoft goes after Android platforms for revenue streams from OEMs
Given our limited sources of information here, all we can do is speculate which is all I was trying to do three posts ago.
I may end up being wrong about HTC and WebOS ... but I'm sticking with my speculation because I think my logic is as sound as it can be given our limited information.
If only HP had handled the WebOS thing better, they might have had a shot at actually licensing it out to other companies. They actually said that they were going to do that, but the way they did it was basically like saying "We're going to license WebOS out, but not make devices because you just can't make money selling WebOS devices."
thats not at all what they said, or at least not what they meant. they did design new phones and a tablet, but they also said they would license to oems under two conditions. 1. the phone could not share a platform with another phone like the samsung galaxy s. 2. they would be under strict rules to not fuck with the interface, like samsung does with their android phones. they wanted to make sure the experience stayed consistent across the platform an that updates could be streamlined efficiently.
djmeph
Detroit Icrontian
Comments
Good article, Norm.
Yes, you were right. But you can see by my reply that I mostly agreed with you, and I was really just hoping that they'd eventually get it together. I thought they took a lot of great steps to make the platform more viable after you wrote that article. There's evidence that they had been trying to seduce Sprint with a roided out phone and offered them exclusivity on both the phone and the new version of WebOS. They kept dangling us along with "leaks" and "rumors" but in the end, they couldn't reach a deal with Sprint and there certainly weren't enough new customers on Verizon and AT&T to carry on the platform. I think HP even tried to suggest that we stick with our original Palm Pres and instead of upgrading, get a HP Touchpad that you can connect to the phone through bluetooth, or something really lame like that.
I would say it's highly probable that WebOS would have died sooner had it not been for the homebrew community. There were times when I could tell that Palm was really in over their heads.
I want many of webOS' UI innovations on Android.
They could have gone to market saying, here we are, the smart phone for practical sensible people. Maybe even the smart phone for business as an alternative to the offerings from RIM, but they did nothing to differentiate in marketing and so this wonderful portable OS goes to waste.
I had some hope for them when HP showed up to buy, but if Palm marketed poorly, HP was completely incompetent. My hope is that HP will cut its losses and just make it open source as a PR move rather than just kill it forever.
WebOS is just more natural and logical in its design. The gestures just make sense. If you have used WebOS 2.0 the card stacking and fanning for multitasking is brilliant. The simple ability to "minimize" apps and scroll through them one at a time, or stack them, and when you are done simply flick them away. The added touch sensitive area under the touch screen, a point of contention for some, I think its brilliant to swipe back to go back, its extraordinarily natural once you use it. The way notifications are managed, easily accessed, or flicked away, is also very nice.
To me, IOS and Android don't feel like a UI, they just feel like a collection of application launchers.
If anything, Android and iOS are most like windows. Minimize the app and click an icon to start another one. That's what people are familiar with, not Palm's way.
I will not argue that Palm's way isn't brilliant... just not any "easier".
This is the kind of stuff that makes me think if HTC is going to buy webos, they are going to announce it in the next few days. The platform loses a ton of value if HTC does not retain at least some of the essential HR that built it. HP is going to lay off the staff because it pressures another company in to buying the platform quickly and gives them negotiation clout (that and there is no reason to keep this huge staff).
Samsung has their own, seemingly well made, OS to use against Google if necessary. Nokia seems to be stuck with Windows Mobile. I just don't know who else would buy it ... come on HTC....do it!
I don't see anyone paying anything substantial for WebOS at this point. There is no money to be made developing for the fifth place platform. The only way HP can spin anything positive out of this debacle is to open it up and give it to the home brew community to do whatever they want with it. They can spin it as a gift to the world.
The only other possibility I can see is maybe one of the pre paid carriers looks at it as a differentiated platform they can offer customers without paying exorbitant licencing fees, lowering the cost of pre paid smart phones. I could see a company like Cricket doing it if they could partner with their hardware vendors to make really inexpensive smart phones to compete in that space of the pre paid market. That first cost is such a huge driver for the consumer, when they compare and Iphone with a two year contract and going pre paid all they can see is $200 for the top of the line, vs. $250 for a gimped android 1.6 phone on a pre paid carrier. Does not matter to them that they will save as much as $700 over the life of the phone all they see is that first cost. I could see a pre paid provider saying, okay, if we could completely get away from license fees on handsets and offer our vendors an opportunity to build around the WebOS software platform, could we build cheap smart phones.... Maybe then it would be valued as a way for pre paid to compete. And just think of the great tech headlines, Pre now pre paid....
Have faith in the Wang.
With regards to your statement about protecting themselves from the Motorola acquisition, that's just patently false. In fact, Google already sold them 100 patents from the Motorola library with which to defend themselves against Apple's lawsuits. Google has made it quite clear that they plan on using the Motorola Mobility patents to protect their Android partners, not to attack them.
Zing! I guess I am speaking to broad and setting myself up for this sort of thing.
Puns aside, I'm talking about the $5 per android device HTC has to pay to Microsoft. as a result of HTC vs Microsoft litigation. They wouldn't have to do that for WebOS based phones.
Meanwhile, when I say protect themselves from the Motorola acquisition, I mean protect themselves from the future prospect of Google keeping the most competitive and/or newest Android builds in house and thus charming significant portions of consumers in to buying Motorola devices instead of HTC (or Samsung for that matter).
On top of that it gives them more freedom regarding innovation. It's forward integration, and although NEITHER OF US can say what the future holds ALL I AM SAYING is that IMHO there is good chance HTC acquires or develops it's own OS and I hope they choose WebOS.
Now let me have my opinion and share it too. (cake pun)
The only evidence we have on this topic is contradictory, wisely so. It would be suicidal for the Android platform to lock down in this manner.
[citation needed]
From what I've seen, what HTC is paying Microsoft for has more to do with the Linux underpinnings of Android (which are shared by Meego and WebOS) than anything else. The only company, which I'm aware of, that has litigated for anything that is Android specific is Oracle suing Google over the implementation of Java in Android. All the other Android-related litigation (once again, that I'm aware of) has to do with generic mobile technologies that likely apply to every other system out there as well. Android is just the target because they're the biggest player in the game currently.
http://www.asymco.com/2011/05/27/microsoft-has-received-five-times-more-income-from-android-than-from-windows-phone/
That is counter to what you are seeing in every way.
Per Thrax's comment, if Google used Motorola as their "Prime" platform (sort of like how they are using Samsung right now) from here on out, then Motorola would get a significant sales edge. How is that suicidal? They can trickle the newer versions of Android to the other OEMs 3 months later and slowly garnish big market shares without killing the platform.
2) Don't shit where you sleep. Competing against your own manufacturers is a bad idea.
3) Don't shit where you sleep. Risking the business model that gave you 40% of the smartphone market for ultimately meaningless preferential treatment is no benefit.
4) Potential anti-trust concerns.
5) Less flexibility for consumers, which Google has a pretty sterling track record of avoiding.
6) They've flat-out said they're not going to.
No, it is not. It does not actually say what the patents are for. That's the point. I never disputed that HTC was paying Microsoft licensing fees on it's Android phones. The patents are most likely not exclusively violated by Android. Most of the patent attacks on Android have to do with extremely generic concepts that any other mobile platform would be just as susceptible to. Until you show exactly what patents they are licensing and demonstrate that WebOS or Meego do not violate any of these patents, my point stands.
Ardi:
I gave you the citation you requested.
You said:
The only company, which I'm aware of, that has litigated for anything that is Android specific is Oracle suing Google over the implementation of Java in Android.
My citation says:
Microsoft is suing other Android phone makers, and it’s looking for $7.50 to $12.50 per device, says Pritchard.
which IS counter to what you said when you had to jump in here and pull the your opinion is wrong jig.
If you want to know the exact details of that lawsuit, and I get them for you, and I'm right that HTC will NOT have to pay Microsoft the same royalty fee if they acquire WebOS ... then you agree to buy me a beer right now otherwise I'm not looking it up. Of course, I will buy you a beer if I am wrong.
What say you?
Per Thrax's where to and not to shit analysis:
Yes, you could be right. Companies shit in a lot of places though, and the certainly flat out say a lot of things. Well see what the future holds.
Microsoft's suit is different because it is based on alleged ownership of technologies in Linux. Android is not the only thing Microsoft has gone after on this premise. What Ardi is saying is legal teams pick and choose their battles, and Android was a very lucrative one to pursue. And (this being the important point), webOS is Linux-based and therefore subject to the very same suits. It was too small a fish to fry before, but what if a major OEM like HTC picks it up? Well hello revenue stream.
The difference is subtle, but important.
This is the entire assumption that I am saying could be false. So I went ahead and did my homework here even though Ardichoke didn't agree to buy me a beer if I was right.
That patent agreement between HTC and Microsoft is not public. You can skip the rest of this knowing none of us can find out if the above assumption is true.
It is mentioned here:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/apr10/04-27mshtcpr.mspx
After reading a ton of other speculation about exactly what technologies the HTC Android devices infringed on ... I gave up and wrote requests for information to Microsoft and HTC's PR departments. I told them I was a business analyst representing an important group of investors (Thrax and Ardichoke).
We all know they are going to delete my emails and not respond.
With that said, all the speculation by those who actually looked over Microsoft's patent base and the HTC Android device capabilities, the only two patents it seems the Internet collectively agrees on are about ActiveSync and ClearType ... neither of which are specific to generalized Linux technologies.
Another thing not being mentioned here is that Microsoft is in general (Apple too for that matter) trying to make it difficult on OEMs to produce Android phones. It isn't about the relatively small revenue streams they get from their IP agreements. It's about fighting for their own respective platforms.
That being said I otherwise agree on the concept that companies only for patent infringement when it makes sense ... ie. revenue stream.
I still don't think HTC would have publicly admitted considering the purchase of WebOS if they thought it was going to
1. Not alleviate them from the patent pressures in some way
2. Not provide them with some level of protection from Google that comes with owning your software platform.
I guess what this comes down to is two arguments AND two schools of thought for each:
The Protection Theory Argument
1. The Motorola acquisition was done by Google to protect OEMs who want to sell Android devices from IP infringement lawsuits
or
2. The Motorola acquisition was Google integrating in to a new market that it actually plans to compete in on it's own
The Bigger Reason for IP Agreement Theory
1. Microsoft goes after Android platforms to restrict the competitiveness of the Android platform
or
2. Microsoft goes after Android platforms for revenue streams from OEMs
Given our limited sources of information here, all we can do is speculate which is all I was trying to do three posts ago.
I may end up being wrong about HTC and WebOS ... but I'm sticking with my speculation because I think my logic is as sound as it can be given our limited information.
I have spent way too much time Interneting today.
After some back and forth with Microsoft's PR company they have genuinely agreed to look in to this for me. I'll let you know when they respond.