The quote below has caused quite a ruckus recently (via GearLog):
…
Execs also hinted at the possibility of licensing their WebOS to other manufacturers. While they haven’t decided to do so, “it’s not a religious issue for us,” Palm CFO Douglas Jeffries said.
…
While this may in itself sound good, it means absolutely nothing. Keep in mind that Palm has gained little from licensing its operating system in the past: other manufacturers forced the company to innovate and keep hardware quality somewhat decent.
Stating that your company is not at all intended on licensing the webOS to other manufacturers would have been contraproductive at the time: both investors and developers would have been more than miffed…and don’t even get me started on the bad PR.
Stating your openness, on the other hand, makes for good PR…and means absolutely nothing. Palm can define hardware criteria which are so stringent that no other manufacturer can fulfill them – and then just claim that they are intending to license, but can’t find anybody.
Palm execs have repeatedly stated in the past that they were opposed to licensing the new operating system to other manufacturers…so why should that change now?
What do you think?
Related posts:
But don’t forget… Colligan was mildly idiotic. However, licensing would indeed be a double edged sword. The smartphone market isn’t as “open” as the handheld market was… It at least appears as if there is less space for more competitors. While licensing would probably bring in large amounts of “free” profit, it would come at the cost of limiting their own market penetration which could be problematic this time around.
The starting of Handspring comes to mind as an example where Palm allowed someone to license their product. I don’t think there would be a splinter group from Palm but maybe for a netbook instead for a PDA?
Now that is an interesting thought. People have already been toying with the idea of palm building a netbook. I wonder if they could pull it off.