Page 15 of 22 FirstFirst ... 51011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 431
Like Tree137Likes
  1. #281  
    Quote Originally Posted by jrstinkfish View Post
    I don't think they are brilliant at all. I think it didn't make much sense in the first place to make a tablet based on an unknown, fledgling OS, when the fastest-rising mobile OS could barely move units. It likely was put out there because they felt they had to do something with webOS, not because they thought it had a chance in hell of succeeding.

    So I guess my point is that yes, they pulled the TP prematurely, but it was only a matter of time -- either fail now, or fail later, which is better?
    Back to Marketing 101. They are all trying to be like Apple instead of finding their own space, so they all deserve to be where they are. There are precious few examples in business where a challenger took on an entrenched brand and , on the cheap, were able to best them in the first battle.

    You have to offer something of value to expect sales - more functions, or a better price for equivalent function, or a much better price for a lesser device, or a device targeted at a specific function for a specialized use.

    The more I think about it, the more it seem like HP just assumed that if it rolled out a product and put it everywhere (scale), it would just sell itself.

    Apple owns the entertainment market and that always leads new tech sales success.

    The first business success on the internet were entertainment - Adult (not that I would know), gaming, and gambling.


    BTW - E-reader tablets are selling like hotcakes, everyone forgets that. Once you have the audience, you introduce a newer more capable model for just a little bit more. (see: the Kindle and the Nook)

    C
    "Sometimes I feel like an OS-less child..."
    (with apologies to Billie Holiday )
  2. #282  
    Push it or stop your nonsense, please. I don't answer to you here and my experience is real world. I could say that in the '90's I had a joint venture with DDB Needham or that I was SR VP/GM of a huge company and now a consultant, but I could be accused of BS.

    Or I could copy and paste a few lines from Wiki.

    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    That is as easy as pushing the report button but what would that accomplish? You have not yet posted your source for the definition and that would let you get off Scott free.

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
  3. #283  
    Quote Originally Posted by rnld View Post
    Push it or stop your nonsense, please. I don't answer to you here and my experience is real world. I could say that in the '90's I had a joint venture with DDB Needham or that I was SR VP/GM of a huge company and now a consultant, but I could be accused of BS.

    Or I could copy and paste a few lines from Wiki.
    I didn't post the link from Wikipedia. So I'm never going to get a link from you? However, since I have no reason to not believe you I will submit to your experience in the matter so this conversation will move on.

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
  4. #284  
    Quote Originally Posted by jrstinkfish View Post
    Yeah I never quite understood the thinking that "if only it had gotten more time ..."
    The other problem is the product is a cell phone and today cellphones don't get a lot of "time" in the market. That phone basically is on a one year life cycle and rally shorter since as soon as a new version is announced typically sales of the current model dramatically slow as people wait for the release date of a newer version. Just like how iphone 4 sales dramatically slowed in the months before the release as people waited. But point is with a roughly one year lifecycle you don't have 4 or 5 years to wait for something to catch on. Think about it. They announced the touchpad in Feb of 2011. Well Feb 2012 is less then a month away. Do we really think the Pre 3, Veer, and touchpad would all have taken off in a big way by next month had they continued? I kinda doubt it. And it be time for a new model announcement soon just to keep up with the yearly cycle of mobile products. Especially when you consider that most likely Apple, the leading tablet maker, will likely announce a new ipad in feb or march. And that's with the kindle fire entering the market. point is is the product only has a short time to catch interest before new products from other companies come along, or new products in your product line are expected.

    Quote Originally Posted by C-Note View Post
    True comments, but 60 days (it it was even that) was no time at all. Additionally, if HP (or anyone else) is not willing to adjust to the market place, then you are correct.


    Suddenly after dumping webOS, they are brilliant business executives.
    I don't know if 60 days was too quick but honestly, if you look at the Pre, pre+, pixi, veer, Pre 2 etc and look 60 days after release i'd bet in general you could pretty much accurately predict where sales where going. Maybe the original pre took 3 months before sell through started to decline but it's not like with any of their other products after 60 days they took off with the public so though a short period i can understand why they'd cut losses since every other webos product hasn't taken off.

    As for adjusting to the market i think the real issue is HP had been had declining earnings in PSG quarter after quarter do to things like the growth of tablets and declining pc sales generally and that was without webos. Webos devices were meant to change the declining profits or at least the direction. Not in 4 or 5 years but now. I think it at least wanted it to break even. It didn't stop the losses or break even. Webos just made them lose more.

    Brilliant? I not sure anyone really thinks HP execs are brilliant at much of anything.
    You come at the king. You best not miss.
  5. #285  
    Quote Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
    I don't know if 60 days was too quick but honestly, if you look at the Pre, pre+, pixi, veer, Pre 2 etc and look 60 days after release i'd bet in general you could pretty much accurately predict where sales where going. Maybe the original pre took 3 months before sell through started to decline but it's not like with any of their other products after 60 days they took off with the public so though a short period i can understand why they'd cut losses since every other webos product hasn't taken off.

    As for adjusting to the market i think the real issue is HP had been had declining earnings in PSG quarter after quarter do to things like the growth of tablets and declining pc sales generally and that was without webos. Webos devices were meant to change the declining profits or at least the direction. Not in 4 or 5 years but now. I think it at least wanted it to break even. It didn't stop the losses or break even. Webos just made them lose more.
    1) What did they do differently after the original Pre? Nothing, hence my comments about a failure of management.

    If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result....

    Where were the different form factors? Something MANY (though not all) here wanted. That would explain, as you commented on, the diminishing returns on subsequent models. They were essentially selling the same model to the same audience... those who didn't like the original version and chose not to buy it.

    Remember, on a two year contract, even the June 2009 folks were not ready to re-up until just this summer. And for those on the Sprint one year plan, what new phone was available for them? Nada.

    So selling basically the same product form factor into a market that had only a modest number of those who liked that style is NOT adjusting. And I like the style myself, but even I knew that they needed variety, you can look up my posts.

    2) The desire to change their fortunes quickly is understandable, but isn't that HP's fault for being so slow to read the tea leaves? When did Google start their Android initiative? (Answer: 2005 on a company founded in 2003)
    When did Google start getting traction with Android (Answer:2009 at best, actually more like 2010)

    Like the old poster says: Life is hard. It's harder when you are stupid.

    I think I made the 'HP wanted quick profits' argument in a different post, and got jumped on my people says that was not the problem. But I tend to agree with you.

    In any case, how did the 'bailing out' thing work out for them?

    C
    "Sometimes I feel like an OS-less child..."
    (with apologies to Billie Holiday )
  6. #286  
    Google itself does not make phones, correct? They just have the Android OS.

    HP entered the tablet market with their own software and hardware. Their expectations were way too high, they over shipped and completely took a bath when it didn't sell with all the stock sitting there at retail.

    In my opinion, their expectations were way too lofty in initial sales. There was no real turning back at that point.
  7. #287  
    The drama surrounding the TouchPad has been fascinating to me. I think someone can write a book on this mess. What upsets me is the lack of information we have on this. The information we do get, whether good or bad, is contradicted by yet another story on the issue. Right now we are all just speculating on why HP initially killed the device and webOS as a whole. The only people who truly know what went on are the ex-CEO and members of the board. I remember that the senior executives at HP did not tell any of their employees from VPs down, their developers, or none of their suppliers about their decision until the morning of the earnings report. I would be more interested to hear what happened to cause it to flop from the people at the top so we can all quit speculating.
  8. #288  
    WebOS was not a core HP business and when it showed quick signs of consumer indifference, why keep pumping good money after bad?

    49 days is a short run until the Best Buy mega return is added into the scenario.
  9. #289  
    Quote Originally Posted by rnld View Post
    Google itself does not make phones, correct? They just have the Android OS.

    HP entered the tablet market with their own software and hardware. Their expectations were way too high, they over shipped and completely took a bath when it didn't sell with all the stock sitting there at retail.

    In my opinion, their expectations were way too lofty in initial sales. There was no real turning back at that point.
    I agree. Why did they ship 270,000 tablets to Best Buy in the first 2 months? That didn't make any sense. None of their competitors were making a dent in the iPad's lead after being on the market for a lot longer than the TouchPad. They had to have had an idea on what the sales figures were for the Android tablets on the market prior to the TouchPad's release. They should have tailored there expectations towards those figures.
  10. #290  
    Quote Originally Posted by rnld View Post
    WebOS was not a core HP business and when it showed quick signs of consumer indifference, why keep pumping good money after bad?

    49 days is a short run until the Best Buy mega return is added into the scenario.
    Yet HP was building a mobile strategy around webOS. They were talking about it being difficult at first until the product line matured. They were the ones who said that it was not going to be a sprint, but a marathon. Then they tuckered out before they even lost sight of the start line. I can understand not pumping good money after bad, but they should have known what the costs would be like. Don't they pay people to figure this stuff out before hand and conduct a detailed risk analysis prior to producing the product? It seems that their strategy was so flawed that it could not absorb the cost of one failed device after just 60 days.
  11. #291  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    I agree. Why did they ship 270,000 tablets to Best Buy in the first 2 months? That didn't make any sense. None of their competitors were making a dent in the iPad's lead after being on the market for a lot longer than the TouchPad. They had to have had an idea on what the sales figures were for the Android tablets on the market prior to the TouchPad's release. They should have tailored there expectations towards those figures.
    They had good reviews, a good ad campaign, Best Buy on board - they went for it.

    What is unknown is what Best Buy's billing cycle was and if they got out in time they wouldn't pay for the units.
  12. #292  
    Quote Originally Posted by rnld View Post
    They had good reviews, a good ad campaign, Best Buy on board - they went for it.

    What is unknown is what Best Buy's billing cycle was and if they got out in time they wouldn't pay for the units.
    Hmm. I wondered if none of the other tablets were selling well either, why did BestBuy single out the TouchPad? Deep down in the back of my mind I thought that someone or some policy at HP must have upset them.
  13. #293  
    Quote Originally Posted by LizardWiz View Post
    ...exactly, what they did was drop the price by 1/3. I remember it vividly because I got into a failure argument with someone over it. Here is how it went...

    Him: You think that the iPhone was a complete failure?
    Me: No I didn't say that, what I said was that it FAILED to meet sales expectations as evidenced by the fact that they lowered the price point by 1/3 after just 2 months.
    Him: How could you say that it was a total failure when it is the most fastest selling phone of all time?
    Me: Well, it s obvious that it didn't sell as much as they thought it would. They lowered the price by 1/3 because they obviously priced it wrong. They FAILED to reach their sales goals at that price point.
    Him: How can you say the iPhone is a complete failure?
    Me: You are kind of an ***** aren't you?
    Apple didn't lower the price on the iPhone. You are totally WRONG!

    What Apple did was they stopped selling the phone for full price to the consumers and switched it around and sold the iPhone full price to the carriers and the carriers resold the iPhone to consumers at a cheaper price with the two year contract attached.

    The original iPhone started at $599 and today the carriers are still buying the iPhone from Apple for around $599. iPhone price was never lowered.
  14. #294  
    Quote Originally Posted by rnld View Post
    Google itself does not make phones, correct? They just have the Android OS.

    HP entered the tablet market with their own software and hardware. Their expectations were way too high, they over shipped and completely took a bath when it didn't sell with all the stock sitting there at retail.

    In my opinion, their expectations were way too lofty in initial sales. There was no real turning back at that point.
    That makes it even more intriguing. They (Google) sink MILLIONS into a mobile OS with no hope of direct profit. Because they see where the future lies and put themselves in a position to profit over the long term. And HP does not, apparently. Guess they think they will be selling the same type of desktops and laptops forever.

    Not many other companies could do the same. It would have to a company with tentacles in other areas which could benefit from intelligently linked activity on the mobile side:

    Google -advertising
    Microsoft - Business and consumers OS, software and now gaming
    HP - consumer and business computers, software services, printers

    There may be one or two others, but none come immediately to mind. Maybe a Facebook, but if they jump on, I'll jump off.

    But HP didn't do it and Microsoft has not yet figured out how to. Its why I don't have hope for some savior to swoop in and save everything. There is no 'one-trick-pony' (a company which makes only phones or tablets) who can make it in this environment.

    And, yes, given that they had no distinguishing features to their tablet as compared to the competition, thinking they would sell more than anyone else was bizarre at best.

    C
    Last edited by C-Note; 01/05/2012 at 05:01 PM.
    "Sometimes I feel like an OS-less child..."
    (with apologies to Billie Holiday )
  15. #295  
    Quote Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
    Apple didn't lower the price on the iPhone. You are totally WRONG!

    What Apple did was they stopped selling the phone for full price to the consumers and switched it around and sold the iPhone full price to the carriers and the carriers resold the iPhone to consumers at a cheaper price with the two year contract attached.

    The original iPhone started at $599 and today the carriers are still buying the iPhone from Apple for around $599. iPhone price was never lowered.
    U.S. carriers have been subsidizing phone sales for almost 2 decades now. You are probably right, the cost the carrier pays Apple did not go down, but the cost to the consumer did. When a new product is introduced by a carrier, the price is set on how much the carrier thinks they can recoup from the consumer. Phones that the carrier think will be popular or cost more for the carrier to buy usually get priced higher. The price usually stays high if the unit is selling well and remains that way until a better phone is released or the carrier has a sales event. From the looks of this, the unit stopped moving as well as someone (Apple or the carrier) thought and the only way to continue moving units at an acceptable pace was to drop the price to the consumer, making the product look more affordable.
  16. #296  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    Hmm. I wondered if none of the other tablets were selling well either, why did BestBuy single out the TouchPad? Deep down in the back of my mind I thought that someone or some policy at HP must have upset them.
    We don't know the amount in stock of of the other tablets and what other leverage with other product those companies had.

    Retailers like to keep a 6 week supply tops in their chains. The way the touchpad was selling and the claimed decline, they had maybe 2 years worth in stock.
  17. #297  
    Quote Originally Posted by rnld View Post
    We don't know the amount in stock of of the other tablets and what other leverage with other product those companies had.

    Retailers like to keep a 6 week supply tops in their chains. The way the touchpad was selling and the claimed decline, they had maybe 2 years worth in stock.
    Why didn't BestBuy honor the rebates on the product by HP? That would have helped them move some of their inventory.
  18. #298  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    U.S. carriers have been subsidizing phone sales for almost 2 decades now. You are probably right, the cost the carrier pays Apple did not go down, but the cost to the consumer did. When a new product is introduced by a carrier, the price is set on how much the carrier thinks they can recoup from the consumer. Phones that the carrier think will be popular or cost more for the carrier to buy usually get priced higher. The price usually stays high if the unit is selling well and remains that way until a better phone is released or the carrier has a sales event. From the looks of this, the unit stopped moving as well as someone (Apple or the carrier) thought and the only way to continue moving units at an acceptable pace was to drop the price to the consumer, making the product look more affordable.
    I don't think it was ever said what the real reason was. People were just guessing, as usual.

    But, knowing Apple's history of doing everything on their own. It seems they recognized that with smartphones, they will have to do like every other phone manufacturer and sell the phone to the carrier and let the carrier resell it to the consumer at the cheaper price. Because, at least in the US, people are accustomed to buying subsidized phones on contract and not paying for them outright.
  19. #299  
    Quote Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
    I don't think it was ever said what the real reason was. People were just guessing, as usual.

    But, knowing Apple's history of doing everything on their own. It seems they recognized that with smartphones, they will have to do like every other phone manufacturer and sell the phone to the carrier and let the carrier resell it to the consumer at the cheaper price. Because, at least in the US, people are accustomed to buying subsidized phones on contract and not paying for them outright.
    It is a guess, but given the letter from Steve Jobs it probably isn't that far off to believe. I believe your second paragraph is spot on.
  20. #300  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    Why is it that when a company (HP, RIM, Google) says that they are not going after the same market as another company (Apple), their products are constantly compared to the other company on everything (market share, apps, pricing) by both tech journalist and folks here. But when that other company (Apple) is compared to someone else (Microsoft, Google) in a market that they do not dominate, claim to not be going after, but clearly are, folks like you say "they are not going after the same customers"? It's alright for Apple and not alright for everyone else? Why, because Apple doesn't dominate that market? That is pure and total B.S.. Apple was going after the general consumer market during that time period. They marketed products directly towards the average consumer just like everyone else. Was the iMac an attempt to sell a BMW like product? No it wasn't.

    The problem was that prices for PC was in a steady decline due to competition in the market place and Apple found itself with a similar product at a much higher price. They refused to drop that price and they lost market share quickly. They then scrambled to differentiate their products from the competition by fabricating a higher value. Even PCs that have the exact same specs as Mac are a lot cheaper. The thing with the Mac is that there are no low end Macs to drive the cost down or soil the user experience.
    When has the HP TouchPad, Pre Phones, RIM Blackberrys and PlayBook, and any Google device ever said they were not competing with the iPhone or iPad?

    Apple and Microsoft are not the same. Microsoft sells software that will install on any GENERIC PC. Apple didn't do that. So, they are going to have totally different results. Something that is expensive is not going to sell as much as something that is cheap. That is just common sense.

    Something else, it's not Apple's 5% marketshare against 500+ clone maker's 95%. It's more Apple against HP. Apple against Dell. Apple against Toshiba, etc.

    The one thing Apple didn't do is lower their prices. They are still more expensive than the average PC manufacturer making a ton of money and a sky high stock price. Oh, and $80+ billion in the bank.

Posting Permissions