In article ,
ZnU wrote:

> > Obviously you'd have accessories that are all-in-ones as well. But for
> > just making calls, all you need is a small in-ear headset, really. So
> > you've basically removed the big device (phone, iPod) and kept the
> > small devices you have anyway (wrist watch, headset).
>
> Well, except realistically you need a little more than that. You want a
> screen on your phone, for instance. You need to select contacts and read
> text messages. And for sending text messages, you need some sort of text
> entry. One could imagine all this being done with speech recognition or
> text-to-speech, but one of the big reasons people use text messages is
> that they don't require you to talk or listen to anything (and thus can
> be exchanged while you're in a meeting, etc.), so that rather defeats
> the purpose.

Right, but a wrist watch has a screen big enough for all of that, but
doesn't have text entry. For SMS-happy teenagers, that would be
unacceptable, of course, which is why they would have some other
accessory than just a headset. But for us that doesn't send five SMS
every minute, I'm quite confident that I would be pleased with the
watch interface.

> > The Nokie 800 would just be a terminal to your PD, as would all the
> > rest. And you can choose - like today - which kind of terminals you
> > want, but the data is the same for each.
>
> Centralizing data this way is useful. But it's also useful to reduce the
> number of devices people carry around. And that makes all-in-ones
> inherently valuable even if you do have a system that lets all your
> devices access the same data.

Sure. I have no problem with "PD's" also being the size of a PDA, for
those that doesn't want the limitations of a wrist watch. I'm
advocating that all of the functionality of a
PDA+Phone+iPod+Laptop+game console is being included in one device,
even if that device may not be able to display it's content itself.
So, you don't use a MacBook Pro for a laptop, you use a "Palm Foleo"
which, again, is just a trminal to your PD, regardless of what you use
as a PD.

> > No doubt. But there wills till be internal IT policies that restricts
> > what kind of data you are allowed to take with you on your vacation
>
> With high-speed networks, and the potential for augmented reality
> (projecting virtual images into your field of vision that appear to
> exist in the physical world), it's quite possible few people will
> physically show up at work in a couple of decades. The convenience of
> this will be so enormous that deliberately restricting access to data
> based on where people are physically located will probably only be done
> in very extreme cases.

Yeah, but where are the flying cars? :-D



--
Sandman[.net]

ZnU wrote:
> In article ,
> TheLetterK wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>
>>> I've already addressed this point. They're going to get toasted
>>> by fully-featured desktop operating systems, unless they build
>>> something similar in scope to a fully-featured desktop operating system
>>> and then gain widespread third-party support to make it a viable
>>> competitor to the systems already established in that market.
>> It's not at all the same situation. Right now, there *is* almost no
>> ultra-mobile desktop platform. Laptops are as close as you get, and the
>> vast majority of them are too large to be truly "ultra-mobile". Not to
>> mention, Palm already *does* have a very large presence in the mobile
>> computing market. Especially when it comes to smartphones and the like.
>>
>> I'm also wondering why you think the platform they're using for the
>> Foleo wouldn't scale up, and won't accommodate third party development.
>
> Why are we going over the same points again and again?
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Essentially, the problem everyone who tries this has is, they can't
>>> match the value networks which have built up around established
>>> players. Rich ecosystems of third-party hardware and software, user
>>> communities, user skill sets, etc.
>> Right, which is exactly why Palm wouldn't necessarily fall prey to
>> (desktop) Windows and OS X entering the market. They already have a
>> lot of experience dealing with this market, and they already have a
>> very sizable collection of software geared specifically towards
>> mobile users. What makes you think Vista or OS X would be able to
>> compete with Palm? Long-time Palm users are already married to the
>> platform because of the extensive collection of software, even with
>> competition *in the existing market*.
>
> But nobody uses Palm as an their primary computing platform. If people
> were given the option of taking their real computer with them in their
> pocket, they would.

What makes you say that? Desktops will always be more powerful than
laptops, since the technology in laptops can be applied in desktops
without the heat and power constraints. And as the speed of these
desktops increases, so will the functions people expect their primary
computer to perform.

>
> My bet is, people will have the option of buying a fully-fledged laptop
> about the size of a Folio at a reasonable price within three years,

Which would give Palm plenty of time to build up a portfolio of "killer"
mobile apps for this new class of laptop. There are many applications on
my Palm device that have no direct analogue on desktop platforms, and
these are often applications that are useful to users of ultra-mobile
systems.

> and
> they'll have the option of taking their primary computer with them in
> their pocket within five or six.

I doubt that very seriously, unless they limited themselves to what
desktops are doing today.

>
> For pocket-sized devices running real operating systems, it would be
> fairly trivial for Apple and Microsoft to add APIs allowing developers
> to create small-screen interfaces for their desktop apps. Launch Excel
> with the device docked to a large screen and keyboard, and you get an
> interface similar to what you get today. Launch it when the device is
> using its 2.5" (or whatever) built-in screen, and you get an alternate
> interface... but you can still work with the exact same files, etc.

Again, what makes you think Palm couldn't scale their current platform
to meet the needs of desktop users? What makes you say that it isn't a
"real" operating system?

>
> Thanks to the iPhone, Apple will basically already have such an API
> ready to go for OS X.

And thanks to ALP, Palm will already have a scalable platform already
established in the market that Microsoft and Apple would be trying to
enter, with third party developers already on board and a few years of
experience finding out what users want in these devices. Not to mention,
they'll have access to all the same hardware improvements.

>
> As far as Palm's existing third-party apps, well, they're not going to
> run natively on the new platform. There will be an emulator, I'm sure.

Application Compatibility Layer, not an emulator (assuming they're using
ALP). No emulation is necessary.

> But the apps simply aren't that impressive compared with what Apple is
> already showing on the iPhone

Do you actually use a PalmOS device on a daily basis? If so, have you
*ever* seriously tried out some of the third party software? I'd never
trade even my current Zire 72 for an iPhone. Not until they open the
platform and attract developers to it.

> -- let alone what will be possible with a
> fully-featured desktop operating system running on a mobile device in a
> few years.

What makes you say that Palm's current platform isn't a fully featured
operating system? I've been using GNU/Linux as a fully-featured desktop
operating system for years.

>
> And the truth is, most people who use Palm devices aren't particularly
> wedded to the third-party apps they're using anyway. If they're using
> any in the first place.

I don't know many Palm users who don't have a sizable third-party
software library.

> Most of them are nothing to write home about.

They aren't flashy or spectacular, but there are many that are very well
designed and are certainly best in their class. Especially when it comes
to organizational applications.

> Six months after Apple or Microsoft puts its real desktop operating
> system on a pocket-sized device, they'll have a far richer and more
> diverse selection of apps (that support small screen UI) than will ever
> be written for any mobile-only platform.

Except you aren't dealing with a mobile-only platform anymore. Palm is
dropping PalmOS in favor of a platform that could *easily* be scaled up
to match anything Windows or OS X can put out there.

> If developers can just fire up
> their UI building tools and add pocket interfaces to their existing
> desktop apps, it's inevitable.
>
> Any platform loyalty users might have to Palm's platform will be
> completely overshadowed by their ties to their desktop computing
> platforms.

I disagree.

>
>>> In order for Linux to save Palm here, they'd have to build it up as a
>>> general purpose desktop operating system *before* the day when the
>>> existing general purpose desktop operating systems swoop down into the
>>> mobile hardware market and devour the existing platforms there. With
>>> the pace at which mobile hardware platforms are advancing, they don't
>>> have a lot of time. And trying to launch a new desktop operating system
>>> is something which, as noted above, does not have a great success rate.
>> There's not that much that needs to be done to make it an extremely
>> viable competitor in this market. Linux is already be adopted on a wide
>> scale in mobile devices. Why do you think Microsoft reworked their
>> pricing arrangement for Windows Mobile?
>
> Once again, you appear to be ignoring my actual argument, which is not
> that Palm cannot compete in this market *now* (they can), but that
> they'll get creamed in this market once they're competing with similarly
> portable and reasonably inexpensive devices that run real established
> desktop operating systems. Such devices are not that far away.

They're at least a decade away from price points that people can afford.
Even tem years from now, Palm will still be able to compete with their
current platform. Ten years is a *long* time in this business.

>
>>> Nor does it look like Palm is even attempting to do this.
>> What makes you say that?
>
> The fact that Palm is not shipping a desktop operating system,

They are, instead, shipping a platform that could easily be scaled to
meet future demand for new features.

> of
> course. If they want to have a fully-featured operating system with
> widespread third-party support ready for the day when mobile devices can
> run such a thing, the way to do that is to establish that platform on
> the hardware that can already run it today.

That's exactly what they're doing. However, their choice of platform is
far more scalable than either Windows or OS X. They can gradually bring
it to feature parity with either of the established desktop platforms as
hardware comes along and need arises. This is particularly true if
they're using ALP (which seems very likely).