Ad:
Palm vs MSFT - Gorilla and King, or Gorilla and Chimp?
Well, we certainly have no shortage of Palm critics/sceptics in the financial press. While I agree that Palm had better stay as paranoid about MSFT, the Pocket PC, and other competition as they reportedly were previously, I think this author's comparison with WP is misplaced, he should have written a comparison with Novell. WP sold out to Novell before Windows was really established, and Novell sneered at WIN 3.x and declined to develop a Windows version of WP. I bought into NOVL at the time (I used WP because all my corporate/legal clients used it), thinking that with their 90%+ lock on the enterprise network OS and their corporate sales force, they'd maintain or even increase WP's 60%+ market share. But their neglect of Windows was their undoing, and Windows NT undid the Netware OS as well. Corel was more "MSFT/Windows aware" than Novell, but they lacked a corporate/enterprise sales presence and were no match for MSFT. But it wasn't lack of application features that did WP in - I still use Corels office software, partly because I always have, partly because it's just as good as MS Office - it was abysmal sales and marketing to enterprise customers.
And on that score, I see no evidence that Palm has dropped the ball. They're partnered with heavyweights everywhere - amongst others MOT and NOK in the wireless area (missing ERICY but they'll get on board if Palm's OS becomes the de facto standard); in the service provider area with AOL and now DoCoMo; and in the enterprise market they're working with IBM, SUNW and ORCL. This last is an important factor IMO, ORCL's database software linked to handhelds running Palm's OS gives Palm the intro to the enterprise market where there are big $$, and Larry Ellison would work with anyone to get in Bill Gate's face. I'm surprised ORCL doesn't have an equity stake in Palm. It doesn't matter that MSFT owns the corporate OS, Palm and other handhelds will interface with the enterprise software applications, not the enterprise OS.
On the design front, it's clear that as a hardware platform, the Pocket PC is presently ahead of Palm in terms of processing power, memory, screen, and its capability to run more complex applications and multimedia. The capability to run MS Word, Excel etc. will be a factor for some people - it clearly is for you - but not for others, me included. As I've said before, I think Palm would be foolish to get into a feature war with MSFT based on Windows style applications and office software (one model provides all and one size fits all), because that's a battle Palm can't win, and that's what all this infantile taunting by MSFT is about. As for personalized applications, Palm has enough vertical market, personal, and niche applications to satisfy most users right now. Multimedia? I think we'll see this with the next generation Palm OS and hardware platform, maybe sooner than we think, because a more capable platform and OS (but still simple and robust) are going to be needed for the more sophisticated enterprise applications that are being developed. I think we'll see all kinds of new add-in features and capabilities via the SD slot (which will probably be in all Palm's next year if not sooner), which will allow users to personalize their Palm's even more to include some if not all of the stuff MSFT is bragging about.
And as for the Haskin WP article, check out his two earlier writings on this subject:
Pocket PC Makes Palm Vulnerable. Will Microsoft Respond? April 24, 2000
allnetdevices.com
Here Haskin says:
Nothing significant is likely to occur with the current Pocket PC vendors, Compaq, Hewlett-Packard and Casio, who are focused on old models of approaching the business market. That is, they sell primarily through their own channels and charge at least $100 more for their devices than Palm handhelds.
Pocket PC has far more compelling multimedia capabilities than Palm, but most businesspeople use their handhelds for personal information, not for playing audio and video. As a result, there's no reason most business uses would pay significantly more for a Pocket PC handheld that isn't, frankly, significantly better than a Palm for its primary use.
He goes on to say that the Pocket PC vendors have to do two things: get the price down to $200 for consumers (impossible in the near term IMO), and market aggressively to consumers. But that's where the margins are razor thin and unattractive to the likes of HWP, CPQ and others, and it ignores the enterprise market where there are big $$ to be made through the wireless services. Catch 22 for Pocket PC? Could be - they can't make it cheap enough for the consumer market and the business market wants and needs a customized solution.
The second Haskin article is: Is Pocket PC Taking a Tragic Turn? July 10, 2000
allnetdevices.com
Pocket PCs are more complicated to use than Palm handhelds, but their real problem is how much they cost. The beautiful screens and processing power that make them sophisticated computing platforms also make them as much as twice as expensive as Palm OS handhelds. Understanding Pocket PC's strengths, Microsoft has embarked on its logical but misguided "Can your palm do this" advertising campaign. This campaign aims at young people who can't afford the devices and ignores information technology folks who potentially could make the handhelds successful.
Which is precisely the point I made above. He also slams MSFT's subsidized marketing model and reaches the same conclusion as in the first article, namely that Pocket PC's have to come down in price.
So who will win this battle - MSFT with its cram it all in the box and in the software and then convince everyone that's what they want/need, or PALM's approach where they provide a simple, ultra-reliable platform and OS and let each user and each market customize the unit to suit their own needs? I have a mucho bet on Palm and none on MSFT right now.
David T.
P.S. As you can tell from my long response, a boring market day! |
