Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. merouby's Avatar
    Posts
    4 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
       #1  
    If he 'kept' it in his pants....

    He would still be CEO....

    Palm would have never been disshelved and we would be looking at new Palm phones and newer Touchpads.

    Thanks Leo Apotheker (his last name means 'Pharmascist' in German). Must have been on Drugs himself!
  2. spud101's Avatar
    Posts
    868 Posts
    Global Posts
    876 Global Posts
    #2  
    That's a way too easy assumption.

    The main reason for failure is the lack of execution power of the remains of the old palm organisation. Many projects ongoing, hardly any delivering on time and quality. Any business man with common sense will pull the plug of such an underperforming organisation.

    I really doubt whether Mark would have been able to "tyrranise" the Palm organisation in "apple-style" to actually deliver all the good stuff we have been dreaming for the past few years...
  3. #3  
    Hummm... I agree with the title! Simple, and direct!! :lol:


    Best Regards...
    "If A Man Isn't Willing To Take Some Risk For His Opinions, Either His Opinions Are No Good Or He's No Good!" - Ezra Pound (Poet & Critic)
    (Happy A Lot, As A Good Carioca!)
  4. #4  
    What exactly does Mark Hurd keep in his pants, if not Information Technology...?
  5. #5  
    Leo was a scapegoat, the HP board was looking for a reason to get rid of Mark Hurd because they wanted to get out of the hardware business and follow the same path that IBM took. Come on, think about it, the board hired Leo because his philosophy of where HP should be was the direction they wanted to go. When it all blew up in their faces and the shareholders wanted someone's head, they gladly gave them Leos.
  6. merouby's Avatar
    Posts
    4 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
       #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by netwrkr9 View Post
    Leo was a scapegoat, the HP board was looking for a reason to get rid of Mark Hurd because they wanted to get out of the hardware business and follow the same path that IBM took. Come on, think about it, the board hired Leo because his philosophy of where HP should be was the direction they wanted to go. When it all blew up in their faces and the shareholders wanted someone's head, they gladly gave them Leos.
    Seems plausible. But i'd rather believe my theory as it's more romantic.

Posting Permissions