I didnt say licensees didn't have to pay m$. You have to pay a per device royalty and that's fine. They just don't make you pay an initial large fee and a contract guaranteeing a minimum amount of royalties. I guess palm didnt want to dilute the market but I say let the companies fight it out and the best will rise to the top.
Palm is limiting itself by only have a few major licensees, one of which pulled out of the U.S. market. They are bascially down to one major licensee at this point so why did they even bother spinning off?
Branch out into things like media players and laptop replacements.
Trejkaz Xaoza wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 04:13, mike margerum wrote:
I just dont understand their licensing strategy. Why not license it to
anyone who wants to build devices around it without ridiculous startup
fees and minimum sales contracts. I can download m$'s platform builder
and start building devices today.
If you want to argue licencing, surely Linux is the way to go. I mean, I can download that, start building devices, and start _selling_ the devices, without paying anyone.
TX
- -- Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Web site: http://xaoza.net/
Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBj+C8uMe8iwN+6nMRAp6JAJ4oXDkBrYj52S3mrqHESP0Cw19+SgCfWgVr V4j+54L+6wRfm+UDCaPjyxo= =4SiQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
