Access debuts ALP 3.0 and ALP mini, a scant 20 years too late

Leave it to Access to completely underplay the debut of one of the most anticipated mobile operating systems of the decade -- anticipation that's certainly waned, but we're sure somebody's at least a little excited. ALP 3.0 and ALP mini are about ready for mass consumption, with ALP mini available to licensees immediately, though no word yet on when ALP 3.0 will hit. From the sound of it, ALP 3.0 concentrates on a fancy, transition-filled smartphone OS, while ALP mini is more stripped-down and ready for featurephone use. Both operating systems are Linux-based, with some strange amalgam of Palm OS-ness, though ALP mini drops Garnet compatibility and can't run native Linux apps like big brother 3.0, which is LiMo compatible. NTT DoCoMo is planning ALP phones in the second half of 2009, that Edelweiss ALP phone for Russia has been outed, and we're still struggling to care.

[Dave D @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:06AM]

awesome.

[Priper @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:19AM]

For a moment there I thought Palm 2.0. Then I started playing Duke Nukem.....

[htd @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:40AM]

duke nukem forever?
is this the same company or somebody just revitalized it?

[Mobius_1 @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:19AM]

20 years is still faster than Palm's new OS.

[DoomGaZer @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:28AM]

What's with the 20 years crack? Somebody BGM'n about Linux/Unix not appearing on the very first cell phones ever made?

[Josh G @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:41AM]

Struggling to care? Why? This has some damned cool potential, and is quite possible to get it running on WinMo using HaReT.

But it's not Android, so you don't care? That just seems dumb to me. It's a new smartphone OS: how is that not good news?

[John P @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:43AM]

Engadget doesn't like when companies try to bring sexy back.

[WillHe @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:57AM]

Sexy? It looks dated.

Actually, it looks just like the Palm OS but with a better browser.

[Cardbored @ Oct 23rd 2008 12:20PM]

They must hate Justine Timberlake then

[Kevin @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:44AM]

I mean I know Android is just going to be the best things since sliced bread (mild sarcasm), but is it just me or do these screenshots look better than Android? Well, I'd really love to see a phone based on this OS just to have some sort of comparison.

Has Palm committed to this platform even? Or is this a platform looking for a home?

If Palm has NOT committed to the platform, are they just going WinMo only? What a way to NOT differentiate...

[Freakin Ijit @ Oct 23rd 2008 10:04AM]

> ...Has Palm committed to this platform even?...

Palm is committed to developing their OWN Linux for future devices - not Android, no ALP.

No, there isn't an obvious reason they are so committed.

[Jon Acheson @ Oct 23rd 2008 10:09AM]

Palm is still set on producing their own Palm OS, which is now due some time in 2009. If it ever arrives. Which at this point nobody cares if it does.

Since ALP is actually coming out on products that people can buy, I'd say they have found a home, and the NTT DoCoMo deal could be a breakthrough for the platform. That's a big market they're getting into.

I'm kind of surprised ALP isn't jumping on the Android bandwagon, but if they have companies buying their OS, why not go their own way?

[Freakin Ijit @ Oct 23rd 2008 11:29AM]

> ...the NTT DoCoMo deal could be a breakthrough for the platform. That's a big
> market they're getting into...

Docomo owns Access (or a very large part of it) thus the deal may not be as significant as if they were distinct corporate entities.

[UnixSystemsEngineer @ Oct 23rd 2008 12:06PM]

I must have been in a coma when 'everyone' was anticipating this. Never heard of it.

[john @ Oct 23rd 2008 12:11PM]

Too little, too late.

Palm and Access should just give up. They've given up their edge in the mobile OS arms race, and they should recognize that fact. They've also shown that they don't have the expertise to compete (with any amount of agility) in that space.

Throw in the towel, Palm should deliver hardware with other people's OSes and Access should deliver apps on other people's OSes.

Access: just develop PIM/Communication/Sync solutions to deliver on Android, Maemo, S60, iPhone, WinMo, SyncML, iSync, AirSync, RH Linux, Ubuntu, Mac OS, and Windows.

Palm: deliver mobile devices that runs Android and WinMo. Think about possibly adding S60 and Maemo, but really Android and WinMo should be good enough.

[qrius @ Oct 23rd 2008 12:19PM]

I agree w/ you.

[qrius @ Oct 23rd 2008 12:18PM]

"...ALP mini drops Garnet compatibility..."

after all that time, and the initial claim that it would be garnett compatible, I guess they couldn't pull it off.

[Freakin Ijit @ Oct 23rd 2008 1:09PM]

My reading of it is that "ALP mini" is more like an embedded OS, not a full-blown one.

So not being able to handle PalmOS apps doesn't sound like a negative for THAT version.

[Jon Acheson @ Oct 23rd 2008 3:07PM]

No, they pulled it off a year ago, when ALP first came out. They have a special Palm compatiblity layer that runs on their ALP OS.

They probably drop it for the mini ALP because of cost and lack of processing power and memory.

[Lefty @ Oct 23rd 2008 3:12PM]

Twenty years...!? Paul, that's just plain unreasonable. Twenty years ago--while ACCESS had actually been in business for five years already, as it happens--a hot computer was a Macintosh II (at $5,000, monochrome monitor not included). There was no such thing as WiFi, not to mention digital cell phones, so it's unclear what you're thinking we should have come out with back then...

And really: you cared enough to write the article, hm?

David "Lefty" Schlesinger
Director, Open Source Technologies
ACCESS Co., Ltd.

[Lefty @ Oct 24th 2008 11:40PM]

They probably drop it for the mini ALP because of cost and lack of processing power and memory.

Well, ALP Mini is aimed at smaller-footprint, slower CPU devices, as well as at mobile devices other than cellphones (e.g. cameras, personal navigation, etc.), where Garnet OS emulation isn't that important...