Slashdot Mirror


Inside the Death of Palm and WebOS

SomePgmr writes with this excerpt from an article at The Verge: "Thirty-one. That's the number of months it took Palm, Inc. to go from the darling of International CES 2009 to a mere shadow of itself, a nearly anonymous division inside the HP machine without a hardware program and without the confidence of its owners. Thirty-one months is just barely longer than a typical American mobile phone contract. Understanding exactly how Palm could drive itself into irrelevance in such a short period of time will forever be a subject of Valley lore."

22 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. But that's ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...because the CEO of Palm walked away a rich man. And that's all that matters to businesses these days.

    1. Re:But that's ok... by SomePgmr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a significantly better story than that, with lots of money and talent tied up in it. Really smart people, some real assholes, some serious bad luck, and Apple cutting you off at every turn.

      I know it's a long article, but it was really interesting.

    2. Re:But that's ok... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is why Tim Cook is CEO of Apple. You gotta give the man credit, he went out and signed up deals before mobile became hot locking them into multiyear contracts to ensure they got the parts they needed at a set price. As we can see it was a damned smart move and has helped Apple keep their supply lines humming while everyone else had to scramble. just a damned smart business decision on his part.

      As for Palm that's simple, because HP could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory thanks to bad management and a crappy board, that's why. We've seen similar totally dumbshit moves from plenty of big corps, like MSFT killing playsforsure which had become a very successful and growing market which gave people a reason to use their OS, all so Ballmer could pretend he was CEO of Apple by rebranding a Toshiba Gigabeat and making it shit brown to boot.

      Palm like many corps rested on its laurels until it was damned near too late, hell one could argue it already WAS too late, and then when they finally had a decent product sold to a lumbering corp that was being run by PHBs and thought like Ballmer with Zune that simply slapping their name on someone else's product would back up the money truck, well it didn't.

      The only reason Apple could pull it off was they had a dynamic CEO with good taste that thought like a consumer, most of these corps are so up to their ass with market studies and powerpoints and focus groups they couldn't spot a trend if someone drew them a picture with giant arrows pointing towards it. Whether Cook will be able to spot new markets like Jobs did is the big question mark but if Palm would have kept innovating instead of repackaging the same old crap once they got on top they would probably still be here today. I have a feeling RIM and Nokia will be joining them soon enough as both have fallen behind the curve and in the fast paced world of tech once you are behind its hell to catch up, much less get back ahead of everyone else. That was the problem with palm in a nutshell, by the time they realized they couldn't just keep reselling the old OS the mobile world had passed them by.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:But that's ok... by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also the fact that it supported iTunes was basically saying that it was just a cheap rip-off of apples os.

      Oh my god. This sounds like something written on an engadget comment thread. I agree it was a bad move, because they were reliant on Apple's goodwill (i.e, none at all) to keep it functioning, they were relying on a third party service where they got none of the revenue from, also they were providing a feature that was likely to be unreliable and make them look amateur. But no, that doesn't make WebOS seem like a cheap rip-off of iOS, if anything, iOS 5 and Android 4 show lot of features the were inspired by WebOS.

  2. And now RIM by gbr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same thing is happening to Research In Motion.

    1. Re:And now RIM by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Informative

      ... except RIM isn't actually making a decent product.

      You miss the point and the similarities: RIM started with a superior product, gained a dominate position, cruised on auto pilot while competitors passed them and finally began a last ditch scramble to return to relevance just as their resources and market share evaporate. Oops, too late.

    2. Re:And now RIM by Patch86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BlackBerrys used to be so popular, there was a time (just a couple of years ago) that it was unheard of for any CEO or politician worth their salt not to have one. Or several. They used to be called "crackberries" because of how popular they were. They were considered so tippity top of the line that their main competitors (such as Nokia) mad their best smartphone money with straight up BlackBerry clones.

      Their current products look dated compared with the rivals that are killing them- but that's not because of inherently bad design, it's because they're designing products that look and feel like they're from a previous decade.

    3. Re:And now RIM by narcc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Whereas Palm actually assembled a team and put in a decent last ditch effort to make a revolutionary new product, RIM has done nearly nothing.

      Except migrate to a new, best-in-class, operating system, revamp their management tools (which were already the most sophistocated on the market), dramatically improve their developer tools (providing numerous ways for devs to build apps, including an NDK) update their UI completely (they've redefined the touch-interface -- it makes Apple's UI look like a joke from 1994). Oh, and created brilliant solutions to new problems like BlackBerry Balance.

      Really, they were never resting on their laurals. The much-loved Pearl line made the transition from feature-phone to smartphone simple for users used to the form-factor, sure-press turned users off but was undoubtedly innovative, the style never took off, but the clamshell style smartphone was just one of many dramatically different from-factors that RIM offered to the consumer market while they were still undeniably the #1 smartphone manufacturer in the world.

      They weren't slow to change, they did nothing but change!

      Their new technology is well ahead of the competition both technically and in terms of UI. Tools like Bridge take integration to a whole new level. Balance and Fusion set new standards for managed devices -- and that's an area where they were already the unquestioned leader-of-the-pack. Now their users can get freedom and security, something you'll never get from Apple.

  3. It's happened before. by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Commodore was once the #1 selling computer of 1983, 84, 85, 86. A mere seven years later it ran out of cash and filed for bankruptcy (and the new #1 computer was the IBM PC). It all comes down to mutton-headed managers making bad decisions, whether it happened in the 80s with Commodore or the Present with PalmOS.

    Other companies that were once number one were Radio Shack with the TRS-80. Atari with its VCS/2600 console and Atari 800 computer (but went bankrupt). The perpetually third place Apple (1977-1995) flirted with death due to a lot of bad management decisions. Steve Jobs: "When I became CEO in mid-1997, we were only two months from bankruptcy. We were running out of cash." Until Bill Gates bought stuck and gave them extra liquidity to pay their bills. Maybe Microsoft can now save Palm??? (Doubt it.)

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:It's happened before. by rabtech · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Microsoft is survived it's current Mutton Head simply because it has giant trucks full of money.

      That may be partially true but I think it has more to do with Bill's philosophy of hiring A-level people (who hire other A people, whereas B people hire C, D, etc). He also pushed hard for an own-it management style - if you were in charge of some area then he let you get on with it. Management interference was kept to a minimum.

      It takes a long time to strangle the culture out of an organization and that seems to be slowly taking place at Microsoft.

      It remains to be seen if Apple can continue in the long term but it has one thing most others in that situation don't - the original visionary came back and rescued the company, followed by success after success. That visionary also faced his own failures and matured as a person and manager (compare Steve Jobs terror stories pre-departure and his management style after returning).

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  4. Re:rode the wave, then got off by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Loved my Palm Pre Plus, but it is a fumbling , sputtering idiot compared to the iphone. My girl cant even use her stone stock Pre as a music player because it skips. The phone functionality was never given absolute top priority, so pressing buttons lagged, or other weird stuff. I liked the IDEAS in the Pre, the execution was something else entirely. It worked, but not great and certainly not as smooth as what we have now.

    --
    Good-bye
  5. Re:Palm didn't die then by vlm · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think HP collects dying hardware companies for some voodoo ritual. Maybe they make $20K/gallon printer ink using dying companies "red ink". Why else would they buy Compaq (which held DEC) and 3com and Apollo and Convex and Palm and ...

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  6. Stupidity *always* flows from the top. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Greed too. Hire a CEO or manager who is incompetent (e.g. Carly Fiona) or simply willing to gut a company for personal gain (e.g. Carly Fiona) and its eventual destruction is assured.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  7. Re:looked at Palm stuff several times. nope. by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They hit the ball out of the park with the Palm III back in 97, and they couldn't shake off the success. That's why everything they did, right up till the '10s, was right outta the 90s. Palm is like the middle aged person reminiscing about how high school was the pinnacle of their existence and not doing anything since then, while everyone else passes them by.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  8. Re:Palm didn't die then by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think Palm's death was very similar to Amiga's death.

    Both had... interesting... marketing, but that's not what I'm talking about.

    Both Palm and Amiga used some very clever hardware and software tricks to do something that no one else could do at the time. Unfortunately, their solution was very hardware-dependent and could not be moved to the more advanced technology that their competitors started to use without completely killing backward compatibility or running a resource-chomping compatibility layer (chomping both hardware resources and engineering resources) that their competitors did not have to deal with. By the time each learned to just cut the cord, or by the time the state-of-the-art progressed to the point where simple emulation worked well, it was too late - the moment where they had a special capability passed.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  9. Re:Palm didn't die then by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

    They died when "smart" phones got popular

    I used their PDA in the 90s to keep track of everything, and the software to sync with the desktop was glorious and everything Just Worked.

    Four steps to the death of PALM:

    1) Then everyone and their mother started computerized and later online address books and none every worked really well to sync with Palm PDA devices. Close sometimes, but never perfect. The only software that ever really worked perfectly to sync a palm was palms own software.
    2) "smartphones" came along and theirs was pretty much a super expensive dog. Of course, all smartphones were like that until the iphone.
    3) Sony made a better licensed Palm PDAs than Palm. Loved my Clie until the battery died and it started going bonkers. Sony's licensed Palm-like PDAs smashed Palm's PDA market, then Sony exited the market (WTF)
    4) So my clie is finally dead after years of faithful service, I'm not using my execrable unsync-able dumb phone, I'm not paying $120/month contract for a smartphone, what to do? Ah a ipod touch. Near perfection as a PDA for only $186 or whatever it was. Ipod touch in left pocket and $8/month pay as I go dumbphone in right pocket was almost paradise, until I got into the republic wireless $20/mo beta which is, in fact, paradise.

    For kids who don't know what a PDA is/was, its basically was a smartphone that can't make phone calls. Since I almost never talk on my current phone (only a couple minutes in the last 6 months, seriously), its basically a PDA anyway.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  10. Not the whole story... by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is not enough to just make a great OS , you need the ecosystem with hundreds of thousands of apps, retail presence, the buzz factor in the marketplace etc. etc. Miss any one and you're toast in the Post-PC world led by Apple.

    WebOS is(was?) a great OS and the UX is MUCH better than Android (Google hired the WebOS team, so lets see what happens, Android design is all over the place right now). But if people don't even know that, how can they even consider the UX? They look at someone's iPhone and want one themselves that runs "Draw Something' so they can play it with friends.

    The hardware was not too bad (I have a Touchpad that I loaded ICS on for apps). It was too expensive to compete with the iPad(Apple was able to keep it low with economies of scale and supply chain management) so it didn't make sense for people to buy a new platform with a few apps when for the same amount of money you could get an iPad or iPhone. Unlike Android, WebOS was tied to only HP/Palm's h/w.

    That's why Windows Phone is struggling even with MS's push behind it, a nice Metro UI and Nokia's great h/w(though it overtook Blackberry and WebOS with a 100K apps available now) and RIM is all but finished even if their upcoming BB10(based on QNX) is leaps and bounds ahead of BB7. It has to have exclusive killer features or apps to succeed in this dog-eat-dog world. In line to die are AMD(Apple doesn't care about them), T-Mobile(no iPhone), Nokia(unless Windows 8 tablets and WP8 save them), HTC(doing badly these days) and some of the PC OEMs(most of them are doing badly thanks to the iPad).

    So the CEO did really make a great OS with dev friendly dev tools(RIM usually makes TERRIBLE dev tools), but failed at the marketing and buzz factor. The fact that he walked away a rich man doesn't really matter to understand why WebOS failed.

    --
    This space for rent.
  11. Irrelevant before 2009 by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Palm's problem was with their Palm Pilot and the trickle roll-out of upgrades they offered. I remember seeing "new generations" of Palm Pilots being released with nothing more then 4 more mb of RAM, all specs and even style of the handset was identical to those a year ago. While competitors like Microsoft offered color screens and support for music (way before iPod), Palm stuck with black and white screens and no multi-media support for several generations. When they finally offere color screens and music support, it was almost grudgingly done.

    Then when the iPod came out Palm did little to offer enhanced music support. Their one change to create something better then the iPod, LifeDrive, was the final nail in the coffin of an incompetent company that could not innovate and compete to save their lives.

    When they finally dumped their hardware group and went OS only, their efforts were lazy and inefficient. It is almost laughable to assume that PalmOS could have even stood up to iOS or Android. PalmOS was killed off while those OS'es were only in their infancy.

    Palm is simply an example of a company that created the "darling" product for a given generation and then got lazy and arrogant. In spite of disrupters in their industry (such as Windows CE and iPod), Palm remained steady on a course to oblivion by assuming their name alone will drive sales.

    BTW, RIM is in EXACTLY the same condition as Palm was, having created the "IT" product of the late 90', early 00's and then resting on their laurels while the mobile market changed dramatically around them.

    There is no mystery why Palm failed just as their is no mystery as to why Rim is failing. You can't maintain success without continued innovation; the moment you assume you have ample market penetration, the moment you assume your name alone will sell a new generation of product, the moment you dismiss disrupters ad "trifling" competitors and then strive to catch up to them, you are dead in this industry.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  12. Re:Palm didn't die then by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For kids who don't know what a PDA is/was, its basically was a smartphone that can't make phone calls. Since I almost never talk on my current phone (only a couple minutes in the last 6 months, seriously), its basically a PDA anyway.

    Except for the lack of graffiti and a battery life measured in hours insted of weeks.

  13. Re:Palm Pilots could have been as... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

    Somehow I doubt that.

    Doubt it all you like. I can vouch for the fact that I still use mine a lot after two years.

    Most people I know, including me, who have tablets are dusting them off once in a while, realizing they're useless, and then leaving them until the next time.

    Well, the people I know who own tablets aren't for the most part die-hard techies, or mostly just not interested in fiddling with technology if they don't have to. They also tend to be 40+.

    It's only people here on Slashdot I hear saying this, and unfortunately, we as a group tend to be completely incapable of seeing the world in any other way than as a geek who wants to ssh into a server. You might discover that the vast majority of people use computers differently than you do.

    While I haven't been to an airport in years, I've been to numerous hotels and not seen a single tablet user.

    When I travel on business, I tend to be smack in the middle of the business district, in an upmarket hotel mostly used by business travelers.

    My experience is more like seeing 2-3 iPads in the hotel lobby/bar in the evenings, a couple of people on the plane watching movies, and usually 1-2 waiting at the gate at the airport. Not as many as people with laptops, but definitely not an empty set. Being able to flop my iPad onto the bar in the lobby and check my email, look up a restaurant, check the news ... all of which you can do with a laptop, but in a lighter package.

    Feel free to believe anything you want about tablets and if people will buy them. But as someone who owns a tablet, and knows at least half a dozen other people who have tablets, they get used, but they get used differently.

    Hell, the main thing my wife uses her BB Playbook for is google from the living room when we're talking about stuff and want to pull up a quick browser. Whip it out, do a quick search, put it back on the coffee table.

    My personal favorite was keeping my work webmail open in a browser, while I was sitting in the backyard in the sunshine. Pick it up every now and then to see if you've got email.

    For those of us who don't own smart phones, a tablet has a lot of use, just not for the same kinds of things as I'd use my desktop or laptop for.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  14. Hubris by vakuona · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The death of most companies can be traced down to a single word...hubris.

    Some of these are paraphrased quotations.

    “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”

    "The one thing that Apple provides leadership in is colours"

    "Right now we are selling millions and millions and millions of phones a year, and Apple is selling zero phones a year"

    "I left RIM back in 2006 just months before the iPhone launched and I remember talking to friends from RIM and Microsoft about what their teams thought about it at the time. Everyone was utterly shocked. RIM was even in denial the day after the iPhone was announced with all hands meets claiming all manner of weird things about iPhone: it couldn’t do what they were demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor, it must have terrible battery life, etc. Imagine their surprise when they disassembled an iPhone for the first time and found that the phone was [a] battery with a tiny logic board strapped to it. It was ridiculous, it was brilliant."

    "I don't think that what we have seen so far (from Apple) is something that would any way necessitate us changing our thinking when it comes to openness, our software and business approach," Nokia Chief Executive Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo told a conference call with analysts.

    The reason companies fail is that they don't challenge their beliefs in their way of operating. They don't seem to realise that they are where they are with a large helping of luck, and that they could easily fall by the wayside. The list of mobile phone makers who fell by the wayside is 2000's who's who of the entire mobile phone industry. Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel etc. Only Nokia survives as an industry giant and it is struggling, attacked on all ends by the likes of Samsung, Apple, HTC and hordes of Chinese companies.

    The motto is evolve or die. The Apple of today heeded that lesson. That is not to say hubris won't get them. It always does, sooner or later.

  15. Re:Palm Pilots could have been as... by narcc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dedicated keyboards on smartphones are never again going to lead the market. It's over.

    Outside of "flagship" phones, phones with slide-out keyboards are becoming increasingly popular, especially among women.

    Sort of stunning how you blithely ignore the empirical evidence of people voting with their dollars.

    Touch screens are just the current fashion. Remember pen computing? That lost out to RIM's brilliant screen+keyboard smart phones. Touch screens were in, out, now they're in again -- just like every other fashion.

    Current touch screens, as others have pointed out, have serious short-comings. They're not the future, they're the present. 10 years from now, we'll have something better and we'll all wonder what collective insanity made us want to use an all-touch interface in the first place.

    Two recent innovations that attempt to overcome the usability nightmare that is the capacitive touchscreen include the Galaxy Note and the Bold 9900. The Bold keeps the incredibly good physical keyboard and trackpad for tasks that are better served by those input methods and offers a touchscreen on top for the few tasks that are well served by finger-fondling. The Galaxy Note gives users a stylus for precision work; absolutely brilliant for jotting quick notes and tasks that require precision (think working with text, hitting small targets on websites, etc.) The Note is optimized for two-handed use, the Bold for single-handed use.

    I expect both approaches to find their way in to competing handsets over the next few years. I'll make my prediction to counter yours: The all-touch UI fad will be dead in 5 years and replaced with interfaces that don't sacrifice usability for the illusion of 'ease of use' -- they'll actually be easier to use.