MotoGoogle/webOS special. MotoGoogle first, then webOS.
Your donation for keeping this series up and running would be much appreciated.
Culture clash indeed. And Google is not that much larger than Motorola, so it could become a serious problem.A key difference between the companies stems from Motorola's focus on hardware and Google's on software. That helps explain why Google is more able to take risks, Mr. Jha said. If he worked at Google and “wrote a little bit of code, and if there are bugs, I can fix it later,” he said. “When I deliver a phone, I don't have that flexibility.”
In other words, they didn’t think it through.I think Google has about as much chance of successfully managing a device business as Nokia had of running an OS business.
But the real question is, does Google realize that it doesn't know how to make hardware? I doubt it. Speaking as someone who worked at PalmSource for its whole independent history, an OS company always believes that it could do a better job of making hardware than its licensees. It's incredibly frustrating to have a vision for what people should do with your software, and then see them screw it up over and over. The temptation is to build some hardware yourself, just to show those idiots how to do it right.
I think maybe Google just gave in to that temptation.
I think the tablet market isn’t going to be locked down any time soon, so HP made a mistake here. It should have waited.I think that HP was caught in a fundamental tension between wanting to get the TouchPad out into the marketplace before it became too locked in to an iOS vs Android dynamic and making it as good as it could be before launch. As a result, HP released the TouchPad before its 3.0.2 update, leading to a bevy of poor reviews and bad feedback from customers.
This fits well with other reports.HP made the announcement that it was ceasing to make webOS hardware, but neglected to get a hardware licensing deal in place before doing so. This seemed to drive home the point that webOS was dead in the water, when in fact it is very much alive and was never the issue. It was the hardware that was killing HP’s OS.
If HP had announced a licensing deal before the discontinuation of the hardware, the news would have gone much differently today. There would be no stories about the “death of webOS”, an OS that many of us thought was just starting to get good.
The failure was the owners’ fault, not the platform’s. In that respect, Amazon would be a bad scenario since it isn’t a device vendor, either.HP is said to prefer to sell on webOS, but unless it can resurrect rumored deals with Amazon or Samsung, outright buyers for a platform that has failed under two successive owners/strategies are unlikely to be forthcoming.
If you believe that every smartphone company needs to own its own OS, we ought to see a mad bidding war between LG, HTC, Sony Ericsson, Dell, and maybe Samsung to buy Web OS. (The loser could get RIM as a consolation prize.) Maybe a buyout will still happen, but I think HP has probably been quietly shopping Web OS for a while, and if there were interest it would have tried to close a deal before today's announcement.
(By the way, HTC, if you do buy Web OS, you should insist that HP give you the Palm brand name as well. It's still far better known than the HTC brand in the US. The same logic applies for LG.)
This is the blog of Peter-Paul Koch, mobile platform strategist, consultant, and trainer.
You can also follow
him on Twitter.
Atom
RSS
I’m around at the following conferences:
Categories:
Monthlies: