HP is entertaining the idea of licensing its webOS to other vendors. Or is this just an indication that HP has not sorted out its strategy for webOS?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/01/hp-ceo-idUSN0116927120110601It can be a good news for the industry. One more contender means more choices. But this is just on the surface. Windows Mobile has shown that OS licensing is not a lucrative business in the mobile phone industry. If webOS can collect US$10 a piece, a volume at 3.5 million units a quarter, which is roughly Windows Mobile's 2011-Q1 shipment, makes US$140 million a year. It does not seem to be a reasonable payback for the US$1.2 billion paid for acquiring Palm. It may not even be enough for the operation cost for the business unit. Google Android makes money from advertisement revenue, not licensing fees. What is the leverage that HP can get by licensing webOS out? In the meantime, HP has to make it cost-effective for device vendors to invest in webOS. How many vendors have the extra budget and human resource to take on another OS, chipset, and board support package integration? HP did not talk or hint on intellectual property indemnification. With Microsoft onto everyone who is licensing Andorid, that is also an issue HP has to address when going to partners. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsofts-next-cash-cow-android/12998
The talk from HP's CEO seems to be a spillover of internal disagreement on future directions. It has been a year since HP acquired Palm. There can be some pressure built up over what webOS can do for HP. But it is clear to me, licensing webOS out will not help HP, only to create distractions.
