Access Claims PalmOS Nearing End Of Life [Archive]

View Full Version : Access Claims PalmOS Nearing End Of Life

Ed Hansberry

10-21-2005, 09:30 PM

<a href="http://www.cbronline.com/article_feature.asp?guid=CE2012DB-50BE-40A3-ABE4-A2A7D057C8FF">http://www.cbronline.com/article_feature.asp?guid=CE2012DB-50BE-40A3-ABE4-A2A7D057C8FF</a> "Access has revealed that it believes the Palm operating system will soon reach the end of its life. Access Co Ltd, a mobile browser and content delivery developer that recently acquired PalmSource, has acknowledged that the unit's Palm operating system has a limited future. Access instead appears ready to focus on Linux-based offerings, suggesting that Linux development opportunities were the reason behind its purchase of PalmSource after all." <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2005/20050708-palmosdead.jpg" /> Ed Hardy at Brighthand <a href="http://www.brighthand.com/article/Palm_OS_Is_NOT_Dead">called PalmSource</a> to ask them about this. The interview was done by Computer Business Review. The interviewee, Access, is the acquirer of PalmSource and PalmOS. The acquiree, PalmSource, which had nothing to do with the interview, flatly denies the veracity of this article. Ed Hansberry, a reader of the article that has the interview of the acquirer, smells marketing spin on the part of the acquiree. Update: CBR has pulled the article with Access now saying much of the content was incorrectly reported. I, on the other hand, maintain PalmOS is dead. (yes, I know... shocking isn't it?) ;-)

dazz

10-21-2005, 09:55 PM

Ed, it really doesn't take much but you certainly did lose me with all the "acquirer" and "aquiree" stuff. :D

Wouldn't it be rather brain-dead of Access to saying the current Palm OS has reached the end of it's life? I happen to agree but you would think they would be putting a positive spin on how good the OS is since it will remain as the interface even when they come out with the Linux version.

whydidnt

10-21-2005, 10:28 PM

Wouldn't it be rather brain-dead of Access to saying the current Palm OS has reached the end of it's life? I happen to agree but you would think they would be putting a positive spin on how good the OS is since it will remain as the interface even when they come out with the Linux version.

Yes, if they plan on releasing a Palm-Linux version of the OS. But if not, then what do they care - other than they've effectively killed any licensee's ability to promote the OS. :devilboy: Which is indeed a strange strategy - why not capture whatever income you can out of the deal before killing it.

I agree with Ed Hansberry though - Calling PalmSource for verification of the article makes little sense. If Access has indeed decided that POS is done, they probably haven't even told the fine folks at PS this. It's sad, but it wouldn't be the first time a group of employees got bad news from it's employer via the press.

Gremmie

10-21-2005, 11:17 PM

Ed has always wanted to use that image where it was actually the case something has been terminated

[bluetooth lives]

dma1965

10-21-2005, 11:25 PM

Perhaps Ed declaring Palm OS dead is the boost it needs to finally take off!

BLUETOOTH LIVES :way to go:

whydidnt

10-21-2005, 11:27 PM

dazz

10-21-2005, 11:48 PM

Either the guy writing the article hasn't a clue about this space or he was trying to write something sensational and got caught. Either way, dumb move!

Perhaps Ed declaring Palm OS dead is the boost it needs to finally take off!
:lol: :lol:

Duncan

10-22-2005, 01:04 AM

Ed has always wanted to use that image where it was actually the case something has been terminated

[bluetooth lives]

Yes - when Ed declares something to be dead you're best off not rushing to book the funeral. ;) Though at least this time there is something in it.

wshwe

10-22-2005, 03:02 AM

I think Access was being candid the first time. In this instance being honest is bad for business, so they changed their tune. It's in Access's best interest to claim that the move to Linux won't change the end user experience Palm users love.

ADBrown

10-22-2005, 07:00 AM

Bluetooth Liiiiiives... 0X

Ed Hansberry

10-22-2005, 12:37 PM

Yes - when Ed declares something to be dead you're best off not rushing to book the funeral. ;)
Hey now. I'm not wrong… I'm just ahead of the times, sort of like when I was saying in 2000/2001 that Pocket PC would overtake Palm. I was prophesying several years into the future, that's all. :mrgreen: Same here, except it is 18 months, tops. 8)

Tim Rapson

10-22-2005, 01:38 PM

I think WSHE above got it right. If Access doesn't know that POS is dead they are the only ones left on the planet. POS made sure their OS was dead when they botched Cobalt. People who like Palms already have them and the market is losing even the few upgraders their were. The serious upgraders are seeing the better value in WinMob offerings.
Everyone, including Access and PalmSource (or what is left of them once Access does the "downsizing") knows that Garnet is a lame old kludgey mess that can't get the job done. Plinux is their only hope and the guy from Access who gave the interview surely admitted that. Why wouldn't he? There is no way to say with a straight face that POS will be around much longer.
Sadly, it was not just Palm's OS that killed their business. It was their hardware. No one has released a full-featured POS model at a decent price since the late great Sony TH55. Even the last two models they just released at lame. The TX lacks a microphone and the Z22 has not SD slot. Palm is still thinking that they must leave off crucial features to ensure next season's upgraders.
Sorry, Palm, the upgraders to the TX are buying HP 1950s or Axim x50vs, and the upgraders to the z22 are just keeping their phone numbers in.......their PHONES!

jnajera

10-22-2005, 03:24 PM

Just like when you declared bluetooth was dead a couple years back :lol:

Ed Hansberry

10-22-2005, 04:36 PM

Just like when you declared bluetooth was dead a couple years back :lol:

Well, my whole philosophy with that is, maybe I was wrong, but bluetooth still sucks. I could admit I was wrong, yet bluetooth would still suck.

Jury is still out though. So, to keep the faith....

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2003/20031016-bluetoothdead.gif

:lol:

Duncan

10-22-2005, 04:56 PM

Just like when you declared bluetooth was dead a couple years back :lol:

Well, my whole philosophy with that is, maybe I was wrong, but bluetooth still sucks. I could admit I was wrong, yet bluetooth would still suck.

Ah - but you are wrong on that too. Currently I have 7 BT enabled devices on the go - every one of them from a different company. They all pair easily, are simple to use and work togther well. Your poor assessment of BT seems largely based on using products that have BT implemented badly - and you just can't judge the whole tech on that basis (especially as whatever eventually replaces it will have just the same problem).

The jury isn't out. They heard the evidence from thousands of satisfied users (and you too can go back and read countless examples of such evidence in every one of your 'BT is dead' threads) and returned a verdict of 'alive and thriving' some time ago. Indeed - BT continues to go from strength to strength - sales are up and up, BT 2.0 products are starting to appear (completely backwards compatible), many companies with poor implementaion records have cleaned up their acts (others are being pushed hard by the BT org), comparative reviews of such things as BT headsets now focus on things like sound quality and not BT performance...

I predict that far from dying any tome soon - BT will see off potential successors for a while (yes - even the 'troubled' W-USB) as nothing else has the maturity and product reach.

I'm amazed that technically literate people with PDAs and mobile phones actually get by without BT...! I know I would feel handicapped without it...

Now - saying Palm is the walking dead - there you'll get no argument. I don't like it mind (MS need the competition) but the evidence is overwhelming...!

Jason Lee

10-22-2005, 05:13 PM

ed's right. bluetooth will die. eventually. every technology gets replaced sooner or later. ;) (tryin' ta help ya out here ed)

Ed Hansberry

10-22-2005, 05:24 PM

Duncan

10-22-2005, 05:29 PM

ed's right. bluetooth will die. eventually. every technology gets replaced sooner or later. ;) (tryin' ta help ya out here ed)

No - not even accepting that. Most technology doesn't die so much as it evolves or merges or learns to co-exist with an upcoming tech. W-USB and BT will almost certainly co-exist (probably both being used for niche purposes in time) well into the future.

Jason Lee

10-22-2005, 05:50 PM

Duncan

10-22-2005, 05:52 PM

Ah - but you are wrong on that too. Currently I have 7 BT enabled devices on the go - every one of them from a different company. They all pair easily, are simple to use and work togther well. Your poor assessment of BT seems largely based on using products that have BT implemented badly - and you just can't judge the whole tech on that basis (especially as whatever eventually replaces it will have just the same problem).
You and other geeks. The only consumer success on bluetooth is headsets for phones. Everything else is a small niche market.

I've had/have at least 10 different bluetooth devices in the past 3 years. Just last week I had to reboot my PC because it stopped accepting BT requests. I am having problems with 100% of the BT devices ever owned. Jabra 250, Stowaway keyboard, PDA2K, various iPAQs, Nokia cell phone, etc. The number gets higher with people at work or that I know I've helped get cellphones and headsets set up. They all know now how to re-establish a partnership without calling me on the phone because I've walked them through it enoughtimes when the devices just stop talking to each other. Various carriers, various makes/models of phones and headsets. You are saying that through some extraordinary stroke of bad luck, I just haven't happened upon any trouble free BT devices? :roll:

I will say that I genuinely cannot understand how you have had such an experience. I've used several of the products you name with no problems. I really can't remember the last time I had a partnership break on me. It certainly has nothing to do with being a geek - I can barely understand WiFi connections - if BT wasn't easy to use and set up I would have no time for it.

FTR - I know plenty of general non-techy people (we're talking about teachers - people with serious technophobia) with BT headsets, BT units in their cars and BT GPS - none of whom have issues.

Seriously - when I hear you describe your experience and compare it to the countless accounts of people who have had much better experiences (including myself) I can only think that you are unusually unlucky - I'm bewildered by how different you experience is to the experiences I see around me (and indeed the experiences of most of us techo-heads).

I had a BT Stowaway - not one problem EVER with three different Pocket PCs. Several BT enabled Pocket PCs with only one issue - the out of memory one (which isn't to do with the actual BT). Six BT headsets I've been through without one BT issue ever. To paraphrase you: You are saying that through some extraordinary stroke of good luck, I just don't have any problem BT devices?

I did have problems with BT devices - the Loox 600 and iPAQ 3870 were poor, my first BT headset was lousy, my first (TDK I think) PC dongle was rubbish and my brief dalliance with a Nokia phone was a mistake - but note how old all of those are. There was a time when I cursed BT as not ready for the primetime - now I barely think about it as it is all so simple and easy. I just wish WiFi worked as easily and without issues - or several other technologies that continue to frustrate me.

(Heck - I can't even remember where my cradle is as I only ever AS via BT).

John Blasdell

10-22-2005, 10:13 PM

1. Would you pay millions of dollars for a company, then declare its products dead? Would anyone smart enough to have millions of dollars to spend buying a company buy a company with dead products? Our opions aside, Access must think PalmOS has a future, or they wouldn't have paid what they did.

2. We'd better hope the PalmOS doesn't die. If you're out tonight enjoying a beverage or two, toast to PalmSource's health. We need a healthy, growing, competitive PalmSource that releases one great idea after another. The day that Palm dies, Microsoft will stop most R&D for Windows Mobile. Can you imagine being stuck with an XT box running Win95? That's where we'll be with handhelds. Two examples:
:( I was at a Microsoft function (four years ago I think) when Pocket PC 200? was introduced. After the program, I told the presenter I thought the emphasis was on fun and games, evidently leaving businesspeople to buy Palms. The feature set emphasized games, music and video, but Pocket Word is a horrible little program, and there was no Pocket Access or Pocket PowerPoint. I was told that this would be addressed in the next version. Well, we're just now seeing improvements in Pocket Office that should have been there years ago.
:( One of the MS WinCE department heads asked in an online forum (forget which one) what improvements we'd like to see in future versions. One popular request was the ability to switch screen orientation from Portrait to Landscape. Too expensive, too much R&D, too many problems, too little interest...we were told. Then Palm introduced the Tungsten T3 which could instantly change screen orientation. Couldn't be done, huh? Wasn't too long after that MS released PPC 2003 Second Edition.

I'm looking at a box on a shelf that contains a Compaq HPC that originally shipped with Windows CE v1.xx. I used that a lot, and loved that little device. Still, I wouldn't want to abandon my newer Pocket PC. I depend on my Pocket PC for many things when I'm out and about, I enjoy using it, and will buy one or more devices with WinMobile2005. Without competition, MS would likely be telling us why it would be too complicated and expensive to put Wi-Fi and Bluetooth in such a small device.

Take away the competition and most companies lose their drive to reach out, innovate, take bold steps, and improve. I own a small business, and when competition threatens I work harder, advertise more, try harder to motivate employees...I have to! The competition goes away, and I can relax a little. It's human nature. Kill off Palm and the most innovation we'll likely see is "A beatiful assortment of exciting case colors for WinMobile 2007."

Ed Hansberry

10-22-2005, 10:34 PM

Take away the competition and most companies lose their drive to reach out, innovate, take bold steps, and improve.
Microsoft is aiming at RIM and Nokia. they quit taking PalmOS too seriously several years ago, just like Sony, handera and all the other PalmOS licensees.

There is plenty of competition to keep MS on their toes. Trust me on this, MS is NOT even considering resting on their laurals. They take their eye off the ball and it is a Blackberry world real fast.

Tim Rapson

10-22-2005, 11:40 PM

Microsoft left Internet Explorer to wither on the vine for some time once they felt secure enough. Firefox has knocked them back awake. It is good to see WinMob phone edition and Winmob Smartphone being rolled into one sollution. This will allow for handhelds to progress and let Microsoft keep supporting our PDAs as they support their phones.
If the next generation Sony video game systems (portable and desktop) ever reach the potential for real computing work and internetability Sony has claimed they would have Microsoft will do even more work on their WinMob/game divisions.
I personally see WinMob already far ahead of Symbian and POS in features so even if MS does coast for a while, they will still be ahead of the competition until 2008 when POS/Access releases a workable version II of Plinux. I suppose they could get the first version right in 2007, but I doubt that.

Deslock

10-23-2005, 01:50 AM

Well CBR has retracted the article. EdH at Brighthand contacted Access and they said that CBR totally misquoted and misinterpreted what was said.

Since it seems CBR isn't disputing this, I'm guessing that the guy writing it probably did screw something up. Otherwise, why not stand by the story?
Yeah, but had Ed Hansberry followed up on it like Brighthand did, the story at Pocket PC Thoughts wouldn't have been as sensationalistic... where's the fun in that?

As far as BT goes, it's worked flawlessly on every Apple computer, Palm, and cell phone I've tried it with. The only times I've had problems were when I used it with Pocket PCs. So why blame BT?

Ed Hansberry

10-23-2005, 02:32 AM

Yeah, but had Ed Hansberry followed up on it like Brighthand did, the story at Pocket PC Thoughts wouldn't have been as sensationalistic... where's the fun in that?
Can you give me a link to the story we wrote here at Pocket PC Thoughts on this issue? I know where the link is to the post I made linking to the article, but I think you need a journalist to write a story. I don't know that PPCT has any journalists and I sure know there isn't one roughly 30 inches from the screen this particular post is being made from.

(Hint: see the subtitle under "Pocket PC Thoughts" in the upper left corner of your browser window.)

lapchinj

10-23-2005, 08:40 PM

...CBR has pulled the article with Access now saying much of the content was incorrectly reported. I, on the other hand, maintain PalmOS is dead. (yes, I know... shocking isn't it?) ;-)
I would agree with you that the PalmOS is dead but I do think that they'll try and bring in Linux. They do have the user base as an incentive to give it a shot. But the OS port would only work if the Palm developers stay on board. MS is making a big push for them to jump ship. There is tons of help being cooked up in order to make that happen since the Palm community would make a nice meal and I'm sure they don't want to share it with anyone especially with Linux.

While I don't do too much PPC work aside from some small integration issues I do see quite a few of my clients that have Palm connectivity to their enterprise starting to even ask me earnestly about the PPC. Since most of them are already acquainted with Outlook it should not be too much of a hassle to bring them over to the PPC world. And I think that this is where the Palm developer will also go. Whether the developer community likes the current situation or not there does not seem to be much of a future in development for Palm OS.

I think at this point MS will slice and dice this meal any way it can in order to make it a very fast and filling meal with no leftovers.

Jeff-

Cybrid

10-26-2005, 09:11 PM

Just like when you declared bluetooth was dead a couple years back :lol:

Well, my whole philosophy with that is, maybe I was wrong, but bluetooth still sucks. I could admit I was wrong, yet bluetooth would still suck.

Jury is still out though. So, to keep the faith....

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2003/20031016-bluetoothdead.gif

:lol:
Don't worry Ed. Some of us are still behind you. BT ain't dead YET. But WUSB is coming.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/20/0417247&mode=thread yea, it's a bit of a troll post but hey... True!

Duncan

10-26-2005, 09:37 PM

Don't worry Ed. Some of us are still behind you. BT ain't dead YET. But WUSB is coming.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/20/0417247&mode=thread yea, it's a bit of a troll post but hey... True!

Well - once the disputes and difficulties that have plagued WUSB have been resolved, and enough products have appeared to give the WUSB market some impetus, and assuming that BT 2.x hasn't remained compelling to the literally thousands of licencees the standard has now, and assuming that future 802.11 standards don't pull the rug out from under the purpose of WUSB - then WUSB has a potential future as a literal USB cable replacement - frankly though - the jury is firmly out.

As yet there is precious little evidence WUSB won't bring its own 'issues' and incompatibilities (except for massive wishful thinking on some people's parts) and little about the standard that is compelling to the countless people who use BT daily without problems and will see no need to replace all BT enabled devices for an untried and untested new form of wireless.

Cybrid

10-26-2005, 11:45 PM

Well - once the disputes and difficulties that have plagued WUSB have been resolved, and enough products have appeared to give the WUSB market some impetus, and assuming that BT 2.x hasn't remained compelling to the literally thousands of licencees the standard has now, and assuming that future 802.11 standards don't pull the rug out from under the purpose of WUSB - then WUSB has a potential future as a literal USB cable replacement - frankly though - the jury is firmly out.

As yet there is precious little evidence WUSB won't bring its own 'issues' and incompatibilities (except for massive wishful thinking on some people's parts) and little about the standard that is compelling to the countless people who use BT daily without problems and will see no need to replace all BT enabled devices for an untried and untested new form of wireless.Nolo contendo.
I simply want to be able to do things as quickly and as efficiently as possible. BT is nice and I do use it.... with mixed results. Perhaps I need to re-read a manual or get practice.
I like the current USB 2.0 plug in and it works.
I'm just hoping that WUSB would be the same only... on/off.
Imagine. You plug in a device once, the devices are auto paired then unplug and still they work. Wishful thinking? You betcha! :lol:

Duncan

10-27-2005, 12:17 PM

Nolo contendo.
I simply want to be able to do things as quickly and as efficiently as possible. BT is nice and I do use it.... with mixed results. Perhaps I need to re-read a manual or get practice.
I like the current USB 2.0 plug in and it works.
I'm just hoping that WUSB would be the same only... on/off.
Imagine. You plug in a device once, the devices are auto paired then unplug and still they work. Wishful thinking? You betcha! :lol:

The thing is - even the CEO of Intel thinks a) BT will continue to domintae for another 5 - 10 years even with WUSB making its debut and b) that BT will likely run alongside (or even on top) of WUSB - in time.

BT, in the end, does connect very simply. Any 'complexity' comes from two things - 1) security - the need to have a security feature like pairing/a pin will continue with any future standard such as WUSB. You can't have an unsecured wireless connection; 2) the need to define what happens once a connection is made. BT does this with profiles that are the same for every implementation (even if not all implementations have all profiles). WUSB is likely to need its own profiles - so that when you connect a printer, whatever make, it will simply connect.

Frankly though - I don't understand what people find complicated about BT. Pairing is a simple two part process - and once you are paired all that needs to happen is for two devices to be in range and for you to tap or click to say you want to connect. I never even have to think about it - and to date even the most technophobic people I have started on BT have grasped it easily.

Obviously there are issues when profiles are not implemented, or the physical radios aren't terribly good, or simply when wireless contact is interrupted by external factors - these, however, will be exactly the same issues that WUSB will face.