HP’s Abandoning TouchPad, WebOS Not Going Down Well In The Bunker

By Sunday August 21, 2011





32 Comments
  1. Dajestar says:
    8/22/2011 at 4:14 am

    These get old pretty quick if you understand German…..

    Reply
  2. Miguel says:
    8/22/2011 at 4:27 am

    I don’t understand German (yes, that makes them funnier) but saw the movie a couple times and understand what they’re saying. I always laugh at the new (predictable) ideas they put into Herr Fuhrer’s mouth. I hope they make a video about Portugal’s loss of the Sub-20 Soccer World Cup :)

    Reply
  3. MPL1 says:
    8/22/2011 at 4:54 am

    #21 Yeah, I had same problem then I used mute button.

    Reply
  4. What? says:
    8/22/2011 at 5:43 am

    #18, foobar, please continue to expound on your thoughts. I am interested. Is the increasing sophistication of these products creating development issues such that the costs of production, and delays, are going to eventually grind the wheels of innovation to a halt?

    #20, Uncle Dave, I don’t consider Mosiac sophisticated, Enterprise Class, software? Andreessen is making statments on that kind of product’s future.

    To me Moasic seems like little more than Microsoft WordPad, but loads “files” from network storage, and uses the idea of HyperText linking. Didn’t Xerox, or Douglas Engelbart, invent HyperText? Is he a “Real Programmer”?

    Just seems like Andreessen is another Vivek Kundra to me. Way above his head, but the sharks haven’t taken a bite. You think I’m wrong.

    Reply
  5. What? says:
    8/22/2011 at 5:56 am

    The real point is, to me, that Intrastructure is what binds hardware, software, and money together.

    And AT&T, comcast, Google, are all trying to limit the world in ways that make money for them.

    So, software as a moneymaker, is doomed if it is throttled by Intrastructure.

    And, I think software has become the bloated SUV of business. It isn’t efficient, (bandwidth hogging interfaces and throughput hogging software metaphores) but has become comfy, but hard to fix.

    But those are just my views.

    Reply
  6. Uncle Dave says:
    8/22/2011 at 7:10 am

    #24, What?: What browser in the early 90′s are you comparing it to that was more ‘sophisticated’? Lynx was text based.

    Although the concept of hypertext was first discussed in the 40′s, it was Ted Nelson who developed the first practical hypertext model.

    While you might not like Andreesen or what he said, he is considered an Internet pioneer who has the tech cred to say what he feels like.

    Reply
  7. The0ne says:
    8/22/2011 at 11:30 am

    Foobar

    I just want to develop apps for it because I like the WebOS and its “true” multitasking features. I’ve designed microcontrollers using the 68k Motorola CPU’s back in the days and loved it. Was hoping to find the same thing :D

    Reply
  8. foobar says:
    8/22/2011 at 1:38 pm

    Theone. That is always the best reason to write code. BTW I spent two years of my life writing 68k Assembler.

    No, I don’t have a drinking problem now.

    Reply
  9. foobar says:
    8/22/2011 at 1:55 pm

    What?

    1. Bloat. Think about Microsoft Word and the weird, incomprehensible complexity of it now. Multiply by that by the size of, say, Jupiter and you get the idea.

    2. Acquisitions. Most of that bloat was caused by acquisitions which means that there is a web on interconnectness between various parts that would make your socks roll up and down. Think about trying to jam PeopleSoft into Oracle. After 6 years it all works together seamlessly now, right?

    3. Customization. If you decide to buy a big package (say Siebel) then you’re better off pulling down your pants, bending over, and grabbing your ankles and saying “Ah, let’s do it the Siebel way”. Trying to customise these packages is like trying to dissect a blue whale with a scalpel. Only it would be 3000 consultants with scalpels. It’s better to just to change your company to work with the software, not the other way around. Of course, this means you are now a clone of your competitors.

    4. Vendors. Vendors start off being vendors which means that the contracts group negotiated for cheapest labor cost. Makes sense because you’re spending $100 millions on software so you should get a deal, right? Then school buses full of inexperienced kids show up and make a mess of things. Then more school buses show up with more kids who make it worse. You’re too far in at that point so have to start paying higher rates for the people who know something. And doubling or tripling your budget. And giving your vendor all your IP. At that point the “vendor” is now known as a “partner”. If they’ve taken over your IT department then they are a “strategic partner”.

    5. Vendors sleep with vendors. Don’t even get me started on that one.

    Reply
  10. What? says:
    8/22/2011 at 2:42 pm

    Interesting.

    I always think of complexity in terms of what I understand Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem to mean. The more one tries to create an axiomaticly complete system of software, the more likely that software is flawed in significant ways. You’ve shown the problem is that the systems of assembled axioms are from nearly incompatible paradimes. Sounds like fun.

    However, I have a mechanical engineering degree, so I’m a bit direct in my thinking.

    Reply
  11. What? says:
    8/22/2011 at 3:08 pm

    Uncle Dave:

    When I think of sophisticated software from the early 90s, I have in mind systems like the “Sabre® Global Distribution System” or the large hard-realtime systems created by some of my employeers.

    Browsers received a lot of undue attention, for what they were, IMHO.

    I accept you find Andreessen to be great guy, and am sorry my views are incompatible with yours.

    Reply
  12. foobar says:
    8/22/2011 at 3:18 pm

    What?

    IT Rule #1: There is always problem.
    IT Rule #2: No matter what you’re thinking, it’s always a people problem.

    Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 24230 access attempts in the last 7 days.