Pocket PC Captures 26% of Total PDA Market in 2002

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/5278956.htm">http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/5278956.htm</a><br /><br />Sort of a back door approach to getting this, but this is the first full year 2002 market share data I've seen that would include all markets and all channels.<br /><br />"Palm's hardware held a 36.8 percent share of the handheld computer market in 2002, according to Gartner Dataquest. Overall, devices running the Palm operating system held 55 percent of the market, compared with 26 percent for Pocket PC."<br /><br />If I recall correctly, Pocket PC had a one quarter spike of around 28%. Also remember that these numbers only include one month, December, of sales volumes from sub $300 Pocket PCs like the Dell Axim, HP iPAQ 1910 and ViewSonic V35. HP also issued a <a href="http://h40055.www4.hp.com/press/pr290103.html">press release</a> in January that I hadn't seen before. Over 3 million iPAQs have been sold since inception. One million of those were sold in the 9 month April-December timeframe.

[heov]

what about US market? when will that come out? Last i remembered palmsource handhelds held 80%.... not sure though.... Not bad for PPC in the total market though... but is it just me or do i remember people claiming it's gonna take over soon after it's launch... it's been close to 3 full years PPC has been out... Oh well :) It's too bad they count the zire as a palm because that was the best selling pda during christmas time...

[Ed Hansberry]

what about US market? when will that come out? Last i remembered palmsource handhelds held 80%.... not sure though
LOL! That was 1999 at best. Palm and PalmOS hasn't seen 80% in years. The last detailed numbers I have were for Q3 of 2002 - see http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4394

[Foo Fighter]

I think PalmOS held somewhere around 70% US, with PPC holding around 20%. The remainder was held by "Other" platforms.

[Ed Hansberry]

I think PalmOS held somewhere around 70% US, with PPC holding around 20%. The remainder was held by "Other" platforms.
Q3 Palm+Sony was 58% excluding handspring, so 58.5% with Handspring? :wink:

I suspect PalmOS got a Q4 boost with the Zire in volume, but I've still no doubt that PPC is generating more top line $$$. I really want to see some solid Axim and h1910 numbers.

[heov]

doh! you're right... i went back to the BH article and see it was 73% of US enterprise... my bad
http://www.brighthand.com/article/PalmSource_Claims_Big_Market_Shares

Anyway, according to this article, in May 2k2, PalmOS dominated 87% of the market? http://www.brighthand.com/article/Palm_OS_is_hot_again
That's seems a bit too high even a year ago...

Anyway, i looked through some research and it seems like Palm Inc (not sony, etc) is only about 40% now...

UPDATE: doh... i found that 80% number i was talking about... looks like it was only the monthly sales or something (first link)... palm powered pdas were 80% of all pda's sold during the month of december 2k2 or something... i'm not too good with numbers, as you can see ;)

Anyway, it seems like PPC is really going forward.... I think if the OEMs keep pushing these lower end, lower priced handhelds, they can keep going. They need to hold out on the high end for a while (even if we geeks don't want them too) and dominate the lowend market... and then move upwards... imo :)

[Ed Hansberry]

doh! you're right... i went back to the BH article and see it was 73% of US enterprise... my bad
http://www.brighthand.com/article/PalmSource_Claims_Big_Market_Shares

Anyway, according to this article, in May 2k2, PalmOS dominated 87% of the market? http://www.brighthand.com/article/Palm_OS_is_hot_again
That's seems a bit too high even a year ago...

Anyway, i looked through some research and it seems like Palm Inc (not sony, etc) is only about 40% now...

UPDATE: doh... i found that 80% number i was talking about... looks like it was only the monthly sales or something (first link)... palm powered pdas were 80% of all pda's sold during the month of december 2k2 or something... i'm not too good with numbers, as you can see ;)

Anyway, it seems like PPC is really going forward.... I think if the OEMs keep pushing these lower end, lower priced handhelds, they can keep going. They need to hold out on the high end for a while (even if we geeks don't want them too) and dominate the lowend market... and then move upwards... imo :)
Be careful reading any report that references NPD Intellect. Those are 100% retail and ignore sales via wholesalers or direct from the OEM, like HP or Toshiba. Those are big channels for the enterprise.

NPD only tracks store like CompUSA and BestBuy.

[Cracknell]

Strangely enough Palm Inc never quotes Gartner anymore since late 2001, they used to do it religiously with quarterly Press release. In fact they repudiate Gartner straight out recently. You can still compile their PR prop from their database.

Now they claim NPD is the only accurate market measure because Gartner uses manufacturer self reporting, while NPD track retail shelf.

The dirty little secret is, they can win NPD number hands down because Zire sells in grocery and superstores isles, while majority of PPC are still sold through specialty electronic stores or online.

I am willing to bet they will stop quoting marketshare data altogether once they hit below 50% in quarterly marketshare report. And they will cite quality of their unit and brand recognition as a strength then marketshare data. Their PR dept. is pretty predictable.

[gfunkmagic]

I suspect PalmOS got a Q4 boost with the Zire in volume, but I've still no doubt that PPC is generating more top line $$$. I really want to see some solid Axim and h1910 numbers.


You know I would like to point out that PalmSource gets the same amount of royalty fee from a Zire or NZ90! I would, however, like to see some definitive data on OEM profit margins covering various platforms?

[Cracknell]

Isn't Palmsource owned by Palm Inc and still a private subsidiary? I don't think Palmsource licensing fee to Palm Inc. is a public accounting data, so I would be very curious to see how you know that fact.

[Cardie]

Do thesenumbers include the Symbian devices or are they classed as phones and not included?

[Ed Hansberry]

You know I would like to point out that PalmSource gets the same amount of royalty fee from a Zire or NZ90! I would, however, like to see some definitive data on OEM profit margins covering various platforms?
I don't know if that is true or not. Is OS4 and OS5 set up under the same licensing fee arrangement?

In any event, we also know MS is generating more revenue from PPC and Smartphone licensing than PalmSource is generating form PalmOS licensing and Palm Digital Media sales combined.

See http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8211 and the links within for more details.

Bottom line is MS and OEM partners are being patient. They are gaining ground steadily, and I expect a bit of a boost when the sub-$300 devices are accounted for, but even without the boost, Palm and friends cannot continue to bleed red ink like this forever. Well, Sony can, which is why I think eventually they will buy Palmsource and eventually yank the PalmOS licensing for non-phone devices.

Oh my... Palm Digital Media under Sony's ownership. My worst nightmare. :evil:

[Jonathan1]

Oh my... Palm Digital Media under Sony's ownership. My worst nightmare. :evil:

HOLY #$*&(@# 8O I never thought about that! Mommy.......Ed is scaring me with horror stories! :cry:

[gfunkmagic]

Isn't Palmsource owned by Palm Inc and still a private subsidiary?

Umm noo! PalmSource and PalmSG have been effectively been split for some time now.

In any event, we also know MS is generating more revenue from PPC and Smartphone licensing than PalmSource is generating form PalmOS licensing and Palm Digital Media sales combined.


Geeez Ed, talk about spinning the facts! You even say in your own article that:

(M$ CE/Mobility) Revenue was $21 million and the unit had an operating loss of $39 million!!!

PalmSource had an operating loss last quarter too if I recall, but they HAVE been profitable AT LEAST sometime in their HISTORY!! :roll: YEAH of course M$ can be patient, especially when you have $40 billion to sit on. But that doesn't necessarily mean their business model is correct. I would like to see how those wonderful PPC OEM profit margins look one year later once Dell's full effect on the segment had been accounted for. Do you really think M$ strategy of commoditizing PPC's like PC's is good for OEM's? Of course its good for consumers, but I doubt it will have any positive effect for the PPC pda segment...

[Ed Hansberry]

Isn't Palmsource owned by Palm Inc and still a private subsidiary?

Umm noo! PalmSource and PalmSG have been effectively been split for some time now.
Umm noo! Palmsourse and PalmSG are still under the Palm Inc umbrella. Internally they are working as a split company as much as possible, but it is still one company.

In any event, we also know MS is generating more revenue from PPC and Smartphone licensing than PalmSource is generating form PalmOS licensing and Palm Digital Media sales combined.


Geeez Ed, talk about spinning the facts! You even say in your own article that:

(M$ CE/Mobility) Revenue was $21 million and the unit had an operating loss of $39 million!!!
PalmSource had an operating loss last quarter too if I recall, but they HAVE been profitable AT LEAST sometime in their HISTORY!! :roll:
Umm nooo! PalmSource has never been profitable as a division. Palm Inc has but that was mostly from hardware back in the $500M sales per quarter heyday of 2000 following the IPO.

Keep in mind that MS is working on two OSs too - Pocket PC and Smartphone, so their R&D is higher. And the plain and simple fact is, MS is genning more revenue from PPC+SP licenses than PalmSource is from PalmOS+Digital Media and neither is generating a profit.

[Foo Fighter]

Ed is correct. While PalmSource and Palm SG are separate and autonomous, they are still owned by Palm Inc. Palmsource is not an independent company...yet. I believe the official "split" will take place later this year.

[Ed@Brighthand]

What makes me nervous is that neither operating system is on especially firm ground. Both continue to bleed red ink.

While I agree with Ed (the other Ed) that Sony would pick up PalmSource if it goes belly up, this wouldn't be a good thing for the platform at all. Even if it didn't try to cut off the other licensees, it isn't a company with a reputation for playing well with others. I think Sony would turn the Palm OS into the Mac OS. Very good products that have a small percentage of the market.

On the other hand, Microsoft could easily decide to cuts its losses with Pocket PC and drop the platform. Yes, Microsoft has a whole whomping lot of money but you don't get a whole whomping lot of money by spending it on unprofitable projects. I can see the company deciding that it would be more cost effective to emphasize Tablet PCs and encourage manufacturers to keep making these smaller and better.

Neither of these possibilities makes me happy. Both platforms need the other to encourage innovation. Each would stagnate without the other.

[Cracknell]

I don't think Palmsource IPO will ever happen, considering the market condition and how investor see Palm Inc as a whole. PALM has been nosediving in the past weeks, and the 6 month trend as whole is very dysmal. IPO condition is also still shaky in foreseeable future.

And I think Palm Inc knows that too, that's why they are going the "conserve cash" mode with pink slips, rather than betting on fresh capital from IPO.

late addition:
Microsoft seems to be willing to invest in hard time, they plonk 500M for the Xbox, so I don't think bleeding 30M/Q for something that they have declared part of long term strategy is in jeopardy of being dropped. The overall financial trend of the mobility unit is also upward. Didn't anybody make the calculation that Microsoft can keep mobility unit at current lost rate eternally just by virtue of cash interest?

[Foo Fighter]

...this [Sony taking over PalmSource] wouldn't be a good thing for the platform at all.

I agree. There was a time when I was a huge proponent of this scenario simply because of Sony's incredible ability to innovate. But I think in the longrun it would spell PalmOS's doom. It would completely kill PalmOS in the enterprise.

On the other hand, Microsoft could easily decide to cuts its losses with Pocket PC and drop the platform. [snip] I can see the company deciding that it would be more cost effective to emphasize Tablet PCs and encourage manufacturers to keep making these smaller and better.

I've often said the same thing. What worries me is that Microsoft doesn't seem to take the PDA market very seriously. In my estimation, they have always fought Palm with one hand tied behind their back. Up to now MS has ascribed to a weak game of "scoot and shoot" without any real strategy. It's really the licensees that have taken the most initiative, such as recently introduced low-cost PPCs. Microsoft, for its part, is merely a silent partner. A little too silent in my opinion.

With Bill Gates own affinity for Tablet PC, I'm afraid PPC will be treated as an orphan product in Microsoft's overall strategic vision. Jason claims that Microsoft now has a solid road-map for Pocket PC, based on his briefings at the recent MVP summit. I hope that's true, because I don't see how Microsoft will ever get anywhere in this market if they don't start playing a more aggressive game, and perhaps change the rules every now and then.

[Ed Hansberry]

While I agree with Ed (the other Ed) that Sony would pick up PalmSource if it goes belly up, this wouldn't be a good thing for the platform at all. {snip} Both platforms need the other to encourage innovation. Each would stagnate without the other.
This is huge. Look at what MS does with no competition. Exactly what do we really have in Office 2002 or even the forthcoming Office 2004 that wasn't there in Office 97? Not a whole lot that anyone gives a flip about.

Look at Palm. Does anyone think there would be cool devices like the Clie and even an OS5 if MS hadn't come knocking? I'd be happy for the market to stabalize between 40%-60% share for either company just to keep the other guy on his toes. (of course, PPC would be 60, Palm 40 ;) )

As for MS throwing in the towel on Pocket PC and Windows CE based devices? Not a chance. The potential of these devices hasn't been realized by a long shot. Wireless in the US is still horrible and even in Europe, while it is everywhere and fairly standard, GPRS is still drop dead slow. Once 300kbps and higher connections become commonplace (not just in 5 key cities) the possibilities become staggering. The CE core to MS's offerings is up to the task already and significant improvements are coming. Palm is getting their OS up to the task. Say what you want, multitasking is a necessity when wireless enters the picture. Chat, browsing, music streaming, video, etc. All a reality at 300kpbs and up. Heck, even at 128kpbs it is pleasureable except for the video.

No, MS was looking 5 years out when the PPC launched in 2000. 2005 is coming. Unfortunately 3G isn't here yet and may not be pervasive by 2005 as once thought. That just means a delay, not an abandonment.

[Ed Hansberry]

On the other hand, Microsoft could easily decide to cuts its losses with Pocket PC and drop the platform. [snip] I can see the company deciding that it would be more cost effective to emphasize Tablet PCs and encourage manufacturers to keep making these smaller and better.

I've often said the same thing. What worries me is that Microsoft doesn't seem to take the PDA market very seriously. In my estimation, they have always fought Palm with one hand tied behind their back. Up to now MS has ascribed to a weak game of "scoot and shoot" without any real strategy. It's really the licensees that have taken the most initiative, such as recently introduced low-cost PPCs. Microsoft, for its part, is merely a silent partner. A little too silent in my opinion.

With Bill Gates own affinity for Tablet PC, I'm afraid PPC will be treated as an orphan product in Microsoft's overall strategic vision. Jason claims that Microsoft now has a solid road-map for Pocket PC, based on his briefings at the recent MVP summit. I hope that's true, because I don't see how Microsoft will ever get anywhere in this market if they don't start playing a more aggressive game, and perhaps change the rules every now and then.
On this one Foo, you really have no clue what you are talking about. Bill Gates probably couldn't even log in and run a report on Great Plains, but that doesn't mean it isn't a core piece of MS's strategy going forward. Ditto the Pocket PC and Smartphone. Wireless devices are coming en masse, like it or not. MS fully intends to dominate the field, just as they do every field they enter.

[Foo Fighter]

On this one Foo, you really have no clue what you are talking about.

Well I haven't been briefed by the higher ups at Microsoft now have I? I just go by what I see.

[Ed Hansberry]

On this one Foo, you really have no clue what you are talking about.

Well I haven't been briefed by the higher ups at Microsoft now have I? I just go by what I see.
No, you are going by what you want to see. MS has gone from essentially nothing in 1999 to a device with 16bit color screens, stereo output, wireless (wifi, bluetooth), 64MB devices, VPN support, terminal server access, handwriting recognition, integrated phone capabilities (real integration, not duct taped together like the Visor Phone), clear type, rich multimedia, IM, IE, and even eye candy like the popups and themes. Has their execution been flawless? No. Stagnant? Hardly!

[gfunkmagic]

No, you are going by what you want to see.

Wow... now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Finding an objecitve viewpoint here is like finding a needle in a haystack... Well then let me tell you what others might "see": M$ despite being the most dominant, profitably and powerful software company in the entire world has not been able to garner majority market share against piddly little Palm despite over three years of competition, and despite offering comparably more powerful features, despite have a monopoly in PC OS, despite a war chest of billions, and even despite the pathetic leadership of hapless Palm (especailly during the Yanakowski regime) that virtually ceded innovation for a while. And to top it off, they still haven't made a profit off PPC either! You can spin it any way you like, but this version and your version can both be true...

In any case, the pda segment is small time compared to the mobile industry. Lets see how M$ does when it has to go against some real competiton like Nokia et al and the Symbian Consortuim. I think M$ will find it much rougher going against " the gang of four" than wobbly little Palm. And btw... they probably won't be able to dominate mobiles either...

[Ed Hansberry]

No, you are going by what you want to see.

Wow... now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Finding an objecitve viewpoint here is like finding a needle in a haystack... Well then let me tell you what others might "see": M$ despite being the most dominant, profitably and powerful software company in the entire world has not been able to garner majority market share against piddly little Palm despite over three years of competition, and despite offering comparably more powerful features, despite have a monopoly in PC OS, despite a war chest of billions, and even despite the pathetic leadership of hapless Palm (especailly during the Yanakowski regime) that virtually ceded innovation for a while. And to top it off, they still haven't made a profit off PPC either! You can spin it any way you like, but this version and your version can both be true...
gfunk, if you want to blather, that is fine, but if you are going to post something, either clearly label it your opinion or get your facts right. MS has never entered a market and blown the competition out of the water in 2, 3, 4 or even 5 years. Took from the mid 80's to the mid 90's to overthrow Lotus 1-2-3. Took from 1991 to late 2000 to become the dominant networking solution. They still aren't the #1 database or #1 groupware product.

Of course, you think the split has happened and PS has posted a profit. :lol:

In any case, the pda segment is small time compared to the mobile industry. Lets see how M$ does when it has to go against some real competiton like Nokia et al and the Symbian Consortuim. I think M$ will find it much rougher going against " the gang of four" than wobbly little Palm. And btw... they probably won't be able to dominate mobiles either...

That is who MS sees as their competition. Neither MS nor any other players you mentioned think Palm is going to be around as a major wireless player. It is MS vs Nokia here. Palm is a sideshow.

[Janak Parekh]

MS has never entered a market and blown the competition out of the water in 2, 3, 4 or even 5 years.
And you really can't expect them to win the market that quickly, either. People generally go with what they know. Palm has been suiting the needs of average and low-end users for a long time now, and it's only been with price drops and the transition to MP3/wireless/etc. that the "average joe" has seen the value prospect of Pocket PC handhelds. And, I do think the Tungsten is a nice unit; a bit overpriced, and it doesn't meet my requirements, but it's a cleverly engineered little unit.

What I hope is that MS is still looking 5 years ahead. That is what they need to win against Symbian, et. al.

That is who MS sees as their competition. Neither MS nor any other players you mentioned think Palm is going to be around as a major wireless player. It is MS vs Nokia here. Palm is a sideshow.
And it's not easy either. Nokia has a lot of entrenched market influences, especially in Europe. MS is definitely invested for a long-term battle here.

--janak

[gfunkmagic]

gfunk, if you want to blather, that is fine, but if you are going to post something, either clearly label it your opinion or get your facts right

Hey you post your opinion, I post mine.. unless of course you can't bear to read opposing viewpoints in which case you'll probably delete them...

MS has never entered a market and blown the competition out of the water in 2, 3, 4 or even 5 years. Took from the mid 80's to the mid 90's to overthrow Lotus 1-2-3. Took from 1991 to late 2000 to become the dominant networking solution. They still aren't the #1 database or #1 groupware product

Great analogy but that doesn't work here b/c Palm hasn't been around that long either if I may remind you. Its only like 5 years old if you recall. The whole arguement that M$ hasn't been in the market long enough or that Palm has maintaned its lead b/c of it was 1st to market doesn't wash anymore. M$ has had ample time to squash Palm by now but it hasn't been able to. Looking forward, the M$ and PalmOS marketshares seem to have stabilized and with with both platforms beginning to converge in hardware specs, it will be even more difficult fo either to make a move...

That is who MS sees as their competition. Neither MS nor any other players you mentioned think Palm is going to be around as a major wireless player. It is MS vs Nokia here. Palm is a sideshow.

M$ is only a "player" by virture of their position as a software monopoly in the PC industry. Of course, this no small factor but I would hardly say they are currently a major player yet in the mobile industry. True, M$ has been made major alliances with large wireless providers, but most headset OEM's (with exception of Samsung) have all sided with the Symbian camp or linux (motorola). I don't deny that palmOS significance in this segment is questionable. They are a bit player but still according to a report from IDC, Palm still manged to account for more than 47% of the entire mobile device market as of last year.

http://www.infosync.no/show.php?id=1358

As a side note, in order for M$ to dominate the moble segment, it will have to dominate moble wireless content and browsing. Fortunately (or unfortunatley accoding to some people here), M$ isn't an automatic win in this round of "browser wars." And this isn't just my opinon (or blather as you contend) either:

http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,47427,00.html

[Ed Hansberry]

MS has never entered a market and blown the competition out of the water in 2, 3, 4 or even 5 years. Took from the mid 80's to the mid 90's to overthrow Lotus 1-2-3. Took from 1991 to late 2000 to become the dominant networking solution. They still aren't the #1 database or #1 groupware product

Great analogy but that doesn't work here b/c Palm hasn't been around that long either if I may remind you. Its only like 5 years old if you recall. The whole arguement that M$ hasn't been in the market long enough or that Palm has maintaned its lead b/c of it was 1st to market doesn't wash anymore. M$ has had ample time to squash Palm by now but it hasn't been able to. Looking forward, the M$ and PalmOS marketshares seem to have stabilized and with with both platforms beginning to converge in hardware specs, it will be even more difficult fo either to make a move...
No, Palm has been in it since 1996. That is 8 years. MS didn't get into it in earnest until 2000. The PsPC didn't come about until 1998 and it was a bad misstep by MS, which they acknowledged and started largely from scratch with the Pocket PC in 2000.
As a side note, in order for M$ to dominate the moble segment, it will have to dominate moble wireless content and browsing. Fortunately (or unfortunatley accoding to some people here), M$ isn't an automatic win in this round of "browser wars."
There is a disconnect between the browser and the content. I use IE but other than trips to support.microsoft.com, I rarely see an MS site on my browser. You are very close to this "mobile internet" I keep hearing about and want no part of.

[gfunkmagic]

No, Palm has been in it since 1996. That is 8 years. MS didn't get into it in earnest until 2000. The PsPC didn't come about until 1998 and it was a bad misstep by MS, which they acknowledged and started largely from scratch with the Pocket PC in 2000.


And your point is?.... By your own numbers M$ has been in the market for 4+ years. Thus given all the strengths of their platform and resources of M$, why havn't PPC's snatched the predominant position in the industry? When exactly are they supposed to achieve this? I've been waiting forever for this to happen and its always been delayed for what ever reason? :roll:

[gfunkmagic]

There is a disconnect between the browser and the content. I use IE but other than trips to support.microsoft.com, I rarely see an MS site on my browser. You are very close to this "mobile internet" I keep hearing about and want no part of.

Well if M$ won't be a content provider, then it must control the mobile browser platform, otherwise what's the point of .NET? A Symbian P800 that supports j2ME w/Opera browser is fromidable competiton for M$. OF course Symbian, PalmOS etc could possibly fully support .NET, but should M$ trust those guys? :lol:

[Ed Hansberry]

There is a disconnect between the browser and the content. I use IE but other than trips to support.microsoft.com, I rarely see an MS site on my browser. You are very close to this "mobile internet" I keep hearing about and want no part of.

Well if M$ won't be a content provider, then it must control the mobile browser platform, otherwise what's the point of .NET?
Uhm... if you think .NET is about browers and secure logins, you got another think coming. There are .NET apps for the Pocket PC and desktop already that have nothing to do with the internet. One is a nice freeware PIM replacement, sort of a junior Pocket Informant. Handango has it - can't recall the name off of the top of my head.

[gfunkmagic]

There are .NET apps for the Pocket PC and desktop already that have nothing to do with the internet.

Great, but we're not talking about disconnected PPC's, we're talking about smartphones and mobiles... It is obvious that M$ views M$ Smartphone and PPC as end user vehicles for .NET implementation. If M$ doesn't control the browser, then what's the point?

[Janak Parekh]

Well if M$ won't be a content provider, then it must control the mobile browser platform, otherwise what's the point of .NET?
I'll add a bit to what Ed said. .NET is hardly a "browser" platform - it's a new development platform whose main goal is to remove the aging, fragmented Win32 APIs that are different across each MS OS and to unify them with a few consistent platforms (i.e., the .NET Framework API and the .NET Compact Framework API). You can download .NET code, of course, but that's only one reason for it.

A Symbian P800 that supports j2ME w/Opera browser is fromidable competiton for M$.
In the consumer market, very possibly. .NET, however, is likely to get broad enterprise support on the desktop, and the ease of porting to mobile platforms is key.

If M$ doesn't control the browser, then what's the point?
What's this about controlling "the browser" being key? There are a lot of segments in the mobile market, and not all of them are tied to web browsing. In fact, a lot of compelling applications aren't web browsing.

--janak

[gfunkmagic]

In the consumer market, very possibly. .NET, however, is likely to get broad enterprise support on the desktop, and the ease of porting to mobile platforms is key.


Agreed, but like I said before, that is not given by default. M$ is neither a major player in enterprise "always-on email connectivity" nor are they dominant in smartphones/mobiles. Without a dominant postion it will be hard for M$ to port their .NET framwork to mobile platforms. And to be sure Symbian, Nokia, Sun, linux etc will fight like hell to make it so...

[Ed Hansberry]

Agreed, but like I said before, that is not given by default. M$ is neither a major player in enterprise "always-on email connectivity" nor are they dominant in smartphones
No one is. The smartphone/always on email market is a bug fart compared to dumb phones and even PDAs. The market is wide open. Nokia certainly has the inside track here, but they are not the defacto winner. There may be no "winner." MS might get 35-40% of the market. It will be so HUGE at that point 40% will be a nice piece.

As for the enterprise, most use Visual Studio for development and will move to VS.NET in the coming years. Converting an app for the Pocket PC is as simple as selecting the Compact.NET Framework to compile for and a bit of UI work. All of the rest just works - on any .NET enabled device.

.NET is a platform with teeth. Java is a platform that has been making promises since the mid 90's with no real success. Many do it just because it isn't MS, which is sort of silly.

[Janak Parekh]

Java is a platform that has been making promises since the mid 90's with no real success. Many do it just because it isn't MS, which is sort of silly.
The problem is that the Java effort has been much more fragmented, especially J2ME. J2SE and J2EE have carved out valuable niches in the enterprise server market, but portability to J2ME is still up in the air and not nearly as slick as .NET CF.

That said, I think you'll see a lot of of these technologies coexist. Open standards enable this, such as Web Services, which Microsoft, IBM and Sun have all endorsed heavily (and which .NET works with very well). And it's a good thing, as we all mentioned before -- competition helps keep the products moving.

--janak

[Wasp]

As of Jan 27th, Gartner gave out the following press release: http://www4.gartner.com/5_about/press_releases/pr27jan2003a.jsp
It stated that Palm had about 46.0% of the 2002 U.S units. In comparison HP had 11.3%, Toshiba had 4.0% Casio had 2.2%, Symbol had 2.0% , Sharp had 0.9%, and Dell had 0.9% (I am a little surprised at Dell's number; I thought it would be bigger.) That comes to 19.3% of the U.S. market. In 2001 the relative U.S. numbers were Palm 47.5%, HP 19.1%, Toshiba N.A., Casio 4.2%, Symbol 1.6%, Sharp 0.4%, and Dell N.A. That comes out to a PPC market share of units to 25.3% in 2001. Apparently, HP got hammered in 2002. The other companies have not changed their market share significantly.

[Bosco]

Here's quote from the 3rd page:

MS fully intends to dominate the field, just as they do every field they enter.

LOL!!! Dominate every field? Then why are they being killed when up against Adobe, Nokia, Palm, PS2 and Gamecube, Quicken, and AOL? The only fields they actually ARE winning is XP and Office. Everything else isn't making anything for them. In essence, Office sales are paying for X-Box and PPC. I don't know where you get they "dominate" all fields from.

Now, there's a lot of people going back and forth on which strategy seems to be the winner. Now, let me say that while each have their strongpoints, I have to agree with PalmSource's idea. Make the UI the same across the board and enforce backwards compatibility as much as possible, but allow for plenty of areas for 3rd party developers to take up replacements for word processors and spreadsheets, date book, address book, launchers, etc. This strengthen's the platform in general, while Microsoft is bundling a half-assed Pocket Office that nobody is happy with and is stunting 3rd party growth and development.

The bottom line is that neither platform is doing great. I guess you'll just have to accept Microsoft isn't going to *dominate* this market. :roll:

[Ed Hansberry]

Here's quote from the 3rd page:

MS fully intends to dominate the field, just as they do every field they enter.

LOL!!! Dominate every field? Then why are they being killed when up against Adobe, Nokia, Palm, PS2 and Gamecube, Quicken, and AOL?
Just read what I said bosco. "MS fully intends to dominate the field, just as they do every field they enter."

Doesn't mean they will dominate. Any company that gets into any field and doesn't intend to dominate in it is foolish. How many go "Ok team, we want to be #4! Lets go get 'em, sorta." :roll:

[Bosco]

Well of course every company INTENDS to dominate each field. So in other words, it was pointless to say that, unless it meant Microsoft does dominate everything it enters, which is why I replied to it.

How many go "Ok team, we want to be #4! Lets go get 'em, sorta."

Snapple. "At Snapple, we're proud to be THIRRRRRD."

[Janak Parekh]

Any company that gets into any field and doesn't intend to dominate in it is foolish. How many go "Ok team, we want to be #4! Lets go get 'em, sorta." :roll:Well of course every company INTENDS to dominate each field. So in other words, it was pointless to say that, unless it meant Microsoft does dominate everything it enters, which is why I replied to it.
Talk about strange bedfellows... but I don't agree entirely with both of you. A common business strategy is to enter a market "quietly", see if a niche is carveable, gain some market share with minimal investment, and grow as the time passes. Google is a classic example of this. Microsoft, on the other hand, generally doesn't pursue this strategy. :)

(It's worth mentioning, though, that MS does have certain low-key product lines, like their recent 802.11 gear...)

--janak

[mmace]

I'm late getting to this, but in case anyone's still listening...


Ed H. wrote:

>>NPD only tracks store like CompUSA and BestBuy.

Actually, that's not correct. NPD's monthly numbers (the stuff I generally quote) track everything except direct sales by the manufacturer. That includes the mass market retailers such as Best Buy and CompUSA, online retailers such as Amazon, and commercial resellers (resellers who focus on sales to business) such as Avnet, Compucom, etc. In addition to reporting overall sales in all of those channels, NPD also breaks them out separately.

We also get weekly numbers that cover just the mass merchants.


Cracknell wrote:

>>Strangely enough Palm Inc never quotes Gartner anymore since late 2001, they used to do it religiously with quarterly Press release. In fact they repudiate Gartner straight out recently. You can still compile their PR prop from their database. Now they claim NPD is the only accurate market measure because Gartner uses manufacturer self reporting, while NPD track retail shelf. The dirty little secret is, they can win NPD number hands down because Zire sells in grocery and superstores isles, while majority of PPC are still sold through specialty electronic stores or online.


As I mentioned above, the NPD numbers do include online and specialty electronic stores. The only thing they don't track is direct sales by the manufacturer.

I haven't always had all that much influence over what numbers the company chose to quote, but I think I've been pretty consistent in my commentary on what I think of the various numbers and why. I'll stand by what I've said before (and I won't burden the list with a repeat -- you can look up my old posts).

However, since folks seem to feel there's a void in enterprise share information, I went to the IDC and Gartner websites to see what I could find. I couldn't find a recent enterprise share report from Gartner (their recent numbers lumped together all markets), but IDC published a US (sorry, not worldwide) enterprise share estimate not too long ago. Here are some highlights:

According to IDC, enterprise sales accounted for 22% of US handheld sales in 2002. (Enterprise sales are direct sales to companies via their IT staffs, not individual purchases through resellers.)

Pocket PC enterprise sales:
Sales Share
2000: 144k 31%
2001: 322k 28%
2002: 543k 30%

Palm OS enterprise sales:
Sales Share
2000: 175k 37%
2001: 669k 58%
2002: 1,081k 59%

The interesting things to me were that the enterprise-direct market was actually growing (although from a small base), and that both Palm OS and PPC gained a bit of share. It's kind of ironic -- out of all the analyst predictions I saw over the last year, I don't think any of them predicted a gain in share for both Palm OS and PPC.


gfunkmagic wrote:

>>You know I would like to point out that PalmSource gets the same amount of royalty fee from a Zire or NZ90! I would, however, like to see some definitive data on OEM profit margins covering various platforms?

PalmSource reports its financials separately now, so you can look it up on our website. You can get something similar from Microsoft, although all of Windows CE is lumped in with Pocket PC, unfortunately.

We don't give out details on the royalty structure for our licensees, and you shouldn't make any assumptions about it.


Cracknell wrote:

>>Do these numbers include the Symbian devices or are they classed as phones and not included?

An excellent question, and unfortunately the answer is complicated. The Gartner numbers do not include any smartphones. The IDC numbers do include smartphones, but I believe they exclude feature phones (some Symbian phones are classified as feature phones due to the lack of a touch screen). Canalys includes smart phones and feature phones, but reports only in Europe. And then there's Japan...

I spend a depressing amount of my time trying to sort through all these numbers and reconcile them.


Mike
CCO, PalmSource Inc.

[Ed Hansberry]

I'm late getting to this, but in case anyone's still listening...


Ed H. wrote:

>>NPD only tracks store like CompUSA and BestBuy.

Actually, that's not correct. NPD's monthly numbers (the stuff I generally quote) track everything except direct sales by the manufacturer. That includes the mass market retailers such as Best Buy and CompUSA, online retailers such as Amazon, and commercial resellers (resellers who focus on sales to business) such as Avnet, Compucom, etc. In addition to reporting overall sales in all of those channels, NPD also breaks them out separately.

We also get weekly numbers that cover just the mass merchants.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realized NPD tracked all of those. Everytime I see an NPD intellect number, it is quoted like it was at Brighthand at http://www.brighthand.com/article/Palm_OS_is_hot_again (emphasis mine):
Over the last eight weeks alone, Palm OS retail unit share of the market has increased by more than 10 percentage points, to 87.2 percent of the U.S. market,
This is meaninless IMHO to the market at large and that is the info I was responding to with my NPD=Retail comment. That number is just the retail stores, correct? Or is it also the mainline online retailers like Amazon. It surely doesn't include the wholesalers in the definition of "retail."

To you internally I can see it being very valuable because you can measure where you are strong, weak, how certain marketing campaigns are working, etc.

[Bosco]

I spend a depressing amount of my time trying to sort through all these numbers and reconcile them.

At least you get paid for it.

[hulksmash]

Excellent! :D Now, if only the new stowaway keyboard was made with PocketPCs in mind, not just palm,... :roll: