[mdasen]

I think to be successful, Palm would have had to offer both a PDA and a smartphone. I think the problem was that Palm didn't have the resources to do both. Even when you look at something like the Palm Pre 2, you can kinda see that Palm hasn't been able to keep up. At a time when only the really low-end devices have 320x480 screens and 3.1" screens, the Palm Pre 2 gets introduced with those specs.

Apple has shown that there's a decent market for modern PDAs like their iPod touch. However, it's a bit harder to make something like an iPod touch due to the lack of subsidy. The iPod touch lags behind the iPhone because of that. The new iPod touch's display doesn't have IPS, it's rear camera is a paltry 1MP, etc. I'm guessing Apple's margins on it are probably lower too. Plus, I feel like I should point out that the iPod touch starts at $230, more than 50% over your $150 mark.

I think the smartphone space is a logical place to start. There's a reason why HTC, LG, Samsung, and Motorola have all created great Android smartphones and have left the PDA space to Apple. I'd love to see more devices without a monthly recurring charge. However, I think the smartphone space is a lot more profitable and I don't think that Palm had the ability back then to move against Apple's iPod touch. With HP backing them (and if HP is willing to risk it), they probably have the resources to try.

*Palm also hitched their wagon to Sprint which was, at the time, haemorrhaging customers. Verizon customers waited for the Droid line, T-Mobile customers already had Android devices, AT&T customers already had the iPhone, and Sprint customers probably knew that Palm wasn't going to create a second platform against Apple when Apple was on a more popular carrier and was, well, Apple. If Palm had been non-exclusive before the Droid, Droid Eris, and Hero came out, they might have done a lot better. But they thought they could do what Apple did and force users to a specific carrier - with the exception that Apple was forcing customers to the #1 or #2 carrier depending on the quarter while Palm was trying to force customers to the #4 carrier (based on net adds before their devices came out).

EDIT: Think about it this way: Apple is charging $200 for an iPhone with contract. They're charging $600 without a contract. There's a $400 difference there that AT&T is covering. Now, one could argue that Apple was trying to charge more for the no-contract phone, but really Google is selling the Nexus S no-contract for $530 so there's still a $330 difference. Anyway, a 3G radio isn't costing them $300-400 to add to the iPhone. The economics of high-end smartphones are more appealing than PDAs and that's a big reason why the Android manufacturers aren't paying much attention to it compared to what they're doing for phones.

[listic]

> iPod touch's display doesn't have IPS, it's rear camera is a paltry 1MP

Wow, I totally missed that, and I have a 4G iPod (my first Apple product). Apple must have evaded this fact really well; I assumed that those specs are the same as in iPhone. How did you know that?

[mgkimsal]

valid points - i meant to type $200, but for some reason was thinking of the nanos and other devices and got $150ish in my head.

The huge sales of the touch at $230+ make my point even more, though, in many ways. People are OK with spending a moderate amount of money on a decent device. We can't be expected to drop everything for the next 'mobile device' that requires 2 year contracts all the time. Yes, tech bloggers and a few ubergeeks can do this - most people can't and won't.

"There's a reason why HTC, LG, Samsung, and Motorola have all created great Android smartphones". I think it's because they're basically lazy and unimaginative. Having Android dropped in their lap means they can ride a bandwagon without having to spend as much on R&D - they can use that money for even more invasive "nascar/nfl" licensing deals to put non-removable widgets on the device homescreen! (yes, I'm more than a bit cynical about this).

I had had high hopes for Palm with the webOS was first launched, but saw them trying to play the 'me too' game by only offering mobile phones, which are tied to carriers, and bring a huge baggage with them - legions of people who will never leave or never use particular carriers.

It's all water under the bridge now, but if anyone had the ability to redefine the PDA space, it was Palm, if only because of the legacy of the name. Well, that tied with the relative boldness of webOS - I wanted one, but I didn't want to have to tie up thousands of dollars and years of my life with a particular company.

FWIW, I have done that with AT&T/iphone, but relatively late in the game, and opted for it only after I realized how poorly the pre was going to play out being tied to sprint. I occasionally travel overseas and couldn't deal with CDMA only, and also already had some family on AT&T and the 'free minutes' thing tipped the balance.

[mgkimsal]

re: contract phones.... they're still tied to carriers, no? I don't think I can use that no-contract iPhone on any other carrier than AT&T, can I? I really don't know. It's insulting to have to pay that 'subsidy' markup when in fact I can't use it on any other network anyway.

[technomancy]

You can use any unlocked tri-band GSM phone as a phone on any GSM networks, but many of them use different bands for 3G. In the US, the only other GSM provider is T-Mobile, which doesn't share AT&T's bands.