OT: HP rumoured to change CEO

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by JF Mezei, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. JF Mezei

    JF Mezei Guest

    http://allthingsd.com/20110922/excl...markets-close-and-not-for-the-interim-either/

    Thursday after close of Bell, Meg Whitman (ex Ebay) who is a board
    member at HP (since start of this year) is rumoured to become HP's new
    CEO and Apotheker will be shown the door after less than a year in office.


    What is the relevance to this newsgroup you ask ?

    Apotheker killed what HP had acquired from Palm. In fact, he wanted Hp
    out of the consumer business.

    Whitman has experience with consumers.

    The popularity of the HP tablet during the "going out of business sale"
    may have shown HP that there was potential for that product after all.


    So if/when Whitman does get named CEO and if she does bring back real
    leadership, innovation and agressive marketing in the consumer arena,
    don't discount the possibility of HP becoming a strong force in mobile
    phone/tables/devices.

    There are a lot of IFs in there. Only time will tell. But this is a
    heads-up.
     
    JF Mezei, Sep 22, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I can't figure out why people keep writing that.

    The popularity of a well-made tablet that costs $300 to make and is
    being SOLD FOR $99(!!) really doesn't say _anything_ about the
    commercial potential of the product.

    There are all kinds of things people will buy at 20% of retail that
    don't have a potential.

    (I'm not saying, by the way, that the HP tablet may not have been a
    good product. I'm just saying the fact that people bought it at fire
    sale prices doesn't indicate anything at all.)
     
    Doug Anderson, Sep 22, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. JF Mezei

    Lewis Guest

    However, the fact htat no one bouht it at its suggested retail price of
    $500 indicates a lot.
     
    Lewis, Sep 22, 2011
    #3
  4. Yes.

    There are those who maintain Apple's hardware is over-priced and one
    is paying this premium for style and for a nice operating system (not
    that style and a nice operating system aren't worth something in and
    of themselves).

    If that is really true for the iPad, then a competitor should be able
    to make some ground by providing comparable hardware for a
    considerably lower price. To me, that seems like the only possible
    way at the moment to get a sizable hunk of the tablet market.

    No one has been able to do it, which suggests to me (among other
    things) that iPad hardware isn't overpriced.
     
    Doug Anderson, Sep 22, 2011
    #4
  5. But, but, but that's logical. The following is from 9 to 5 mac:

    Apple is totally killing it and the company is seen retaining its 50+
    percent market share lead until 2014. Why? Apple's legendary ease of use,
    Gartner explains:

    Apple delivers a superior and unified user experience across its
    hardware, software and services. Unless competitors can respond with
    a similar approach, challenges to Apple's position will be minimal.
    Apple had the foresight to create this market and in doing that
    planned for it as far as component supplies such as memory and
    screen. This allowed Apple to bring the iPad out at a very
    competitive price and no compromise in experience among the different
    models that offer storage and connectivity options.

    Wow, some nice words there - and from a research firm, too! As for Android,
    about eleven million Android tablets should ship in the calendar year 2011
    for a 17.3 percent market share. And check out this quote on Google's
    software:

    Gartner has pared back its estimates for Android tablet sales in 2011
    by 28% over last quarter's projections, identifying extremely weak
    adoption due to high prices, user interface issues, and limited app
    offerings. Only some success in low-cost Asian markets and strong
    expectations for Amazon's forthcoming tablet kept Gartner from
    slashing projected Android device sales even further.
     
    Michelle Steiner, Sep 22, 2011
    #5
  6. Well, it would be interesting to see if an android tablet selling for
    $300 that was solidly built and no heavier or larger than an iPad
    could dent Apple's tablet business.

    But no one seems to be able to put that package together, which makes
    me thing the hardware costs are just too high to make a profit on a
    $300 tablet (at the iPad's hardware level).
     
    Doug Anderson, Sep 23, 2011
    #6
  7. Keep in mind that all the pundits were predicting that the iPad would start
    at $999, and how shocked they were when Apple produced it for $499.
     
    Michelle Steiner, Sep 23, 2011
    #7
  8. JF Mezei

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Apple is not likely to rest on its laurels, and it would be silly for us
    to do it for them. Their superior position not only can vanish
    rapidly, it WILL unless they maintain their progress. I'm convinced
    they would have collapsed if OS X had taken one year longer to roll out.
    And Microsoft is still hot on their tails.

    Note that even WITH the superiority of OS X over Windows 2000, it took
    the synergy of iPod/iTunes to really get it rolling.
     
    Wes Groleau, Sep 23, 2011
    #8
  9. JF Mezei

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Sooner or later, somebody will. Apple has to make sure that when
    somebody gets to where they are now, they aren't still there.
     
    Wes Groleau, Sep 23, 2011
    #9
  10. Yes, probably. But if HP or someone puts together a $300 tablet just
    as good as today's iPad in 2013, it won't likely be competitive with
    the iPad of 2013.
    Yes. That's something they generally seem to be good at.
     
    Doug Anderson, Sep 23, 2011
    #10
  11. JF Mezei

    JF Mezei Guest

    I think that one reason is that Apple was able to take it time
    develooping the ipad since there was nobody else out there. It was able
    to put the final finishing touches and lustre before announcing it.

    Once Apple launched the ipad, the other manufacturers didn't have the
    luxury of time and marketing pressures forced them to launch incomplete
    products. (RIM and HP in particular).


    BTW, it was confirmed tonight that Meg Whitman is now the new CEO at HP.
    (Leo Apotheker was fired uncemeniously with only $25 million in severance).

    Whitman, in a teleconference with analysts said that Apotheker's plans
    were solid and that he lacked in execution and this is where she was
    good at. HP is still "evaluating" what to do with WebOS. And still
    planning to spin off the PC business, but they would like the separate
    company to continue to use the HP brand.

    Whether the stated goals will remain goals for long, I don't know. But
    assuming she says the course, then HP should not be a threath to Apple's
    mobile product lines.
     
    JF Mezei, Sep 23, 2011
    #11
  12. JF Mezei

    JF Mezei Guest


    It isn't just the hardware and the OS. It's the applications.

    The iPad came with a wealth of iphone applications on day 1 and quickly
    built ipad versions of those apps. the ipad already has a huge ecosystem
    of applications.

    HP's tablet came with 0 ecosystem of applications. So it would require
    HP have long term support for this project. Considering Leo's short
    tenure of less than a year, I'd say shareholders don't have that sort of
    patience to see HP invest in building a mobile environment, so HP pulled
    out before it wasted more money.

    In other words, you either go in fully, or not at all. If HP wasn't able
    to go in fully, it would have had very little chance of success.

    In fact, HP might make more money developping enterprise applicatiosn
    for ipad which interface with its mainframes/servers.

    or perhaps develop pont of sales widgets that plug into the
    ipodtouch/ipad/iphone. etc.

    if you can't beat them, might as well join them.
     
    JF Mezei, Sep 23, 2011
    #12
  13. That's why someone will have to put the hardware and the OS together
    _and_ sell it for $300 instead of $500.
     
    Doug Anderson, Sep 23, 2011
    #13
  14. Perhaps, but that was also maybe its biggest weakness. (OK - it's
    second biggest weakness - the _biggest_ weakness was that it wasn't an
    iOS tablet!)

    Apps, and appeal to android hand-set owners is a plus.

    It isn't enough of a plus to overcome being the same price as an iPad
    though.
    I can believe this, but still: apps and appeal to android hand-set
    owners beat a slick OS with no apps and no base of familiarity.
    Sounds like fun.

    My iPad has enough capability so that I can use it (with a bluetooth
    keyboard) on work trips. I doubt I'd get that from any other device
    on the market now, but that has to do in part with specific software
    needs.
     
    Doug Anderson, Sep 23, 2011
    #14
  15. JF Mezei

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Well, they weren't doing it 1999 and earlier!
     
    Wes Groleau, Sep 24, 2011
    #15
  16. I'd count the first iMac as an example of doing that. 1998.

    And I think there are quite a few examples from earlier years of doing
    that, though I agree there was a dark period.
     
    Doug Anderson, Sep 24, 2011
    #16
  17. Because the price advantage isn't big enough.

    As I said above (it's been snipped), you aren't going to compete with
    the iPad by introducing something with comparable hardware and
    inferior software at the same price.
    I bet if it was $300 though (again, as I said above) that would be
    enough of a price advantage to make some inroads.

    Maybe not though. If I was going to buy something not quite as good
    as an iPad, a 25% savings wouldn't persuade me. A 50% savings would
    though. o
    Sure, but it wasn't competing with products that _did_ operate in
    familiar ways.
    I didn't know that anyone was making serious arguments about the number of
    apps. (Though I have seen pro-jailbreakers make that very silly
    argument. I'm a jailbreaker, but I certainly don't do it for the
    thousands of crappy apps.)
     
    Doug Anderson, Sep 24, 2011
    #17
  18. JF Mezei

    Wes Groleau Guest

    The first iMac (and the one I got in 2000) ran OS 9,
    at a time when “Windows crashes more than Mac†was
    no longer true. OS X saved Apple from oblivion,
    and if they had taken one more year to release it,
    it would have been too late.
     
    Wes Groleau, Sep 24, 2011
    #18
  19. JF Mezei

    Your Name Guest

    Here's one of those "interesting in hindsight" quotes. This was printed in
    the July 2011 issue (published in June) of the UK's MacFormat magazine ...

    "In the tablet world we're going to become better than
    number one. We will call it number one plus."

    - Eric Cador
    HP says it will beat Apple to top spot
    in the coming tablet wars.
     
    Your Name, Sep 24, 2011
    #19
  20. JF Mezei

    Your Name Guest

    Bollocks. With the exception of one or two flakey versions of System 7,
    there was nothing wrong with Mac OS 9 or earlier. Most crashes could (and
    still can) be traced to dodgey software from Microsoft as wellas Adobe and
    other companies lazy / stupid enough to use Microsoft libraires.

    In fact, early versions of Mac OS X were abysmally bad and Mac OS X is
    today *still* playing catch up to some of the feature in Mac OS 9 and
    earlier. The highly touted (and rather useless) "Lunchpad" is one such
    feature that existed in "Classic" versions of the Mac OS.
     
    Your Name, Sep 24, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.