WebOs will be open source, and of course, alive and supported by HP

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Serpentine

Competition is vital in this area - at the moment iOS is... a non starter for other companies. Android as much as some people like it, it's really not that amazing. I rather like WP7 and Meego, but I guess most are blinded by colourful logos and media hurf blurf.

Right....people who buy Android or iOS products are idiots, but the 1% of people (if that who buy WP7) are the really sophisticated purchasers.

Why can't you just make your point without insulting people? I think WP7 is interesting, too, but there are lots of reasons not to buy it now. Good reasons.

And there's plenty of colorful logos and media "hurf blurf" surrounding WP7 -it's not like it's a secret OS that a couple of tinkerers put together in their basement.

Something people don't quite grasp is that there's no money in the tablet hardware business, you're making 10% max per unit, unless you can command the 200%'s and such of crApple, but anyone that tries to do this in consumer space, fails. Tablets are a software game for the home consumer market, if you cant get in there, you're going to be making nearly nothing.

Well, Apple (again "crApple" - why so defensive?) seems to make a lot of money in the tablet space, which is why people want to get into that market. And what basis do you have for claiming that Apple makes 200% on its $500 ipad, while Asus, say, is only making 10% on its $500 transformer?

Is Asus really that badly run?

[mersfire]

Companies do make money on hardware. If no one made money on hardware, we wouldn't be able to participate on this forum using our computers/laptops/tablets/smartphones, etc. Software does have a lower barrier of entry (for the most part), but look at companies like Dell, HP, Intel, HTC, Samsung, Lenovo, etc - all hardware companies - and all have successful, and mostly profitable hardware businesses.

In the tablet space, it seems that companies outside of Apple are finding it difficult to make money, but we can't use this one example to over generalize that there is no money to be made in making hardware.

[markbot]

Instead of buying palm for $1.2B, imagine if they gave me that money. I would be so damn happy. I sure as hell wouldn't waste it. No, seriously....they could have done sooo many better things with that money....like buying all the art of da vinci, van gogh, etc...and putting them like in the lobby of the headquarters so employees can enjoy them! but no, they bought palm!? seriously?! pathetic.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by mersfire

Companies do make money on hardware. If no one made money on hardware, we wouldn't be able to participate on this forum using our computers/laptops/tablets/smartphones, etc. Software does have a lower barrier of entry (for the most part), but look at companies like Dell, HP, Intel, HTC, Samsung, Lenovo, etc - all hardware companies - and all have successful, and mostly profitable hardware businesses.

In the tablet space, it seems that companies outside of Apple are finding it difficult to make money, but we can't use this one example to over generalize that there is no money to be made in making hardware.

Depends of the type of hardware.

You make more money, 200% or more, with software, because is an intangible product. People can download software thousand of times from a web server or link and the company keeps making money from it. Music is a good example. Apps, another one. There is no production line or hardware's logistic involve on that, which it is, with tablets, PCs, laptops, etc.

You will be surprise how little money HP makes selling PCs, one of the reason why previous CEO thought about selling the whole business unit. It is not profitable anymore, not like used to be. Not if you want to sell an affordable device, which ranges on the 500 bucks.

Apple is the exception to the rule. But Apple products are not cheap by any means.

[Kali Yuga]

IMO, this is the death rattle of WebOS.

HP isn't going to put any real effort into it, and if it's true that they don't own all the IP, then by the time those components get replaced and smoothly integrated, Android will be significantly more advanced.

I don't see this working out any better than going open source did for BeOS.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

IMO, this is the death rattle of WebOS.
HP isn't going to put any real effort into it, and if it's true that they don't own all the IP, then by the trime those components get replaced and smoothly integrated, Android will be significantly more advanced.
I don't see this working out any better than going open source did for BeOS.

Just curious ...

What makes you think that HP won't invest on webOs. Do you have any article or source that makes you think or believe that?

[mersfire]

Originally Posted by markbot

Instead of buying palm for $1.2B, imagine if they gave me that money. I would be so damn happy. I sure as hell wouldn't waste it. No, seriously....they could have done sooo many better things with that money....like buying all the art of da vinci, van gogh, etc...and putting them like in the lobby of the headquarters so employees can enjoy them! but no, they bought palm!? seriously?! pathetic.

Palm always had great software. Remember the Palm Pilot, Palm 3, Tungsten, etc? These devices defined the PDA industry which later evolved into the smartphone industry. They spent a lot of effort on usability and efficiency. They were one of the first devices with a touch screen, they made Grafiti mainstream, just navigating through menus and finding contacts were a lot more efficient on their products when compared to other products of the time. Palm devices lost their edge when they moved to the mobile Windows platform.

I don't think it was a pathetic purchase, I think the pathetic move was to not give WebOS a fighting chance before their high profile abandonment.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by jocampo

You make more money, 200% or more, with software, because is an intangible product.

Software is expensive to write and maintain, the cost might not be in the final product but the cost of maintaining quality developers is not cheap. A PC chip cost a penny to make yet they sell for several hundred, a pbook cost $1-$2 to make yet sells for $20-$25. Because the cost is not so much in the material but the overhead. Software is no different.

Originally Posted by jocampo

You will be surprise how little money HP makes selling PCs, one of the reason why previous CEO thought about selling the whole business unit. It is not profitable anymore, not like used to be. Not if you want to sell an affordable device, which ranges on the 500 bucks.

Apple is the exception to the rule. But Apple products are not cheap by any means.

You give HP's too much credit. If there was any truth to what you said about HP's PC business he would still be HPs CEO. Instead what he was proposing was to sell one of HPs most lucrative businesses, sure it's not as profitable as the printer business, but it's still a $100B business. Not as profitable as it once was but still very profitable.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by =X=

Software is expensive to write and maintain, the cost might not be in the final product but the cost of maintaining quality developers is not cheap. A PC chip cost a penny to make yet they sell for several hundred, a pbook cost $1-$2 to make yet sells for $20-$25. Because the cost is not so much in the material but the overhead. Software is no different.


You give HP's too much credit. If there was any truth to what you said about HP's PC business he would still be HPs CEO. Instead what he was proposing was to sell one of HPs most lucrative businesses, sure it's not as profitable as the printer business, but it's still a $100B business. Not as profitable as it once was but still very profitable.

Not correct. PSG does not generate big profit. Big volumes and sales are different. Biggest profit business ot one of those is IPG, which ironically, is not a strong area now .

Leo is gone because that was horrible decision plus was doing a bad job anyway, even before. Can't give you details, but basically the supply change PSG provides surpasses any low profit margin or even loss. Think about it as a commodity, the Ace to win the hand when ordering parts, like screens or chips.

And you are not correct about software business. The initial R&N could be high, but the ROI is bigger. It is more expensive to maintain a production manufacturing line than a pool of developers.

You need to revise your numbers ot adjust that to a big company.

Careful. I'm not saying the TouchPad was an awesome tablet, but WebOs is not a bad Os like many think. The acquisition made sense but was not properly guided.

[HansTWN]

Of course the TouchPad is an awesome tablet! I wouldn't trade it for another model.That being said, they could have made a tablet that looked a lot better and paid Netflix and some other important app providers to come on board and they would have had a hit. HP was just too slow and inflexible.

And while from the PC hardware side they didn't generate a lot of profits on a percentage basis, it is still a lot of money in absolute terms. Some of their PCs are really wonderfully thought out and styled, and of superior quality (like the Elite notebook 2740p I am using right now). Compared to Apple they obviously didn't do enough to squeeze their supply chain and didn't spend enough on marketing and making their products sexy. I guess that was where WebOS was supposed to come in -- a way to differentiate themselves, not just sell a box with standard software (be it Windows or Android). They just didn't execute.

[markbot]

HP's next great acquisition will be Research in Motion...lol.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by markbot

HP's next great acquisition will be Research in Motion...lol.

LOL ...I see a $99 HP PlayBook in my future

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by jocampo

What makes you think that HP won't invest on webOs. Do you have any article or source that makes you think or believe that?

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._sentence.html

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...-arrival/10003

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspen...eath-of-webos/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57...n-source-fire/

Is that enough technopessimism for you?

Of course it doesn't hurt to be an optimist, but in this particular case I don't see WebOS gaining much traction.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._sentence.html

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...-arrival/10003

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspen...eath-of-webos/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57...n-source-fire/

Is that enough technopessimism for you?

Of course it doesn't hurt to be an optimist, but in this particular case I don't see WebOS gaining much traction.

Those are articles and opinion, not a confirmation or denial of what the company will or won't do with webOs. Of course, everyone is entitled to give their own perspective about webOs future. Does not mean is what will really happen.

The fact is, will be open source and the company will put lot of work, money and time, so won't be dead. Anything else is speculation.

Will developers or public keep the support? That's another thing. It could be something similar to what people say about MySQL when Oracle bought it. It is still running and being used.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by jocampo

The fact is, will be open source and the company will put lot of work, money and time, so won't be dead. Anything else is speculation.

That it will be open source is a fact.
That HP will put a lot of work, money and time into it is speculation.