Open sourcing webOS changes nothing

A couple of months after the company announced the death of webOS, HP's new CEO Meg Whitman has thrown the OS a lifeline in the form of the open source community. The greatest takeaway from this announcement is the fact that webOS is not dead. It's now vastly in the hands of passionate developers to build upon and improve efficiently whilst being freely distributed for anyone to use.

From the outset, we couldn't have possibly gotten it better, open source developers as a collective can make changes and improvements much more quickly and efficiently than the vast bureaucratic corporate structure of HP ever could. And speaking from a consumer's own vantage, we have another free operating system to contribute to the highly valued element of choice. As well as being a free operating system, webOS exhibits polish, the kind of quality you'd generally expect to pay for.

Looking past the thin veil of optimism, none of this changes the fact that HP webOS failed tremendously, such to the point that it was actually dead for a period of time. It doesn't change the fact that there is yet to be any worthy complementing hardware for webOS and in no way does it contribute to the operating system's relatively minute app developer community. It offers no succour for the fact that iOS, Android and even Windows Phone already have significant market share to leverage whilst webOS has virtually none to boot. Most importantly, it doesn't change the fact that HP is still yet to find any significant value proposition in webOS to gain hardware partners.

It's quite clear that keeping webOS as a proprietary OS in the hands of HP was no longer a viable option. The fledgling operating system was already skating on thin ice even before HP's immense Touchpad failure, and the heat of the competition from Apple and Google was slowly melting away at HP's chances of even minor success. The Touchpad, as the inaugural HP/webOS tablet had to be pretty darn good, but it wasn't.

I've always believed that it takes multiple subsequent impressions to eliminate the sentiments from a single first impression, and HP's first efforts at a truly mobile operating system in webOS left consumers and pundits with a sour sour taste. It would take the bare minimum of two years to manufacture sufficient subsequent efforts to try and clean the taste, and even then, imminent slow sales could hamper the webOS image even further and render the $1.2 billion acquisition essentially worthless. It would be too risky. Leo Apotheker wasn't completely out of his mind to cancel HP's webOS project altogether.

So, as much as persevering with webOS would have been a desirable trajectory, the plan was ultimately destined for failure. HP had various other options including licensing and selling the operating system off. Both these options I believe would have been higher on HP's priority list given their capabilities of monetization. But licensing was always an unreachable dream given the free availability of an operating system in Android with a lot more to offer, and there simply isn't a discernible target market large enough for those hardware manufacturers wanting webOS purely for diversity. To add insult to injury, clearly nobody was interested in buying webOS from HP.

By the looks of it, open sourcing was just a last resort for an HP that had completely run out of ideas. They couldn't make it work for themselves, they couldn't license it, they couldn't sell it so they've decided simply give it away.

HP is a profit-seeking corporation, they certainly wouldn't want to open source and wouldn't have made the decision had they not be in a position that forced it. The soul reason that Google voluntarily open-sources Android is because they have an ecosystem to tie users into so they can profit from users consequentially by putting their services into as many hands as possible.

All HP has is a lonesome operating system, tied into an ecosystem with little value, and no web services aside from a fairly deserted sandpit of an app store attached to it. Open sourcing doesn't cater to HP's personal vantage aside from the distant goal that perhaps they could capitalise on webOS in any way in the future if it ever gains any traction - but that's a far-fetched dream with various apples and green robots obstructing the path to the gold medallion.

Despite the aura of optimism and excitement shrowding the open sourcing of webOS, webOS is still in a poor position to compete. I hate to be the pessimist, in fact, I'm usually the optimist - I believed for a long time that if Sony played it right they could compete against Apple's iPod, I still believe that RIM can get right back into the smartphone game and I believed that HP had a shot at tablet market share if the Touchpad hadn't been a year out of date.

webOS has polish, it has a clean interface, it works darn well but that's not enough for a world so invested in apps, content and cross device integration. HP's open source plan will maintain webOS as a niche platform for a community of passionate webOS die-hards, but it will never find the mainstream traction HP were hoping for simply because it doesn't have the ecosystem lever that companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft possess.

HP's webOS riddles

Less than two years ago when HP acquired the fledgling Palm company, I was a half-hearted with the notion. HP, being a relatively professional and straight-edged company didn't quite seem to fit the Palm profile of curved and cute devices with a...well curved and cute OS. I expected, and in retrospect would have preferred the likes of Nokia or Sony to have acquired the innovative Palm. However my dreams were left unrealised and Nokia is now committed fully to Windows Phone and Sony are heading towards a deep investment in the Android ecosystem, its amazing how times change. Join me as I recount HP's problem leading up to the discontinuation of first party webOS devices.

The outcome of webOS under HP's tenure has been disappointing, even looking on the bright side it has drastically fallen below the excitement and hype that the initial announcement of the Touchpad and Pre 3 had warranted. When HP unveiled the Touchpad at their Think Beyond event in February, the prospects and the possibilities were incredible and seemingly prosperous. The Touchpad wasn't perfect though, page turning when reading eBooks was choppy and the user experience as a whole wasn't up to scratch. It didn't feel like a finished product. But we were all excited because we figured heck, the problems should all be ironed out prior to the launch in 7 months time, and perhaps the hardware upgraded to keep in close quarters with the fast progression of consumer technology. But it wasn't. Looking back at the bug-riddled launch of the Touchpad I simply can't help but wonder what the hell went on in that lengthy 7 months. 7 months is plenty of time to perfect bugs and polish a product that was definitely already in the later phases of semi-completion. Believe it or not, I even expected HP to launch the device early and surprise us.

It's odd, because this whole time I believed that the acquisition of Palm by HP was what would be instrumental in preventing a late and sorry launch. Palm, prior to HP simply didn't have the resources to go about it on their own, they didn't have the manufacturing scale that HP possessed, nor the cash to effectively market their products. More importantly they didn't have the human resources they needed to quicken general operations. HP had this, but taking 7 months to launch an imperfect product disappointingly shows that it did not translate for webOS. 

Looking from the outside, HP's webOS failure could be attributed partially to a lack of focus, a fatally distracted vision for webOS. By no means does a distracted vision necessarily have to be a poor vision, and this was exactly the case with HP webOS. HP were hoping to expand the platform across all their devices, including printers to share a common ecosystem amongst the products we use most. I'm not going to lie, it's a brilliant idea, but fantasising over unrealised dreams while delivering an incomplete foundation in the company's smartphones and tablets only spells trouble. Dreams are like anything, you have to keep feeding them to stay alive, and feeding them lackluster products with insufficient marketing doesn't assist in building a large enough consumer base to springboard other projects. We all know what happens if you start building the top of a skyscraper before the foundation is complete - it collapses. 

Which brings us to this morning's bombshell of an announcement, HP is stopping production of its webOS hardware altogether. You read right, it's just the hardware, which is not surprising given how out of touch the Touchpad's hardware is in comparison to the competition and the times. Despite only cancelling the hardware and almost certainly going ahead with the idea of licensing the OS, the whole ideal has just been one huge PR tragedy. Announcing the cancellation of hardware production for an operating system that only has one hardware vendor is the right way to give everybody a wrong impression. HP now run the risk of not being able to find a licensing partner within the timeline that they have set to officially cancel webOS device production. If this does end up being the case which lets face it, is entirely plausible, then it would be correct by definition to officially call webOS dead, after all, nobody's making any webOS devices. 

Let's get real, is there anyone who really wants to invest in webOS? Samsung and HTC are the two most likely vendors, doing anything and everything to expand their portfolios. Both are already heavily invested and clear leaders in the Android ecosystem, however with offerings in Windows Phone which will most likely be undermined by the looming release of the Nokia Windows Phones. So, webOS wouldn't be a terrible idea but then we must ask the question, why? Why would they bother supporting a dying ecosystem when they're already high and mighty in a thriving one? Sony Ericsson, LG and several others are also possible candidates, but I doubt that any of these companies have the resources to risk in investing in an ecosystem that has failed...twice - once under Palm and now under HP. 

Its sad, but ultimately true that HP have dug their own grave. Palm had built an image of freshness and innovation behind the Palm name, being one of the most advanced touch-screen smartphones of its time, whilst maintaining a highly approachable and friendly industrial design. I know friends who wanted a Palm prior to the HP days simply because of the curved design, and the invitingly simple look and feel of the OS. By ridding and replacing the Palm name with HP subsequent to the acquisition, HP threw away the oh so precious image and value of the Palm brand. Strategically, this move made sense in order to bring webOS both physically and symbolically closer to the HP family. However HP didn't have the confidence nor the skill to turn webOS into a game-changing product, and are now trying to license the operating system in a much less valuable incarnation than what they initially purchased it for. 

So can webOS be resurrected? I used to think so but in a connected world where growth grows upon growth, webOS is really struggling to just make the inaugural step. On the other end of the spectrum, Android and iOS are making exponential strides. In spite of this, there's a little bit inside all of us that knows webOS can still make it, and then there's a big part in all of us that really wants webOS to make it. The world doesn't need anymore Android slabs, but we could sure as hell do with a sweet OS like webOS. I think its clear that webOS's square peg doesn't belong in the circle of HP. So here's hoping that HP sells it off to a company that can treat it with the respect it deserves. Any takers?

webOS vs Blackberry - The Pony opinion

The tablet war has largely been seen thus far as a battle between two giants, iOS and Android. Respectively the number 1 and 2 tablet OS's currently. However a new battle is brooding, between the two newcomers HP and RIM who have come out and introduced the world to two very exciting tablet operating systems. It's an intriguing battle of the underdogs, and who are you rooting for? With this article, I'll be giving you a in-depth view of my insights on who I believe will emerge the most successful of the two, and whether any of these have a chance at toppling the big two: Apple and Google.

The early days of these two operating systems have been mired by a number of issues which they share, incomplete software at launch and a measly app selection. HP's Touchpad has copped a bit of a beating for inferior hardware. Nevertheless, we all have to start somewhere and from where I stand, both of these platforms have enormous potential for both consumers and enterprise. Everybody loves an underdog and both these operating systems are symbolic of what people admire so much with underdogs. They're creative, new and aren't afraid of stepping out of the traditional framework set out by the big two. RIM borrowed a lot from webOS for the design of their QNX basked Blackberry Tablet OS and I'm certainly not complaining, the UI on both these operating systems is stellar and a huge step up for tablets. The multi-tasking 'cards' if you like are handy, it's the kind of thing that you don't even know you want until you use it and have it. iOS's multi-tasking is primitive in comparison, and Android's doesn't feel as intuitive and dynamic.

Both webOS and BB Tablet OS both adopt a very gesture driven interface and from my experience with the Playbook it's a joy to use. I haven't used the HP Touchpad yet so it's hard for me to comment. However, on the Playbook the gesture interface isn't implemented in such a way that it feels like its there purely for differentiation but it actually brings very intuitive navigation of the tablet which is a pleasure to use. Swipe down from the top to reveal settings or options in an application, swipe from the top up to reveal the home screen, swipe from either side of the display to switch easily between running applications. It just works. With that, I say RIM and HP have a genuine shot at stealing significant market share.

Now, RIM have one big advantage that can't be underrated, and that is a well-established user base. There's no hiding a rapidly, and we mean, rapidly declining market share but at third place, RIM still have a considerable market share they can leverage to kick-start their voyage into the tablet world. HP doesn't have this, webOS has a drastically small market share and HP are hoping to kick-start their mobile endeavours with a tablet, which is an odd reverse of the conventional. Without a large existing user base behind their smartphone effort HP doesn't have the advantage of locking in existing consumers. Additionally competitors who do have a large user base for their smartphones, which is true for RIM, can attempt to woo consumers into buying their tablets by providing synergy between the devices.

When HP CEO Mark Hurd stated 'we didn't buy Palm to be in the smartphone business' I naturally found the very notion absurd. However, what he meant was HP's intentions with webOS go far beyond the smartphone business. HP have something that RIM could only ever dream of having, and that is an extensive lineup of hardware. RIM are focused on handsets and tablets, but HP builds phones, tablets, PC's, printers and all sorts of hardware. When we think of the ecosystem, we think of interconnected applications and services on our phones, tablets and PCs but we too often leave out more detached hardware like printers, set-top boxes and Blu-ray players. With a much more extensive hardware offering, HP have the ability to expand webOS to all of these devices, and create a uniform interface that connects all of these devices together, and thus connects us in even more places in our lives.

HP's biggest problem though is to get started. Without any credible smartphone market share to use as a trampoline, a measly app selection for the Touchpad and below par hardware for the Touchpad, well it's going to have to wait for Touchpad 2. Perhaps the Pre 3 will give HP a start, which to be frank looks awesome. However it's hard to imagine anyone aside from an existing webOS diehard purchasing it. A lot of people buy what their friends have, and webOS's market share is only about 2% in the US currently. Additionally, a relatively weak app store offers little succour for an already dire situation. For HP, it's a race against time. HP risk taking too long to gain enough market share before the competition catch up on HP's vision of 'a web-connected environment where now you can get a common look and feel and a common set of services laid against that (HP) environment' (quote from HP CEO, Mark Hurd). 

The Verdict
So who is it? Who do I think is going to be the winner between these two 'start-ups'? HP is extremely vulnerable right now, you get the feeling that there's no second chances, if they screw up big time, then, yeah, they screw up big time. Having said that, webOS like I said at the beginning is innovative and joyful but it needs time. RIM still has a strong market share, and the QNX-based Blackberry Tablet OS is an absolute winner. And with the promise of QNX arriving to Blackberry smartphones in the near future, I just can't place my bets on webOS. So Blackberry it is.