The problem isn't licensees to their OS. The problem is (lack of) developers. It's the software stupid. :-)
- - - - - Sandro Campos Mancini -----Original Message----- From: "Craig Froehle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, Nov 29, 2007 12:48 am Subject: Re: [Treo] New group To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [email protected] On Nov 28, 2007 9:16 PM, L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > WILL Android be free? I sense a catch in there somewhere. Call it a hunch. > >Google has said it will be free. Google doesn't intend to make money on the >OS -- they intend to make money on services delivered via the >OS (and maybe their own 700MHz network). A girl can dream. > >> But I think THEY think > they can't do that because it would mean absolutely NO return on their > investment of 5 years or so and maybe mounting debt that can't be paid off > by licensing their developed technology to anyone. > >Business rule #1: sunk costs are sunk costs. Palm won't be licensing their >new OS to anyone. Heck, Access has them beat, and now Google >has effectively demolished any possible market that might have >existed. I mean, who would license a closed OS from Palm at a cost >$0 when Google will give them the entirely open Android for free? >Nobody...at least no one sane. > >> Perhaps they think they > can make the better OS and make money off it - even if it's not the better > OS for long. > >Then they're more delusional than even I thought possible. > >> Anyways ... can they put in a backwards compatibility layer? Isn't that the > IP of Access? > >Nope...anyone could write a compatibility layer. Hell, Palm *owns* Palm OS >outright -- they can't infringe their own IP. > >> If anything here the money would be made by Access selling > that compatibility layer to Android (and iPhone and WinMo and RIM) customers > to get them to switch or licensing to the first Treo-like handset that runs > Android that comes out from HTC next year. > >Um, what? Access might license a Palm OS compatibility layer, but >there wouldn't be any "switching" involved. The compat. layer would >simply reside in ROM, sitting on top of the Linux kernel and other >components, and handle Palm OS apps. Everything else in the phone >would likely still be Android plus any OEM customization that happens >(e.g., HTC offering up its own UI). > >I really see Android as exactly what BOTH Palm and Access hoped to do, except >it'll be available before either and will likely be better than both. That's >the power of open source + Google at work. > >> What emerging standards was Tandy negligent in capitalizing on? > >Oh, little things like PS/2 keyboard connectors and serial and >parallel ports -- Tandy relied entirely on proprietary Tandy >connectors, so you could only buy Tandy peripherals for your Tandy >computer. They didn't last long once the industry began the rapid >convergence to standardized parts.
