HP CEO says he didn't buy Palm for smartphones

Shame. I've been mostly enjoying my Pre, but it is time to let it go and move on to Android in the short term and maybe Windows Phone 7 in the long.

I think he's saying that they weren't JUST looking to get into the smartphone game. I don't think it makes sense NOT to keep making phones, they're just looking to use the platform across more than that.

If they only wanted to make smartphones, it's not worth the cost since there are a number of different vendors with smartphone OS's.

I gathered that, but there's already more than one big money-player in the smartphone blowing through cash with no clue. HP's priority is scaling the OS all over the place, which means lackluster developer support and no intent to push smartphone hardware to the edge like HTC and Apple are doing.

Scaling the OS to more devices actually would mean more support for it though. Certainly newer features and more robust development. If it were just for phones HP wouldn't be able to devote nearly the same development resources towards it though.

It seems that short of going open source, this is one of the best scenarios for the OS.

I think trying to scale a single OS from phones to tablets to printers is going to create a nightmare scenario for developers.

Generally, an OS is optimized for a particular resolution and input method. Windows 7 sucks on a tablet, and would even more on a phone. Windows Phone 7 would suck on a desktop. Something has to give across scaling, and for HP, smartphones have been and will continue to be one of the least relevant parts of their business and their profit picture.

They bought Palm for the OS, and only because it could go feasibly go on devices other than smartphones.

You're right, the OS is optimized for a certain form factor. But as long as that form factor is small to medium size touch LCD screens it doesn't matter TOO much that it's spread across printers, phones, tablets, and whatever else HP can come up with.

And yes, I worry that the diversity of devices could hurt the evolution of the OS and it's continued relevancy but I don't think that there was much chance (especially with Google stepping into the ring) of Palm really ascending in a way that would allow continued significant investment in their OS.

By being able to justify development because it's used in so many devices (all of which HP controls though) you get a situation like Apple has with the iPhone OS where it's being used in tablets, phones, and (rumoredly) the new Apple TV.

I think HP wants to be sure it can compete in the space that technology is moving towards (less PCs and more a multitude of smarter devices) and control the experience from OS to hardware. And as long as that's their goal to have a strong foundational OS that is the key to their smaller form factor devices, I think there's good hope.

The difference is that Apple built critical mass off a single OS and form factor, got the development community locked in, and THEN scaled it to a tablet.

WebOS, on the other hand, still has an unfinished SDK (unfinished in that it doesn't allow access to all of the device APIs), a nascent developer community, and no critical mass on any platform. Once HP jumps in and starts trying to scale it everywhere, device APIs and optimization for any chipset except slates and tablets will go right out of the window.

What's the appeal for developers? Making sure your app works in at least five different resolutions (Pixi, Pre, Pre 2 whatever, Slate, Printer window) and 3-4 different chipsets on a platform with a modest consumer base and average development tools?

Yeah, I guess the question of how much HP actually wants to keep the WebOS open for outside development is legitimate as well. Clearly they aren't looking for app-makers to sell apps on a printer (I don't even know how that would work).

It seems though that the app ecosystem is going to get tapped at some point unless someone (like Adobe) creates cross platform tools or some of the operating systems die. We've already got Windows, Android, Symbian, iPhone OS, and WebOS. That seems like too many and Palm seemed like the most likely to collapse (and still might even after an HP acquisition).

I do kind of wonder at what point the Android OS is going to get forked away from Google.

You guys are confusing what an operating system is at its core, and what a "Window Manager" or UI system framework is supposed to do. I know people like to tie both, but that is not necessary (see Linux).

Linux platforms have long been available for mobile devices. What is relevant in modern mobile platforms is the comprehensive sets of APIs and functionalities that link them together and present them to the user.

For all intents and purposes, the core OS under Windows/Android/WebOS/iPhone are not going to be that different. Heck, they're all using ARM chips and touch screens, so it's what's between the fundamental OS layer and the presentation that makes all the difference.