Palm's Ed Colligan Laughs Off The Apple iPhone

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/21/palms-ed-colligan-laughs-off-iphone/">http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/21/palms-ed-colligan-laughs-off-iphone/</a><br /><br /><i>""We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone," Ed Colligan apparently laughed about with John Markoff last Thursday morning. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in."</i><br /><br />Uhm..... Ok. There are a few flaws with Mr. Colligan's reasoning. First of all, the PC guys did figure it out. That is why Windows Mobile has been kicking PalmOS all over the playground for the past two years and why Palm, Inc. decided to run Windows Mobile on their most advanced line of Treo devices. And while the Treo design has been good to Palm, it isn't like a Porsche 911 that can largely retain the same look for 30 years. Porsche kept putting substantive changes in the engine compartment, drive train and suspension. The Treo is far from leading the pack in either design or specifications.<br /><br />I am not an Apple fan at all, but when, in the last 10 years, has Apple launched a product line that just flopped? If I had to take a guess at what will happen, I'd say Steve Jobs will announce a compelling device for music fans, with an array of online features, and will have some serious backing. The only laughing Mr. Colligan should be engaging in is nervous laughter.

[Vincent M Ferrari]

Maybe if Palm made devices that sync'ed properly with Macs, people wouldn't be clammoring for something else.

Truth is, there are a lot of syncing solutions, but none perfect for the mac, so if Colligan really thinks that a rabid fanbase of Apple users (myself included) aren't going to snap up this phone the day it's available with the hopes that we'll finally have a phone we can actually sync reliably and possibly transfer music to, he's dead wrong.

Then again, Palm isn't all that important anymore anyway unless you're buying a Treo, and those are Windows Mobile now, too which is all the more proof that he's not one to go to with product success inquiries.

[petvas]

I also own Macs but I have to say I am very happy with my 6915 ipaq at the moment.

I am sure the iPhone will be a very good device that will integrate with MAC OS X and also with Windows. Music of course will be a big feature of it with the ability to sync with iTunes and download music/movies from the iTunes store. The only thing troubling me is that with an iPhone the iPod will eventually become (after many years) useless.
Photo syncing seems to be part of the deal.

If the design is up to the high Apple standards and if the PIM applications are good, then its going to be a big hit.

What do people really want from a phone?
* Great Design - portability
* Easy of Use
* Great Display
* Good Battery Life
* Great Apps
* Media (Music, Videos, Films)
* Email Access
* Easily sync with their home pc/Mac

I believe that Apple will succeed on delivering a great design, an easy to use phone with a great display that has an ok battery life, with a great media experience due to the integration with iTunes. My only concern are the PIM programs which I am pretty sure will follow the simplicity of the iCal and Address Book programs in MAC OS X.

[Remedy]

Maybe if Palm made devices that sync'ed properly with Macs, people wouldn't be clammoring for something else.

But, How large is Macintosh desktop market in comparison to Windows desktop market to even contemplate supporting it? 20%? 30%? IIRC, It's less than 10%.

and why Palm, Inc. decided to run Windows Mobile on their most advanced line of Treo devices.

One can also state the same for Apple choosing x86 with Intel as opposed to continuing the PPC segment that they've raved were so much greater than x86 in the first place.

[petvas]

Maybe if Palm made devices that sync'ed properly with Macs, people wouldn't be clammoring for something else.

But, How large is Macintosh desktop market in comparison to Windows desktop market to even contemplate supporting it? 20%? 30%? IIRC, It's less than 10%.

and why Palm, Inc. decided to run Windows Mobile on their most advanced line of Treo devices.

One can also state the same for Apple choosing x86 with Intel as opposed to continuing the PPC segment that they've raved were so much greater than x86 in the first place.
Apple changed to Intel processors for two reasons mainly:
* To make their offerings more attractive to Windows users since now u can run Windows on a Mac
* The PowerPC processor wasnt evolving at all or the evolution was happening too slow. Laptop performance was also questionable

[alese]

Apple changed to Intel processors for two reasons mainly:
* To make their offerings more attractive to Windows users since now u can run Windows on a Mac
* The PowerPC processor wasnt evolving at all or the evolution was happening too slow. Laptop performance was also questionable

If you replace Mac with Palm and PowerPC with PalmOS you pretty much get the reasoning for Palm swithing to WM...

As for Apple phone, I dont doubt it's going to look great and it will probably be a really nice music player, but...
Apple is big player only when it comes to iPod (portable digital music players), they are really tiny player in PC business and they are nonexistent in Phone business.
If nothing else, they will have a long uphill battle to break into the market and they better have a really compelling product without stupid limitations...

[Vincent M Ferrari]

But, How large is Macintosh desktop market in comparison to Windows desktop market to even contemplate supporting it? 20%? 30%? IIRC, It's less than 10%

Yeah, we know... Marketshare is small... Windows is obviously better because 80% of the market owns it. Anything else isn't worth it. It's such a small part of the market that Circuit City and Best Buy are now selling Macs.

[/quote]One can also state the same for Apple choosing x86 with Intel as opposed to continuing the PPC segment that they've raved were so much greater than x86 in the first place.[/quote]

Could they?

Palms run a whole new OS now. Why? Because Palm effectively gave up on their OS, spun it off, and lost it.

Can you really say the same for Apple? Last I checked, there's a new Mac OS coming out in March.

Secondly, when the G5 was introduced it blew the doors off of everything on the Intel side. That was 3 years ago. Apple switched to the Intel chips because development by the chip manufacturers (Power Computing / IBM / Motorola) was going nowhere fast. It had nothing to do with their OS or ceding anything because they're still producing their OS and their hardware. Apple is not selling Windows. Palm IS selling Windows.

Totally not the same thing.

[Remedy]

Maybe if Palm made devices that sync'ed properly with Macs, people wouldn't be clammoring for something else.

But, How large is Macintosh desktop market in comparison to Windows desktop market to even contemplate supporting it? 20%? 30%? IIRC, It's less than 10%.

and why Palm, Inc. decided to run Windows Mobile on their most advanced line of Treo devices.

One can also state the same for Apple choosing x86 with Intel as opposed to continuing the PPC segment that they've raved were so much greater than x86 in the first place.
Apple changed to Intel processors for two reasons mainly:
* To make their offerings more attractive to Windows users since now u can run Windows on a Mac
* The PowerPC processor wasnt evolving at all or the evolution was happening too slow. Laptop performance was also questionable

So, you agree that changing wording from Mac to Treo and OS 5.4.9 to OS X that you can see reasoning behind the decisions, correct?

The iPhone will probably have a good design and cater to the market segment it intends to target. But, when you have giants like Palm, HTC, etc creating devices that pretty much cover their desires of giving market at such a price that one can't refuse. The iPhone doesn't seem to be a device that can survive against major players as opposed to the iPod challenging a market that had very little compeition to begin with.

Or, one can look at it as, Macintosh from the late 1980's circa trying to challenge the Windows platform, again. History will repeat itself with the iPhone.

[Remedy]

Yeah, we know... Marketshare is small... Windows is obviously better because 80% of the market owns it. Anything else isn't worth it. It's such a small part of the market that Circuit City and Best Buy are now selling Macs.

You're talking Boutique items. If you put Palm, HP, HTC, Moto etc, devices and take the iPhone, where exactly is the Apple device going to go? This isn't the same segment as the iPod.

Selling a device that plays music and dominating the trend is one thing. Selling a device that serves Telephony purposes when other devices do the exact samething with maturity to boot is a very hard market to break into and probably not worth the while of said company.

Can you really say the same for Apple? Last I checked, there's a new Mac OS coming out in March.

If they thought it would be lucrative, of course they would.



Apple is not selling Windows.

It's the most lucrative feature of selling desktop PC's. They will eventually after Vista ships.

Sorry for turning this into Apple verse Windows debate.

[petvas]

I dont think that HTC and Palm are giants!
Nokia and Sony-Ericsson are the big players here...

[virain]

Mac is known for having die hard followers. "Once Mac, never go back", and so on. So you can expect today's Ipod users switching to Ipod phone, just because of convinience. It is easier to carry one device in your pocket instead of two ( a cell phone and Ipod) and as long as WM will stay shy of promoting WM Media player, which I can admit is not bad, Ipod phone will gain it's share of the market with loyal customers.

[petvas]

Apple will NEVER sell windows...Microsoft might one day start licensing MAC OS...

[virain]

Apple will NEVER sell windows...Microsoft might one day start licensing MAC OS...
By the way, Microsoft owns 40% of Apple :wink:

[petvas]

Apple will NEVER sell windows...Microsoft might one day start licensing MAC OS...
By the way, Microsoft owns 40% of Apple :wink:
not true...Microsoft bought a substantial amount of stocks a couple of years ago. One should really wonder why they did that...
Microsoft is copying MAC OS since 1983 so I think the time will come where they will say that maybe licensing the OS would be the better idea...
Look what they achieved with Vista: NOTHING
6 years work, well actually only 2...The first 4 years were completely wasted and one day Microsoft decided to start from scratch. Vista is the work of the last 2 years...

[petvas]

MS purchased $150 million in NON VOTING stock. Apple, at the time had over $5 BILLION dollars cash in the bank.
The money was a “goodwill gesture” to close the lid on the “look and feel” lawsuits Apple kept hammering MS with.

[virain]

MS purchased $150 million in NON VOTING stock. Apple, at the time had over $5 BILLION dollars cash in the bank.
The money was a “goodwill gesture” to close the lid on the “look and feel” lawsuits Apple kept hammering MS with.
Small price to pay by Microsoft for being a leader :wink: You can add to that list Netscape, Sun Microsystems and so on...
And as far as I know Mac OS can run windows programs now, not the other way.
The buttom line is, as long as Mac stays proprietary system, it will never gain any substantial market share, just economics, no technical momba jumbas :devilboy:

[petvas]

everybody has to see for him/her self what system works better... MAC OS is so much better in every way. The thing is: Do u want to be with the no1 in market share or the no1 OS?

[virain]

everybody has to see for him/her self what system works better... MAC OS is so much better in every way. The thing is: Do u want to be with the no1 in market share or the no1 OS?
It 's pretty much is a matter of choice. And it is useless to argue which OS is better. For my purposes Windows serve much better than any other OS (I did try Mac, to be fair). So if you like Mac, I won't hold it against you :wink: You must have your reasons to feel that strong about it. After all, "Beauty is in the hands of a beholder" :D

P.S. There must be a reason, why Windows holds No1 market share. :devilboy:

[petvas]

There are many reasons for Windows success but I dont think it would be appropriate to list them all. In my eyes MAC OS X is the limousine of Operating Systems. Not everybody has it, but most of people would love to have it.
isnt it also strange that Microsoft still develops MS Office for MAC? If the market share were the only reason, then they would also develop it for Linux, but they dont!

Anyway, I have been a windows fan since 1994 and this year I made the switch and I couldnt be more happy...

Ok, back to our thread now :)
There is no guarantee that the iPhone will succeed. Mobile Phone are built for the masses and "smartphones" are attractive to a small portion of the consumers.
If Apple succeeds in making the iPhone attractive to most people, then there is the danger that we who like more complicated stuff, wont go crazy about it!

[virain]

Microsoft has developed Office for Mac since it had a fair share of the market, so there's no "conspiracy" to it. But as far as smartphones, like I said before, ipod phone can be a choice for current users of ipod, There are many features, that people that are not so "advanced" in this field as we are, will require beyond great media player. For example, Push Mail, is it supported by Mac phone, or there's alternative? What about 3G, is there enough applications to get it atractive to users. Will software developers interested in making new ones for ipod? And if you watch the cellphone market, smartphones are taken more and more of a market from a basic cellphone. It's like development of PC and later Playstation killed Atari games

[Soundtweaker]

I am not an Apple fan at all, but when, in the last 10 years, has Apple launched a product line that just flopped?

How about the wildly successful cube?

[haesslich]

Don't forget the early iBooks that looked like toilet seat covers. :D

Also reference the Apple Newton, the Pippin, and that eMate 300 which Alicia Silverstone lugged about in a Batman film. Still, Palm's laughing for all the wrong reasons here - the fact of the matter is that they've never REALLY dominated the smartphone market the way they've wanted to, although the Treo's only real competition up until perhaps the recent WM5 devices (MotoQ, BlackJack, etc) have been the BlackBerry and some of the high-end Nokia smartphones. If anything, they should worry about what Apple's rumored iPhone could do to their bottom line, especially if Apple takes the consumer market while other companies nail the business/corporate end.

Don't forget that the 680's apparently aimed at the consumer market... at least, to judge by the interchangeable faceplates and all.

[petvas]

I dont think its easy to create a product with the appeal the iPod has. Even for Apple that is certainly very difficult. The mobile phones market is congested, the prices are very low and most of the people buy a new phone bundled with a new contract. Very few go to buy a mobile phone without a contract. This is one of the major issues Apple has to consider and find a solution...
I am sure that the iPhone will be a very good device but I doubt it will compete with the Nokias of this world.

[juni]

Why not have the best of both: a Windows Mobile device with the OSX look. :)

http://www.kolumbus.fi/anders.ruohio/sp/iphone.png

[Deslock]

Microsoft has developed Office for Mac since it had a fair share of the market, so there's no "conspiracy" to it.
It has nothing to do with market share as Apple has held only 2-5% of the PC martet over the last 10 years. There is no reason to think that Apple will ever sustain more than 5-10% of the market in the USA or more than 3-4% world-wide (they're currently down around 2.2-2.4%). Despite the hype surrounding their products or the frothing-at-the-mouth enthusiasm of the cult-of-Mac, Apple is in no position to make gains beyond that.

Microsoft agreed to develop Office for the Mac back in 1997 as part of an agreement that helped keep Apple afloat and helped Microsoft's with its PR situation:
http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html

Back then, Microsoft's image was being challenged... there was talk of antitrust charges being brought against them (they were filed in 1998) and Microsoft needed some good PR.

Microsoft lost the case, but the ruling was partially overturned on appeal (and the scope of Microsoft's liability was significantly reduced). The DOJ and Microsoft later reached a settlement. In the last 8 or 9 years, Microsoft has become far more political and has gotten a lot smarter about its PR. There has even been considerable pro-Microsoft backlash. They won't face serious legal challenges from the US government in the foreseeable future (if ever).

What does this have to do with Apple and Office for Mac? Some still accuse Microsoft of only agreeing to give an appearance of complying with various regulations and agreements. Having a relationship with Apple gives Microsoft a very positive PR tool to counteract such claims. That's not a conspiracy. It's simply a smart and mutually beneficial relationship to both companies (Office suite compatibility is a huge plus for Apple).

BTW, Microsoft has committed to Office for Mac for another 5 years:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jan06/01-10Macworld2006PR.mspx