[Robo]

I've said before that I thought Motorola and Palm should get together. Looks like I'm not alone. *the Who*

It really seems like a match made in heaven. Motorola sells lots of dumbphones but they will be irrelevant without smartphones; making Android phones (with the BLUR secret sauce) might have worked if Google hadn't started playing favorites (and if BLUR didn't sort of suck). It'd be great if they had their own smartphone OS, but it's almost too late to start making a new one now -- even the much larger Samsung is going to find that out. The market is stratifying; even webOS has a 1,000-app head start.

Meanwhile, Palm makes great software -- webOS really has the most polished UI of any phone besides the iPhone -- but they can't make enough phones to get an "ecosystem" going all by themselves. The lack of any "real" new models at CES sort of confirms this for me (though Apple doesn't exactly launch new iPhones every six months, either). Motorola, on the other hand, has a hardware engineering team known for rock-solid and (once upon a time) sexy designs.

To quote Om, "Palm needs scale, while Motorola needs software." With Moto and Palm together, webOS could really become a major smartphone operating system, up there with iPhone OS, BlackBerry OS, and Android. I really believe that. But -- while we won't really see until webOS hits Verizon -- I don't think that's going to happen with Palm going it alone.

Palm is a teeny company (compared to Apple, RIM, Google) yet it has somehow created a competitive operating system of its own. That's impressive, and that also makes them a huge buyout target. Somebody is going to buy Palm; whether it's Motorola or someone else (like a PC maker who realizes too late that phones are becoming our primary computing platforms) I don't know. But I hope it's Motorola, as opposed to HP or Lenovo. I think they'd go well together; both are US companies that seem to have compatible cultures, both have long histories of innovation and each seems to really need the other.

I mean, Motorola basically invented the phone, and then turned it into an object of desire with the StarTAC and RAZR. Palm invented the pocket PDA and (as Handspring) the smartphone. I'd really like to see those companies continue to do great things, but I think they'll have to do it together. Motorola needs a reason for people to choose their product over the dozens of other Android devices, a "secret ingredient" that they can control. BLUR wasn't it, and won't be without extensive modification, and even then they're sort of at the mercy of Google. (I think the CLIQ's lack of success has really surprised Motorola, and then the Nexus One announcement was another wake-up call.)

In fact, the only reason I can think of that Motorola hasn't purchased Palm yet is because Motorola wants to spin its own handset division off. Maybe Android (and buzzword-laden BLUR) was seen as a "quick fix" to make the division worth more something? I hope not. Motorola deserves better than that, and webOS deserves to be more than a footnote in OS Battle 2.0.

(As for what to call Motorola's new secret sauce -- "webOS" is just so dry -- that's easy: They should take a page from Palm's SDK and call it MOTOMOJO. )

[Eugene]

How on earth does Palm need scale in the smartphone business? They helped invent it so I'm sure they can do just fine building up from within rather than selling out to a giant tentacle monster like Motorola.

Companies like Motorola only survive because of volume and prior business. Stuff like STBs, commercial broadband equipment, radio/wireless, industrial comm devices, etc. prop up their failure of a handset business. Frankly I like how Palm is taking its time rather than flooding the market with a half dozen similarly equipped Android phones.

[addison]

Originally Posted by Eugene ..Companies like Motorola only survive because of volume and prior business. Stuff like STBs, commercial broadband equipment, radio/wireless, industrial comm devices, etc. prop up their failure of a handset business. Frankly I like how Palm is taking its time rather than flooding the market with a half dozen similarly equipped Android phones.

Good points. They had a hit once every ten years and in between was a bunch of garbage. Their consumer phones had great radios and the best designed antennas but the software was always buggy and poorly designed and the quality became horrible. Great industrial company but a bad consumer one. Palm seems happy with their current position and has the backing of their investors so why turn it over to a has been like Moto?

[Iago]

Originally Posted by Eugene How on earth does Palm need scale in the smartphone business? They helped invent it so I'm sure they can do just fine building up from within rather than selling out to a giant tentacle monster like Motorola.

That's the point. Palm needs to be a giant tentacled monster, not a David fighting half a dozen Goliaths.

Originally Posted by Eugene Companies like Motorola only survive because of volume and prior business.

Volume is what Palm needs. Innovation and a "hit" is what Motorola needs.

Originally Posted by Eugene Stuff like STBs, commercial broadband equipment, radio/wireless, industrial comm devices, etc. prop up their failure of a handset business.

Exactly. There's no innovation in their huge handset business. And there's no hugeness in Palm's extremely innovative handset business.

Originally Posted by Eugene Frankly I like how Palm is taking its time rather than flooding the market with a half dozen similarly equipped Android phones.

The point Robo is making is that there's a middle ground between shipping two critically successful but commercially lacklustre phones, and flooding the market with half a dozen Android clones.

[Eugene]

And the point is Motorola is pilotless and directionless...and would ruin Palm on all counts.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by Eugene And the point is Motorola is pilotless and directionless...and would ruin Palm on all counts.

Well Greg Brown hasn't been there for very long, and he took over as CEO in the middle of a huge recession. I think it could work between Palm and Motorola, but agree that you've every right to suggest a deal would be detrimental to Palm. I see Motorola as sliding backwards, with Palm inching forwards. There's no doubt Motorola needs Palm more than Palm needs them, but it could be a very good mix.

[Bryson]

Originally Posted by Eugene And the point is Motorola is pilotless and directionless...and would ruin Palm on all counts.

Or it could work like Pixar/Disney, where the Palm guys end up in control, really, only with Moto's manufacturing "grunt" behind them.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Iago That's the point. Palm needs to be a giant tentacled monster, not a David fighting half a dozen Goliaths. Volume is what Palm needs. Innovation and a "hit" is what Motorola needs. There's no innovation in their huge handset business. And there's no hugeness in Palm's extremely innovative handset business.

Thank you! I'm glad somebody gets it

I tried to leave my post open-ended about how it would actually go down, whether Motorola would buy Palm or whether Motorola would spin-out their handset division which would merge with Palm, &c. Believe me, I don't want to see Palm ripped apart by a giant tentacled monster (and I'm a Saab fan, so I know what I'm talking about here). But again, I'm quite sure someone is going to buy Palm. As a small company with a developed, competitive OS, they have a huge buyout target painted on their backs. I'd rather it be someone like Motorola which would complement Palm's needs rather than a PC maker who would basically turn them into HP Mobile.

Originally Posted by Bryson Or it could work like Pixar/Disney, where the Palm guys end up in control, really, only with Moto's manufacturing "grunt" behind them.

The best example would probably be NeXT/Apple...Jobs essentially took control of Apple but engineered it so that Apple paid him. I could totally see "Geek of the Year" Rubenstein ending up being the CEO of the combined company. He has the profile and clout and vision to do the job.

I love both companies but I just don't think either of them are going to be able to mount a real assault on the smartphone market alone. Again, we'll see how the Pre and Pixi fare on Verizon, but unless they really take off I think it's going to be time for Motorola and Palm to buddy up.

Motorola probably would get more out of a buyout deal...that's why they'd be the ones paying the money! But I think the partnership would be good for both companies. (At the very least, it would eliminate the competition between them, and I think it'd do a lot more than that.)

We could see more than two nearly identical webOS phones! If that's not reason enough, I don't know what is.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Roboman We could see more than two nearly identical webOS phones! If that's not reason enough, I don't know what is.

I'd rather they had 2 awesome phones than a bunch of "pretty good" phones. The former strategy has worked very well for Apple.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by joveblue I'd rather they had 2 awesome phones than a bunch of "pretty good" phones. The former strategy has worked very well for Apple.

But Palm isn't Apple. Apple can take over the phone industry with just one model but that doesn't mean everybody else can. In fact, it would be better if everybody else didn't, because that's something they can have over Apple -- want a flip phone or a slider or, um, anything that's not a full-touch candybar? You can't go Apple. One of the strengths of webOS is that it's sort of scalable -- the OS resizes itself to fit the Pixi's shorter screen. And that's cool. It'd be cooler if we saw a larger variety of devices, like full-touch phones or flips or sideways sliders.

If Palm can make those all themselves, great. But they're not a big company. They might need help.

But maybe not. We'll see how well the webOS devices sell on Verizon...that's sort of their "real" test, IMO.

[Robo]

Bizzump!

According to a WSJ interview (Gizmodo summary here), Motorola isn't that committed to Android after all. With perhaps a tinge of regret, Sanjay expains that if Motorola weren't dirt poor at the moment, they'd be developing their own OS -- clearly that's where he feels the competitive advantage lies. As it is, they're not at all locked down to Android -- now that the other available OS no longer sucks, we can expect to see some Windows Phones from Motorola, too.

Uh, earth to Moto! Merge with or buy Palm. Even if Moto could start making an OS right now, by the time it hit the market there'd be no more room, the players would be decided. But there is an established OS out there, a damn good one, with over a thousand apps, that's only available on four nearly identical phones because the small company behind it lacks Motorola's hardware strength. Hmm...

Motorola is at a crossroads. There are two options: Use others' software, and become a commodity manufacturer of the equivalent of beige PCs, or roll your own OS, like Apple and Palm and RIM. Those are the power brands in smartphones these days -- yes, I'm still including Palm, if only because tons of people still refer to any PDA as a "Palm Pilot."

The remaining brands -- companies like Acer and Dell and Garmin-Asus (hmm, feels like commodity PCs already!) will have their pick between Android, WinPho, and maybe eventually the new Symbian or MeeGo (Maemo and Moblin merged at MWC to form MeeGo). None of those look to be bad OSes, but the downside of using an OS that's not yours is that everybody else can use it too. With WinPho, especially, there's very little room for differentiation. Your phone can be a little bit thinner and the screen can be a little bit brighter but that's about it.

With Android each manufacturer can put their own little spin on it, but most of those "skins" haven't proven particularly marketable. (It might be too early to tell, but Moto seems to be having a hard time getting people to think that BLUR is something worth getting over stock Android.) The exception: HTC, who has long succeeded as a "commodity" smartphone manufacturer (until recently they didn't even promote their own name). But as for everybody else...

Feature-phone giants Samsung and LG are at the same crossroads as well. Samsung chose to roll their existing feature-phone platform into an app-friendly smartphone platform; I think that's smart. LG has denied that they'll follow suit "for at least the next few years," I think that's at the very least poor wording because in a few years it will be too late to introduce a new OS anyway.

So Motorola can choose. They can become a commodity smartphone manufacturer or they can give themselves the enormous competitive advantage of their own smartphone OS. They're trying to have it both ways, with BLUR, but that doesn't seem to be working out too well.

---

I really hope Palm releases the Pre and Pixi for AT&T (already virtually confirmed) and T-Mobile (recently rumored). Especially T-Mobile -- that would be a huge victory, because T-Mobile hasn't carried a Palm product in years, not even the hugely popular Centro. I especially hope they get the Pixi. Why? On other carriers, the Pixi's primary criticism isn't that it's bad but that it's too close to the much-better Pre in price; it would be like if the iPhone 3G S cost only $50 more than the iPhone 3G.

But T-Mobile is different. More than other carriers, they sell phones contract-free. There the Pixi has a much larger pricing advantage -- about $200. Even at the $399 price of the CDMA Pixi/Pixi Plus, the Pixi would be competing with phones like the MyTouch 3G on T-Mobile, and it competes fairly favorably with them. But GSM versions of Palm products are typically much less expensive than CDMA ones -- the CDMA Centro was $399, but the GSM version was $299. A contract-free Palm Pixi for $299 would be a revelation. That's the price of the cheapest of cheap 2G smartphones, like the BlackBerry Pearl and the very plasticy Curve 8520. Include the pink backplate and they'd sell a gazillion of them, and maybe T-Mobile's contract-free Even More Plus plans would really start taking off.

[Luca]

Having just bought a Pre, I have to say I don't see what all the fuss is about Android. I've used Android phones and they are all terrible to use. Palm's webOS is much smoother and easier to use; in fact, I'd say it's almost as good as the iPhone OS. It seems to be primarily held back by the hardware, but that's partially alleviated by the Pre Plus and Pixi Plus (too bad Sprint doesn't have those).

So yes, I'd love to see Motorola and Palm collaborate on some new webOS phones. Hopefully something a little more high-end than the Pre. Maybe something with a landscape keyboard or one without a physical keyboard at all.

[Moogs]

Meh. Both companies lost their edge in the late 90s and never got it back. Two wrongs don't make a right?

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Moogs Meh. Both companies lost their edge in the late 90s and never got it back. Two wrongs don't make a right?

That statement confuses me, considering Motorola's most popular phone ever was introduced in 2004 and one of Palm's most popular phones ever was introduced in 2007. You could argue that they both were using dated software at the time, which would be true, but now Palm has webOS and Motorola is focusing on smartphones almost exclusively. And if they sold millions of phones with ancient software, with modern software they should be able to do even better, right?

They should be more successful, but they're not. Palm has webOS, but they're a tiny company compared to Apple and Microsoft and RIM; they need to be making more phones (where's the full-touch model?) but I'm not sure they can. They came out with a great OS, but I'm a little worried that they won't be able to keep building the phones to keep it relevant. And without their own OS, Motorola will be doomed to being a commodity manufacturer, and they've never done well at being a commodity manufacturer. Motorola is at its best when it makes a breakout phone that the world falls in love with; it's the years in between that Motorola sucks at.

I've used Apple analogies to discuss Palm for a long time -- even before we saw webOS -- and they fit pretty well, which is heartening. But Motorola is sort of like Apple too...if Apple didn't have their own operating system. If Macs ran Windows, I'd wager Apple's sales would look a lot like Motorola's -- when they introduced products like, say, the iMac G3, their sales would jump. It'd be the hot new computer. But after the initial buzz wore off, Apple's sales would fall dramatically, because they wouldn't have the substance to keep people coming back. Their machines would sell only for their looks. By the end of the iMac G3's four-year life, it would be selling pretty poorly, and Apple would be in the position of having to introduce a radically new iMac G4.

Motorola has never failed at producing wildly successful products every six years or so. They invented the cell phone, the pocket phone, the flip phone, and the thin flip. But it's sustaining their sales that is Motorola's problem. It's the gaps that kill them, because then they have to compete only on price, and Motorola's just not that sort of company -- companies like Samsung will always be able to undercut them.

[Eugene]

Sustaining sales is not Motorola's problem. Sustaining profits is. You can't take a high-end phone like the RAZR, then give it away for free. That shows how clueless Motorola really is about branding and consumerism. The more accessible you make something, the less desirable it becomes. Motorola's sales volume for non-smartphones won't help the Palm Pre or Pixi.

[Robo]

You're probably right in that. The RAZR should have been like the iPod -- replaced every year by a better model at the same price. They did upgrade the RAZR almost annually -- V3, V3i, V3xx -- but they shouldn't have given away the old models. They kept the old models around and actually cheapened them, using more plastic over time. As a result of that ubiquity, Moto sort of blew the fashionable image they earned.

I guess we'll see. I'm just a little worried that Palm won't be able to support webOS on their own, which scares me because webOS is awesome. If they can go it alone, great. But they're a small fish among sharks. Someone will end up gobbling them up, I'm sure.

They need to get phones on AT&T and T-Mobile soon, and they need to introduce more varied models (a full-touch Palm Pilot would sell, but they're just leaving all that on the table). Having multiple form factors is a competitive advantage they can have over Apple and RIM.

The first "4G" (well, WiMAX) smartphone, HTC's Android-powered Supersonic, should be hitting Sprint before June. After all Palm has given Sprint that should have been a Palm phone, but I'm guessing Palm just didn't have the capability to make a WiMAX phone (which is admittedly sort of a niche standard). I'm just worried that they're going to be out-engineered.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by Roboman That statement confuses me, considering Motorola's most popular phone ever was introduced in 2004 and one of Palm's most popular phones ever was introduced in 2007..

My intent there is just to note that they were pretty dominant for a time, then became complacent in the late part of the last decade / early part of this one and have been playing me-too / catch-up ever since, and have had as many bombs as success stories. More in the case of Motorola. Well maybe bombs is a harsh term. Not every device was a Rokr but a lot of "thuds" and "mehs" in the marketplace, let's put it that way. Razr was a big success, the original Palm OS was too... the one that used to run on those Sony organization pad things (we've come so far that even though I used to own one in 2001 roughly, I don't even remember what it was called). Other than that you've got the Pre being an OK design but struggling to gain acceptance, but it always seems too little too late for these two. I don't know that a merger would improve anything.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Moogs those Sony organization pad things (we've come so far that even though I used to own one in 2001 roughly, I don't even remember what it was called)

I completely forgot, too, and had to look it up. CLIÉ.

[Robo]

So the horribly-named* Motorola Devour (leaked as the Calgary in 2008) is finally hitting Best Buy this week. It's Verizon's first BLUR phone. Within two weeks of its launch, AT&T will also be getting their first BLUR phone (and their first Android phone, period), the Backflip, while T-Mobile will be getting their second, the keyboard-less CLIQ XT. Sprint, as usual, is left out in the cold.

AT&T and Verizon are the big leagues, and in many ways this will be the real test of BLUR. The CLIQ didn't have the warmest reception (really, it was just overshadowed by the Droid) but that was just one phone. The problem is, the phones are all pretty low-end phones. I'm sure the Backflip will sell, because it has a novel back-flipping design and is AT&T's first Android phone, but the Devour is hard to recommend against the Droid (and uh, why isn't it Droid-branded?). It has a smaller screen and a slower processor (though faster than the CLIQ's) but it's still just as big and thick and heavy, due to its aluminum shell. (Those aren't necessarily gripes -- I like my electronics to have some weight -- but a Droid mini it's not.) That would be okay if it was substantially cheaper than the Droid -- like if it was competing with the Droid Eris -- but it's not. It's launching at $99, same as the Droid Eris. The problem is, at the same time Best Buy (who seems to be the exclusive launch partner for the Devour) is dropping the price of the Droid to $99. (The unloved Droid Eris drops to free on contract.)

At the same price of the Droid, the lower-end Devour doesn't seem to have a chance. It's not at all a bad phone -- the keyboard is reportedly better than either the Droid's or CLIQ's, and the slide feels more solid, and the contoured aluminum casing has a cool slide-in battery. But the Droid is a faster phone with a much better screen for the same price. The Devour had a Megan Fox Super Bowl ad, but the Droid had a huge marketing blitz last holiday season -- one that was seemingly on Verizon's dime. To choose the Devour over the Droid at the same price, the buyer would really have to love BLUR, and while Moto's trying to get that sort of brand cachet they're not there yet (and per CLIQ reviews, they don't really deserve to be).

Do you get a sense of the weirdness inherent in the above paragraph? Droid vs. Devour...it's like Motorola's competing against themselves! In a sense they are. Motorola needs people to want BLUR if they're going to be anything other than a commodity smartphone manufacturer, because what happens when Verizon and Google choose other companies for their Droid- and Nexus-branded phones? But Verizon and Google, of course, want to be able to rattle off a list of specs and have Moto build it for them, BLUR excluded.

It's a little sad, because you get the sense that if the Calgary had ended up as one phone instead of two competing ones, and if it had launched six months ago instead of now, Moto would be in a totally different position today.

*I think nonsensical names like "Devour" and "Quench" are far worse than 4LTR names ever were, but if I'm being honest I have to give the crown for horrible naming to Samsung. It's as if they decided the secret to the RAZR's success was that it had a pronounceable name and they've been picking words out of the dictionary at random ever since. Here's a few odd gems: Alias, Behold, Comeback, Gravity, Infinity, Instinct, Magnet.)

[Robo]

Uh oh.

Dammit Palm.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Roboman At the same price of the Droid, the lower-end Devour doesn't seem to have a chance. It's not at all a bad phone -- the keyboard is reportedly better than either the Droid's or CLIQ's, and the slide feels more solid, and the contoured aluminum casing has a cool slide-in battery. But the Droid is a faster phone with a much better screen for the same price. The Devour had a Megan Fox Super Bowl ad, but the Droid had a huge marketing blitz last holiday season -- one that was seemingly on Verizon's dime. To choose the Devour over the Droid at the same price, the buyer would really have to love BLUR, and while Moto's trying to get that sort of brand cachet they're not there yet (and per CLIQ reviews, they don't really deserve to be). Do you get a sense of the weirdness inherent in the above paragraph? Droid vs. Devour...it's like Motorola's competing against themselves![/i]

Sounds like Palm with the Pre and the Pixi. The Pre was what you might call a "prosumer" smartphone. And the Pixi is basically a thinner Pre with a better keyboard but a slower CPU, smaller screen, and no WiFi. What's weird is the Pixi was only $50 less than the Pre when it was launched and now both phones cost roughly the same if you go through a retail store like Best Buy or Radio Shack.

Maybe Palm was just playing it safe, releasing a low-end smartphone, but I think they should have taken a risk and come out with something a lot more compelling. Combine the best qualities of the Pre and Pixi into a single low-end device and prove their relevance with something better even than the Pre Plus (which itself is only slightly better than the Pre). But that's not what they did, and now it seems doubtful whether they'll even get that chance now.

By the way, I've already exchanged my Pre for a Samsung Moment, one of Sprint's two Android phones. While the Pre was very slick, the Moment feels like it'll be in it for the long haul.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Luca By the way, I've already exchanged my Pre for a Samsung Moment, one of Sprint's two Android phones. While the Pre was very slick, the Moment feels like it'll be in it for the long haul.

Stories like the one I just linked to (now making its rounds on all the tech sites) are sort of a self fulfilling prophecy, in a way. Now everyone is convinced that Palm is circling the drain as we speak.

Giving Sprint such a significant exclusive was questionable, but if Palm does die than I think that Palm might be the first company I can think of that was done in by advertising. The launch ads were creepy bad, and the Verizon "webOS is for old ladies!" ads are even worse. Now dudes aren't going to want it and girls aren't going to want it. Last year's Pixi ads were actually a bright spot with a pretty great song selection (Passion Pit's "Sleepyhead," without the vocals) but it wasn't enough to turn the Pixi into the new Centro.

That said, I don't think Palm will die, not yet, not even with Verizon's advertising apparently trying it's hardest. They need to get webOS on more carriers, stat -- that should be their #1 priority, before even new hardware (which they also need). I don't get it. The exclusivity deal ended in January, they should have been ready to go with launches on all the carriers at CES. (They already make GSM phones! At least sell them unlocked...) If suddenly three carriers were advertising the Pre instead of just Verizon I doubt Verizon's ads would have such a disastrous effect.

The way I see it, webOS is a great OS and the Pre and Pixi are nice looking phones. They're the best phones on the carriers that they are on, and you'd have to practically try to make them unappealing, but apparently that's what Sprint and Verizon have been doing with those awful ads. Seriously, what's with the whole "DROID is for dudes, Pre is for chicks" thing? I don't get it...

[Capella]

If I was in the mood for a different smartphone, and I heard one type was for chicks, I would be like "go screw off" and buy the one marketed to men. I'm just saying.

[Luca]

Also, when I said the Moment will be in it for the long haul, I was only partly referring to the Android OS's future vs. webOS. I also meant to say that the Moment is a very solid, well-constructed phone. The Pre is much more attractive but it is also flimsy in comparison.

Funny thing is, one of the other main reasons I switched was because of the Pre's horrible keyboard. It's so tiny! The Moment is easier to control for me. The keyboard is much larger and there are more dedicated buttons so you don't have to rely entirely on the touchscreen. You can navigate with the keyboard's arrow keys or with the touchpad in addition to using the screen.

webOS vs. Android actually feels like Mac vs. Windows. webOS is much prettier, more intuitive, and does some really cool stuff. Android is utilitarian and laden with options, but it has tons of apps and lots of customization (not to mention you can choose from many different phones that run it vs. just one company). Maybe that's why I gravitated toward Android.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Capella If I was in the mood for a different smartphone, and I heard one type was for chicks, I would be like "go screw off" and buy the one marketed to men. I'm just saying.

For all the "a great phone for mom!" ads, webOS users are still more likely to be men, just like mobile OS X users. 58% of webOS users are male, 57% of iPhone users are male, and 54% of iPod touch users are male.

A whopping 73% of all Android users are dudes, so...yeah. With ad copy like this, it's not hard to see why:

Droid. Should a phone be pretty? Should it be a tiara-wearing digitally clueless beauty pageant queen? Or should it be fast? Racehorse duct-taped to a Scud missile fast. We say the latter. So we built the phone that does. Does rip through the Web like a circular saw through a ripe banana. Is it a precious porcelain figurine of a phone? In truth? No. It's not a princess. It's a robot. A phone that trades hair-do for can-do.

Android: The Dodge of phones.

Link

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by chucker I completely forgot, too, and had to look it up. CLIÉ.

Yep. That was the name all right. Except mine looked like this:



I don't even know what happened to it. I think I lost it or it was stolen at the job where I used it, but it's been so long I have no idea anymore.

Originally Posted by Roboman Uh oh. Dammit Palm.

Exactly. You beat me to it. Macworld had a similar article. Betting they're going to get serious egg on their face when the numbers arrive.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman A whopping 73% of all Android users are dudes, so...yeah. With ad copy like this, it's not hard to see why: Android: The Dodge of phones. Link

"Or should it be fast? Racehorse duct-taped to a Scud missile fast. We say the latter."

Funny thing: tests I've read so far suggest that the iPhone 3GS is faster. But I guess it's too gay for real men.

[Moogs]

The one thing about iPhones and iPod Touch, they're not very durable for any type of job that involves manual labor, machinery, etc. Would be too easy to scratch em up, dent them, trash the screen, etc.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by chucker "Or should it be fast? Racehorse duct-taped to a Scud missile fast. We say the latter." Funny thing: tests I've read so far suggest that the iPhone 3GS is faster. But I guess it's too gay for real men.

I'll go out on a limb and say one of the many reasons the iPhone is so fast is that it doesn't have to multitask.

But really, having used an iPhone a few times, I have to say it's one of the fastest and nicest phones to use. Everything is smooth and fluid and there's rarely any lag.

webOS's best feature is its multitasking. Not to mention its beautiful interface. Android does multitasking too, but not very well. It's also not very pretty.

But Android appeals to me for the same reason that I use Windows. I can see why a lot of people here wouldn't like it, but that is precisely the reason I DO like it.

I wouldn't describe it as "racehorse duct taped to a scud missile fast." But it's pretty good. The real big advantages are lots of apps, lots of customization, and lots of different hardware to choose from. I went with a phone with a keyboard because that's what I wanted. Others prefer software keyboards. You don't get that choice with the iPhone.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Luca I'll go out on a limb and say one of the many reasons the iPhone is so fast is that it doesn't have to multitask.

That's certainly an important difference in real-world use, but I was referring to reviews, and I assume journalists are smart enough to kill other apps when they compare performance areas such as browsing, 3D games, etc.

Originally Posted by Luca But really, having used an iPhone a few times, I have to say it's one of the fastest and nicest phones to use. Everything is smooth and fluid and there's rarely any lag.

As far as my iPhone 3G goes, I'll disagree with that; there's lag in the worst of moments, and it drives me nuts. It just constantly runs out of memory — a concern much smaller for the 3GS, since the physical RAM is twice the amount, making the available RAM for applications roughly four times as much.

Originally Posted by Luca webOS's best feature is its multitasking. Not to mention its beautiful interface. Android does multitasking too, but not very well. It's also not very pretty.

Judging from demos I've seen, I'll strongly agree. The page flipping UI is clever.

Originally Posted by Luca The real big advantages are lots of apps, lots of customization, and lots of different hardware to choose from. I went with a phone with a keyboard because that's what I wanted. Others prefer software keyboards. You don't get that choice with the iPhone.

Not concerns for me, but true.