Yagottabe Kidding

Weekly Shorts Review: Garmin, TomTom, Nintendo, Palm

Nokia isn't going to pay billions of dollars for Palm.

No one is.

It's WELL past time to put this silliness to rest.

=========

A few years ago when Palm actually had some pretty good-selling devices, like the Centro and Treos (planned or out), Palm's BoD decided the BEST future for Palm was to sell the company.

And they could not even though they had hundreds of millions in cash, no debt, and said devices. [this is all revealed in Palm's SEC documentation about the original Elevation Partners transaction]

NOW Palm is heavily in debt, has massively more shares outstanding, has Preferred Shares that have priority over common, and have a weak product that apparently didn't even live up to expectations.

And the stock price suggests billions upon billions of dollars to buy it out.

Why does ANYONE reasonably think any company would NOW be insane enough to buy Palm anywhere near the current price if they weren't insane enough to buy it really cheaper a couple years ago?

Full Featured Cell Phones Going the Way of the PDA

If a phone sells for $50 does it matter if we call it a dumb phone, feature phone, or smart phone?

It's still a $50 phone.

The question is not (and should not be) whether the "smart phone segment" is dramatically increasing, but whether the TOTAL phone market is increasing.

Because a $50 phone is a $50 phone no matter what else we call it.

When Will Nokia Wake Up?

Perhaps Nokia has decided the "smartphone segment" isn't much of a segment relative to their other segments so are participating strictly because they have a need for a presence.

When featurephones have all the capability that smartphones have with, literally, some minor details excluded (in fact, pundits are going through excruciating convolutions to define "featurephone" and "smartphone" now so they don't totally overlap), why produce a smartphone?

Can Motorola Follow the Palm Path?

[This is a clarification post]

When I type "low-end" above I am NOT talking about functionality but instead "place in the lineup". Motorola, if they are indeed pricing the Cliq "free" with contract, is setting a new standard for smartphones that ALL the other manufacturers will have to beat. The Cliq is wonderfully functional and includes Motorola's Motoblur which aparently is a better-implemented act-alike to Palm's Synergy - a REAL slap upside their corporate head.

Can Motorola Follow the Palm Path?

I call it a low-end phone because Motorola called it a low-end phone...and in the same breath mentioned the high-end phone was going to be introduced in a couple/few weeks. And, of course, we have STRONG evidence with that "leaked" T-Mobile web page that low-end pricing is coming for the Cliq.

[could the T-Mobile page have simply been a bogus-pricing placeholder? Of course, but we literally have NO evidence of that. As such, the BEST evidence we have right now is the Cliq is going to be "free' with contract - that's "low-end" (not low-functionality) pricing]

Can Motorola Follow the Palm Path?

T-Mobile "leaked" a web page showing the price for the Cliq was "Free" with contract. The page was pulled fairly quickly. Was that the ACTUAL price? It makes sense to this reader since the Cliq =is= a low-end smartphone ala the Centro (though with contemporary low-end features, not year-old low-end features). I think this business is just now getting interesting. Of course, free smartphones could be game changers entirely, causing low margin pressure on competitors...like Palm and its to-be-released Pixi.

Motorola's Cliq Builds on iPhone Concept

If the price is as that T-Mobile web page (there, then gone!) says - that is, free with contract - then this phone is a tremendous game changer.

Smartphones: It's the Software, Stupid!

For once a SeekingAlpha blog entry has beena breath of fresh air!

Your total lack of mention of the Version 0.9 WebOS and underlying Linux et al of the Version 0.9 Pre is, truthfully, a wonderful thing.

It is about time at least ONE person has placed that yet-to-be whatever-it-is in the proper place w.r.t. the industry.

Apple: iPhone Now Accounts for 50% of Mobile Web Traffic

Though I wouldn't doubt the conclusion of the Subject TOO much, it should be noted that the statistics being gathered are for web pages on which the statistics gatherer has ads which undoubtedly is a VERY small subset of mobile web pages out there.

Don't Close the Line on Nokia Just Yet

Let's try those two Engadget links again:

========
Here's Engadget non-mobile, then mobile, for example:

engadget.com

mobile.engadget.com

Sorry about that.

Don't Close the Line on Nokia Just Yet

Admob gathers statistics on MOBILE web site traffic, not regular web site traffic (mobile web sites are those with drastically reduced content - often JUST text, that fit "better" on small phone screens as well as using considerably less data transfer). Here's Engadget non-mobile, then mobile, for example:

www.endgadget.com

mobile.engadget.com/

Furthermore, Admob gathers statistics ONLY for those mobile web sites carrying Admob's ads.

Thus you're talking a small percentage of a small percentage of actual phone web site browsing from which statistics are being gathered.

The iPhone, for example, is known for its good web browsing capability. THAT phone would be visiting NONmobile web sites while a reduced-capability phone like, say, the RAZR would be visiting MOBILE web sites.

So drawing ANY general conclusion about phones from Admob's statistics is simply wrong.

Period.