This week, we will get one of the best views on how well the separation between the Palm hardware and software units is going, and, coincidentally, we’ll also get yet another view of what probably would have happened had Apple taken a similar risk a few years ago and separated itself into hardware and software units. The fact that Apple missed a big opportunity resonates well with the conclusion that was inescapable once we saw how well the iPod did. Apple could have competed very well with PC vendors if it had stepped up to the challenge and not chickened out.
"In the end, what makes PalmSource's Cobalt operating system fascinating to me is that it is one of those rare occasions when a bunch of ex-employees -- in this case, ex-Apple employees -- actually demonstrate to their old company that there was a better path." Huh? For one thing, the true number of ex-Apple employees is a very small percentage. But really? A better path? You mean leaving Apple, starting Be, struggling, collapsing, starting out on 4 different business plans, and getting eaten up by Palm resulting in something we haven't seen yet is better than Apple's path? Come on. Also, the only distinction in PalmSource's software numbers with Palm's hardware numbers was largely Handspring. Now Handspring is Palm. So that 60% of the PDA OS market is mirrored in a 60% of the hardware market created by ... Palm! How is that unique from Apple? They have licensed the OS to some cellphone manufacturers -- yes, but this is entirely unique to the product. So where is the parallel to Apple?
Ok, I agree with all the way up to: "You're letting your love of building PCs (which is not shared by 90 percent of the population) get in the way of your analysis, Rob. " . Don't get me wrong. i think apple are good. But I like building my own PC's. It's good to tinker. If I didn't like it I might well own an apple but I do and don't want to be lumped in with the likes of rob enderly because of that. I do agree however that it's not a bad choice for apple to wait and do what they do best, by sending out the whole product (that's gooing to last) rather than simply software.
The only reason handhelds exist as separate platforms from regular personal computers is that currently, full-fledged computers with full-speed processors that can run full-featured OS's (including laptops) can't be made small enough. But what is going to happen when you can run OS X on something the size of an iPod? And you can have a small tablet with a foldable screen (another thing coming). There won't be any reason for a palm OS. Listen to Steve Jobs during the last analyst conference call - he said the personal computer of the future is -- "you take it with you." That's Apple's answer to Palm, Rob. They are just biding their time, meanwhile writing things like Address Book, iCal, Mail, etc. that can be modified (in some cases rather little) to run on a handheld-sized computer. Also, Rob, I know this is REAL hard for you to understand, but making the hardware and the software is how Apple is kicking people's asses right now in the portable music player market and how apple will keep ahead in the portable personal computer market of the future. It's just plain easier to integrate new stuff and stay ahead when you make the whole thing. You know this deep down. You just have to stop denying it. You're letting your love of building PCs (which is not shared by 90 percent of the population) get in the way of your analysis, Rob.
As always this rant simply displays his EXTREME prejudice and hatred for all things Apple. Time to get over it Rob, Apple is always going to be THE computer industry innovator.
Loading ...
The Rise of Palm: For Apple, the Road Not Taken
Posted by: Rob Enderle February 10, 2004 08:07 AMThis week, we will get one of the best views on how well the separation between the Palm hardware and software units is going, and, coincidentally, we’ll also get yet another view of what probably would have happened had Apple taken a similar risk a few years ago and separated itself into hardware and software units. The fact that Apple missed a big opportunity resonates well with the conclusion that was inescapable once we saw how well the iPod did. Apple could have competed very well with PC vendors if it had stepped up to the challenge and not chickened out.
Huh? For one thing, the true number of ex-Apple employees is a very small percentage.
But really? A better path? You mean leaving Apple, starting Be, struggling, collapsing, starting out on 4 different business plans, and getting eaten up by Palm resulting in something we haven't seen yet is better than Apple's path?
Come on.
Also, the only distinction in PalmSource's software numbers with Palm's hardware numbers was largely Handspring. Now Handspring is Palm. So that 60% of the PDA OS market is mirrored in a 60% of the hardware market created by ... Palm! How is that unique from Apple?
They have licensed the OS to some cellphone manufacturers -- yes, but this is entirely unique to the product. So where is the parallel to Apple?
"You're letting your love of building PCs (which is not shared by 90 percent of the population) get in the way of your analysis, Rob. "
.
Don't get me wrong. i think apple are good. But I like building my own PC's. It's good to tinker. If I didn't like it I might well own an apple but I do and don't want to be lumped in with the likes of rob enderly because of that.
I do agree however that it's not a bad choice for apple to wait and do what they do best, by sending out the whole product (that's gooing to last) rather than simply software.
Also, Rob, I know this is REAL hard for you to understand, but making the hardware and the software is how Apple is kicking people's asses right now in the portable music player market and how apple will keep ahead in the portable personal computer market of the future. It's just plain easier to integrate new stuff and stay ahead when you make the whole thing. You know this deep down. You just have to stop denying it. You're letting your love of building PCs (which is not shared by 90 percent of the population) get in the way of your analysis, Rob.