Ewan Spence of All About Symbian has made a bold speculation: Palm, inc. are taking Symbian OS with UIQ 3.0 to power the Palm Treo.
Going purely by naming conventions, this might be possible. Over at Engadget they've just played with a Treo 700w (with Windows Mobile 5.0), and perhaps in addition to a Treo 700p (with Palm OS) we'll also see Treo 700s (with Symbian)!
I don't think that's going to happen; at least not the the fashion suggested, where Palm has to support 3 major smartphone platforms...
Ewan Spence of All About Symbian has made a bold speculation: Palm, inc. are taking Symbian OS with UIQ 3.0 to power the Palm Treo.
Going purely by naming conventions, this might be possible. Over at Engadget they've just played with a Treo 700w (with Windows Mobile 5.0), and perhaps in addition to a Treo 700p (with Palm OS) we'll also see Treo 700s (with Symbian)!
I don't think that's going to happen; at least not the the fashion suggested, where Palm has to support 3 major smartphone platforms... Lets look at the reasons Ewan has suggested (all errors and omissions are mine):
1. Palm has already made the decision to go multi-OS in it's product line.
2. Palm is in desperate need of a multi-tasking, multi-threaded operating system that can handle the modern day requirements of a smartphone.
3. Palm can’t wait that long, they need something that works now.
4. Palm owns all the rights to the "Palm" trademark.
5. Palm cannot rely solely on Microsoft, which has been trying to squeeze Palm in the PDA market for years.
Treo 700w next to Treo 650 [Credit: Engadget]
I'm not going to suggest that this would be bad for Symbian at all. As Ewan has eloquently stated: Symbian gain a new licencee that, while it may not have the bulk selling power of others, has a huge mind share and could finally break open the American market to this Symbian thing. Indeed, gaining a new licencee is a no-lose proposition. (Unless Symbian Ltd. makes deals which require it to make investments in companies to which it licences it's software, which does not appear to be the case.)
However, I take issue with all the reasons; as follows:
In response to 1: While Palm might have decided to go multi-OS, this does not mean that it wants three OS's, and such a multiplicity of OS's will increase support costs massively.
In response to 2-4: I do not dispute that Palm could do it; but what is their incentive when Windows Mobile already provides an answer?
In response to 5: Why? Microsoft is in a position similar to Symbian; particularly since Palm Inc no longer owns the Palm OS. Indeed, Palm as it stands today is most similar to HTC; a simple hardware manufacturer. Any incentive for Microsoft to actively bear ill will towards Palm Inc. vanishes once it becomes a manufacturer of windows mobile devices. Indeed, Microsoft would want Palm to survive and prosper; and Microsoft's goal is windows mobile domination, and the more hardware manufacturers the better. Indeed, even if Microsoft had plans to crush Palm for vindictive reasons, it would not act for some time, and probably not in contravention of it's contracts with Palm. And Microsoft has grown up.
It makes more sense for Palm to concentrate it's engineering resources on a single product - and while Symbian might be a credible alternative; all Palm has to do to maintain it's security against eventual action by Microsoft is to keep a Symbian device in development if possible. (Analagous to how Apple has always had OS X on Intel)
Indeed, the biggest problem for Palm, looking forward, is it's descent into ubiquity, and not in the good sense. If you look at the pictures of the Treo 700w, it seems that the interface is bog-standard, and if Palm becomes just another windows mobile hardware manufacturer, it might just be the end! HP releases devices in the same form factor as the Treo, and with the work HTC is doing, consumers in search of a windows mobile 5.0 device have a plethora of form factors and choices; more than any other smartphone OS at present.
I'm not saying that Ewan might be entirely wrong, because perhaps Palm is going to release a Symbian device (at least there it has a tactical advantage because there is no Symbian device with that form factor) and the Treo 700w is just cover, but I cannot imagine that Palm would want to support 3 OS's for no apparent benefit. Two is bad enough.
A possible theory is that Palm might be doing this because they feel that the Treo hardware experience is so unique and superior that "the OS does not matter". Even if that was unquestionably true, such an action will undoubtably be confusing to customers and, in addition to the new sets of support staff, Palm will require a flawless marketing strategy. And probably cause huge headaches for all software houses, especially if they stick to the Treo 700 moniker regardless of OS...
(We should probably also mention in passing that the Palm OS (i.e. PalmSource) is now owned by Access, and that Palm Inc. has just been sued for it's Treo 600 and 650 phones.)
(and that we are not impressed by a phone with Windows Mobile 5.0, one megapixel camera, EV-DO, Bluetooth, 64MB of memory, and 320*320 pixel display.)
[via Palm Addict]
