Palm: "Oh, we'll use WebOS to? crap, we're out of business."
HP: "Oh, we'll use WebOS to? crap, we're out of business."
Samsung: "Oh, we'll use WebOS to? crap, we're..."
Before the iPhone came out, most of use just accepted that was the way cell phone worked. Then Apple came and blew that all out of the water. What Samsung, Google, Motorola, RIM etc. need to do is stop trying to catch up to Apple and come up with something that will change the whole paradigm again. Forget a touchscreen. How about a phone that can operate simply based on my thoughts (it is kinda crazy but people are working on it http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/...n4694713.shtml) Coming up with something totally new (and that is well designed) is the way to go.
yeah we sure as hell wouldn't want competition now would we.
To be fair, it is clear that Apple and Google are the two dominant mobile phone players... and Microsoft is doing everything they can to also be relevant. Between those three, outside of the niche, I don't see a big need for a fourth option.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be other options, but if I were a company, I wouldn't buy WebOS as a strategy for rapid growth.
Before the iPhone came out, most of use just accepted that was the way cell phone worked. Then Apple came and blew that all out of the water. What Samsung, Google, Motorola, RIM etc. need to do is stop trying to catch up to Apple and come up with something that will change the whole paradigm again. Forget a touchscreen. How about a phone that can operate simply based on my thoughts (it is kinda crazy but people are working on it http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/...n4694713.shtml) Coming up with something totally new (and that is well designed) is the way to go.
In 97 steve said that to bet the future of the company in experimental research is absurd. He stated the goal was to bring what was already possible (multitouch was possible at the time iPhone launched) to the people with excellent execution.
Before the iPhone came out, most of use just accepted that was the way cell phone worked. Then Apple came and blew that all out of the water. What Samsung, Google, Motorola, RIM etc. need to do is stop trying to catch up to Apple and come up with something that will change the whole paradigm again. Forget a touchscreen. How about a phone that can operate simply based on my thoughts (it is kinda crazy but people are working on it http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/...n4694713.shtml) Coming up with something totally new (and that is well designed) is the way to go.
There will always be a general direction smartphones will be heading. Just look at laptops/PCs, they all look the same. Apple's approach to smartphones was different, but they did not invent touch screen phones.
For the record H-P never stated they were scrapping webOS software, only webOS hardware, so the article as written is inaccurate.
They have always stated that they planned to continue supporting the OS. Whether they live up to this promise is another question of course, especially as H-P seem to be on a path to self-destruction right now.
Thank you! I'm so tired of poor "journalism" nowadays. Headlines seem to be more and more misleading and the body of the articles seem to be more opinion (read: made up information) than fact these days. It's getting irritating.
There will always be a general direction smartphones will be heading. Just look at laptops/PCs, they all look the same. Apple's approach to smartphones was different, but they did not invent touch screen phones.
That's correct. Apple just made them usable, and by extension, desirable. Implying there's only one way to make an interface for a touchscreen phone is absurd. Just as implying there's only one way to design a regular computer.
I think it would be pretty cool if Apple?s most non-innovative, copycat touch competitor transformed to offer one of the MOST unique offerings instead.
Also note that it's actual sales as documented at the end of a quarter and then extracted to a per day average by dividing by 90 v. activations per day without any time frame reference given, without indicating actual sales, or how activations are counted (e.g.: Someone buys an Android-based device, activates it, hates it, returns it yet it's still counted -or- Someone buys an Android-based device, activates it, hates it, flashes it, sells it on Craig's List, someone else activates it).
I don't know why you're so concerned with unit sales since you've mentioned many times they're not really important, with profits the defining yardstick. But going with your discussion I seriously doubt that any large percentage of Android phones (or WM7 or Nokia), ie, 15% or more, are hated and returned. But give it a very liberal 25% (which would be economically ridiculous, but no matter for the sake of argument) and that still leaves at least 480K new Android smartphones getting in consumer's hands each day. And FWIW, not every iPhone that's "sold" by Apple is actually in a consumer's hands. We'll occasionally get mention of how many are in the channel (sitting in someone's inventory), but not very often.
Quite obviously Google can't tally channel sales from every manufacturer/reseller of Android devices since they'd be dealing with dozens of different reporting periods from dozens of different manufacturers, some more timely than others. Activations is the only thing they could realistically report isn't it, since that's probably the only thing they see with their own eyes? At the same time, it would seem pretty easy for Apple to publish actual consumer sales of both the 3GS and 4G individually if they wanted those figures known.
To be fair, it is clear that Apple and Google are the two dominant mobile phone players... and Microsoft is doing everything they can to also be relevant. Between those three, outside of the niche, I don't see a big need for a fourth option.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be other options, but if I were a company, I wouldn't buy WebOS as a strategy for rapid growth.
I don't know why you're so concerned with unit sales since you've mentioned many times they're not really important, with profits the defining yardstick. But going with your discussion I seriously doubt that any large percentage of Android phones (or WM7 or Nokia), ie, 15% or more, are hated and returned. But give it a very liberal 25% (which would be economically ridiculous, but no matter for the sake of argument) and that still leaves at least 480K new Android smartphones getting in consumer's hands each day. And FWIW, not every iPhone that's "sold" by Apple is actually in a consumer's hands. We'll occasionally get mention of how many are in the channel (sitting in someone's inventory), but not very often.
Quite obviously Google can't tally channel sales from every manufacturer/reseller of Android devices since they'd be dealing with dozens of different reporting periods from dozens of different manufacturers, some more timely than others. Activations is the only thing they could realistically report isn't it, since that's probably the only thing they see with their own eyes? At the same time, it would seem pretty easy for Apple to publish actual consumer sales of both the 3GS and 4G individually if they wanted those figures known.
I'm concerned about unit sales when others are comparing the sales of a specific product (excluding other products) to activations. It's understood that this is how Google has to report Android, but they could be more transparent and the anti-Apple crowd could try to be a little more balanced by understanding that activations ≠ sales.
Correction - HP is ALLEGEDLY selling the inventory. So far, I haven't seen any signs that they're actually shipping product. Their chat line told me today that the order status web page is broken and has been since Aug 23. WTF? Has ANYONE actually received their Touchpads from HP?
Apparently my one word reply is too short, so I'm adding this as padding, but in a word: Yes.
The thing is, WebOS is actually a great OS, far better than Android in conception and execution. And Samsung, despite their complete lack of any moral sense, is a smart successful company that knows how to execute.
WebOS for Palm was a beyond last ditch effort when the clock had *already* struck midnight on them. WebOS for HP was a disaster because HP always f*cks things like that up. It has a long history of turning pearls into swine.
I'm concerned about unit sales when others are comparing the sales of a specific product (excluding other products) to activations. It's understood that this is how Google has to report Android, but they could be more transparent and the anti-Apple crowd could try to be a little more balanced by understanding that activations ≠ sales.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this.... but I hope Microsoft buys webOS.
All the old webos faithful have moved to WP7, as have most of their developers. WP7 is the most friendly to patching and tinkering, and the interface is most in tune with the webos way of doing things swiping, plus the people tile is similar to synergy (both people focused OS's basically etc).
I'm a bit biased cause I just want swipe up card view multitasking in WP7
But, what is the future of WP7 when Windows 8 for mobile is on the horizon -- aren't 2 mobile OSes, from one company, already 1 too many?
My original comment alluded to the fact that WebOS seems to be the herpes of smartphone software. Whoever has it eventually has to snip off the affected areas or risk being done in by it. It meant nothing more than that.
I do believe you have nailed it -- as enticing as it [the host] may be HerpesOS is life threatening!
Comments
GOOD! I love this. Hope it happens.
Palm: "Oh, we'll use WebOS to? crap, we're out of business."
HP: "Oh, we'll use WebOS to? crap, we're out of business."
Samsung: "Oh, we'll use WebOS to? crap, we're..."
Before the iPhone came out, most of use just accepted that was the way cell phone worked. Then Apple came and blew that all out of the water. What Samsung, Google, Motorola, RIM etc. need to do is stop trying to catch up to Apple and come up with something that will change the whole paradigm again. Forget a touchscreen. How about a phone that can operate simply based on my thoughts (it is kinda crazy but people are working on it http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/...n4694713.shtml) Coming up with something totally new (and that is well designed) is the way to go.
yeah we sure as hell wouldn't want competition now would we.
To be fair, it is clear that Apple and Google are the two dominant mobile phone players... and Microsoft is doing everything they can to also be relevant. Between those three, outside of the niche, I don't see a big need for a fourth option.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be other options, but if I were a company, I wouldn't buy WebOS as a strategy for rapid growth.
Before the iPhone came out, most of use just accepted that was the way cell phone worked. Then Apple came and blew that all out of the water. What Samsung, Google, Motorola, RIM etc. need to do is stop trying to catch up to Apple and come up with something that will change the whole paradigm again. Forget a touchscreen. How about a phone that can operate simply based on my thoughts (it is kinda crazy but people are working on it http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/...n4694713.shtml) Coming up with something totally new (and that is well designed) is the way to go.
In 97 steve said that to bet the future of the company in experimental research is absurd. He stated the goal was to bring what was already possible (multitouch was possible at the time iPhone launched) to the people with excellent execution.
Before the iPhone came out, most of use just accepted that was the way cell phone worked. Then Apple came and blew that all out of the water. What Samsung, Google, Motorola, RIM etc. need to do is stop trying to catch up to Apple and come up with something that will change the whole paradigm again. Forget a touchscreen. How about a phone that can operate simply based on my thoughts (it is kinda crazy but people are working on it http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/...n4694713.shtml) Coming up with something totally new (and that is well designed) is the way to go.
There will always be a general direction smartphones will be heading. Just look at laptops/PCs, they all look the same. Apple's approach to smartphones was different, but they did not invent touch screen phones.
For the record H-P never stated they were scrapping webOS software, only webOS hardware, so the article as written is inaccurate.
They have always stated that they planned to continue supporting the OS. Whether they live up to this promise is another question of course, especially as H-P seem to be on a path to self-destruction right now.
Thank you! I'm so tired of poor "journalism" nowadays. Headlines seem to be more and more misleading and the body of the articles seem to be more opinion (read: made up information) than fact these days. It's getting irritating.
There will always be a general direction smartphones will be heading. Just look at laptops/PCs, they all look the same. Apple's approach to smartphones was different, but they did not invent touch screen phones.
That's correct. Apple just made them usable, and by extension, desirable. Implying there's only one way to make an interface for a touchscreen phone is absurd. Just as implying there's only one way to design a regular computer.
may be the target that Samsung ahs the most interest in," the report said.
When you quote a source that contains an error, you note it with [sic]. Or maybe you didn't copy and paste and typed it wrong.
Also note that it's actual sales as documented at the end of a quarter and then extracted to a per day average by dividing by 90 v. activations per day without any time frame reference given, without indicating actual sales, or how activations are counted (e.g.: Someone buys an Android-based device, activates it, hates it, returns it yet it's still counted -or- Someone buys an Android-based device, activates it, hates it, flashes it, sells it on Craig's List, someone else activates it).
I don't know why you're so concerned with unit sales since you've mentioned many times they're not really important, with profits the defining yardstick. But going with your discussion I seriously doubt that any large percentage of Android phones (or WM7 or Nokia), ie, 15% or more, are hated and returned. But give it a very liberal 25% (which would be economically ridiculous, but no matter for the sake of argument) and that still leaves at least 480K new Android smartphones getting in consumer's hands each day. And FWIW, not every iPhone that's "sold" by Apple is actually in a consumer's hands. We'll occasionally get mention of how many are in the channel (sitting in someone's inventory), but not very often.
Quite obviously Google can't tally channel sales from every manufacturer/reseller of Android devices since they'd be dealing with dozens of different reporting periods from dozens of different manufacturers, some more timely than others. Activations is the only thing they could realistically report isn't it, since that's probably the only thing they see with their own eyes? At the same time, it would seem pretty easy for Apple to publish actual consumer sales of both the 3GS and 4G individually if they wanted those figures known.
To be fair, it is clear that Apple and Google are the two dominant mobile phone players... and Microsoft is doing everything they can to also be relevant. Between those three, outside of the niche, I don't see a big need for a fourth option.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be other options, but if I were a company, I wouldn't buy WebOS as a strategy for rapid growth.
You are likely very right about that.
I don't know why you're so concerned with unit sales since you've mentioned many times they're not really important, with profits the defining yardstick. But going with your discussion I seriously doubt that any large percentage of Android phones (or WM7 or Nokia), ie, 15% or more, are hated and returned. But give it a very liberal 25% (which would be economically ridiculous, but no matter for the sake of argument) and that still leaves at least 480K new Android smartphones getting in consumer's hands each day. And FWIW, not every iPhone that's "sold" by Apple is actually in a consumer's hands. We'll occasionally get mention of how many are in the channel (sitting in someone's inventory), but not very often.
Quite obviously Google can't tally channel sales from every manufacturer/reseller of Android devices since they'd be dealing with dozens of different reporting periods from dozens of different manufacturers, some more timely than others. Activations is the only thing they could realistically report isn't it, since that's probably the only thing they see with their own eyes? At the same time, it would seem pretty easy for Apple to publish actual consumer sales of both the 3GS and 4G individually if they wanted those figures known.
I'm concerned about unit sales when others are comparing the sales of a specific product (excluding other products) to activations. It's understood that this is how Google has to report Android, but they could be more transparent and the anti-Apple crowd could try to be a little more balanced by understanding that activations ≠ sales.
Either way, one or both are destined to become the "Typhoid Mary" of Mobile OSes.
Correction - HP is ALLEGEDLY selling the inventory. So far, I haven't seen any signs that they're actually shipping product. Their chat line told me today that the order status web page is broken and has been since Aug 23. WTF? Has ANYONE actually received their Touchpads from HP?
Apparently my one word reply is too short, so I'm adding this as padding, but in a word: Yes.
I really hope you're right, but I'm not so sure.
The thing is, WebOS is actually a great OS, far better than Android in conception and execution. And Samsung, despite their complete lack of any moral sense, is a smart successful company that knows how to execute.
WebOS for Palm was a beyond last ditch effort when the clock had *already* struck midnight on them. WebOS for HP was a disaster because HP always f*cks things like that up. It has a long history of turning pearls into swine.
Samsung could actually succeed here.
@PP
I'm concerned about unit sales when others are comparing the sales of a specific product (excluding other products) to activations. It's understood that this is how Google has to report Android, but they could be more transparent and the anti-Apple crowd could try to be a little more balanced by understanding that activations ≠ sales.
Fair enough.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this.... but I hope Microsoft buys webOS.
All the old webos faithful have moved to WP7, as have most of their developers. WP7 is the most friendly to patching and tinkering, and the interface is most in tune with the webos way of doing things swiping, plus the people tile is similar to synergy (both people focused OS's basically etc).
I'm a bit biased cause I just want swipe up card view multitasking in WP7
But, what is the future of WP7 when Windows 8 for mobile is on the horizon -- aren't 2 mobile OSes, from one company, already 1 too many?
But, what is the future of WP7 when Windows 8 for mobile is on the horizon -- aren't 2 mobile OSes already 1 too many?
MS's strategy is different from Google and Apple's. WP7 is for Phones (hence the name Windows Phone 7), Windows 8 is for PCs and Tablets.
Hey at least it's not as confusing as Google's OS strategy (what's ChromeOS for again?)
My original comment alluded to the fact that WebOS seems to be the herpes of smartphone software. Whoever has it eventually has to snip off the affected areas or risk being done in by it. It meant nothing more than that.
I do believe you have nailed it -- as enticing as it [the host] may be HerpesOS is life threatening!