Page 16 of 22 FirstFirst ... 61112131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 431
Like Tree137Likes
  1. #301  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    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.
    Not that it matters to anything but, the letter clearly shows that they LOWERED the price 1/3. It was not carrier subsidy, Stev Jobs lowered it because the $599 price point was too high for the initial amount of sales they wanted. This was a brilliant strategy to get the units moving to ensure the future o the product, what is NOT a brilliant strategy is to stimulate sales by discontinuing/fireselling the product...

    Again, I will quot the pertinent part of the Jobs letter:
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Jobs
    First, I am sure that we are making the correct decision to lower the price of the 8GB iPhone from $599 to $399, and that now is the right time to do it. iPhone is a breakthrough product, and we have the chance to 'go for it' this holiday season. iPhone is so far ahead of the competition, and now it will be affordable by even more customers. It benefits both Apple and every iPhone user to get as many new customers as possible in the iPhone 'tent'. We strongly believe the $399 price will help us do just that this holiday season.
  2. #302  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    I'm not mad at you but you need to back your stuff up with facts or move on. Facts help the conversation.
    I can't help but find this post you made earlier...

    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    I did mean to be deceiving on that post. Things get murky when you start talking mobile platform numbers. Even I get lost. When strictly talking about tablets, the iOS devices outnumber Android devices and webOS devices by a large number. Android devices outnumber webOS devices, but the TouchPad was the number two device behind the iPad.

    Android is not making good in roads into the tablet market. Hardware makers are fighting each other for scraps left over by people who don't want to own or can't afford to own an iPad.

    Android dominates the smart phone market. I think that dominance is hurting Android in the tablet market because developers aren't making tablet apps for Android. They are focusing strictly on phone apps. HP did something right with webOS and Enyo to give the TouchPad one heck of a head start against Android with tablet apps. Until Android closes the gap on tablet apps I think it is going to stay far behind Apple in sales.

    BTW, individual model sales matter to hardware makers more than it matters to me.
    You admitted to be deceiving, but you want to call someone else out for not being factual?
  3. #303  
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Note View Post
    I'm not at all an Apple hater, but k4evers analysis was brilliant in this case. I was there, my wife's engagement ring was paid for on the strength of Apple in the business world (primarily education and business).

    They were absolutely going after the business market as hard as anyone else. Anyone remember the Videx keyboard converters to allow an Apple II to do upper and lower case? Or the co-processors to allow you to use say CP/M on their stock 6502 processor? We sold those by the ton, to businesses.

    Probably don't remember the Apple Lisa. I worked on consumer testing of that product. it was about $6,000 (in 1980's money) and it was all business, not home user could afford it.

    They all failed for various reasons, but I don't fault them for that. Ever company blunders, the good ones improve. By the early 90's, most Apple computer were relegated to the graphics arts departments in most companies. In my unit there were 50 PC for every Mac.

    Here is where Apple was brilliant (or lucky, depending on your personal bias). Rather than saying "well, since our strongest market is the design house market, let drop all of our consumer offerings and just make higher end (read: higher margin) design workstations" they continued on, recognizing that the future was bigger than just arts departments. (Otherwise they would be where Sun computers are or perhaps Wang computers)

    HP however, despite saying that the future is in mobile tech is doing just that. Apple didn't drop their business philosophy, they just tweaked it until it worked.

    C
    I was talking more about today not what happened back in the 80s.

    But, the one thing Apple didn't do was sell cheap computers. They continued and still do sell computers that cost more than the competition. They still go for the premium customer.
  4. #304  
    I can't help but find this post you made earlier...



    You admitted to be deceiving, but you want to call someone else out for not being factual?

    The n't was missing from the word. No one means to deceive someone else and outright admits it. I could make the correction but it probably wouldn't matter.


    ---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)
  5. #305  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    Fail later. At least you can say you gave it your best. No one will fault you for it but when you give up early everyone calls you a quitter. That is as bad a label to have as a business as it is to have as an individual.

    Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
    HP's bread and butter is selling PCs, servers, and printers. In my company every computer, server, and printer has an HP label on it.

    In the next two years when it is time to upgrade, no one is going to say let's go buy Dell because HP quit on the TouchPad and I will guarantee that just about 90% plus of all staff that make IT buying decisions are going to do the same exact thing not giving two cents to the fact that HP quit on the TouchPad.

    This is another example of someone making something seem bigger than what it really is.
    rnld likes this.
  6. #306  
    HP's bread and butter is selling PCs, servers, and printers. In my company every computer, server, and printer has an HP label on it.

    In the next two years when it is time to upgrade, no one is going to say let's go buy Dell because HP quit on the TouchPad and I will guarantee that just about 90% plus of all staff that make IT buying decisions are going to do the same exact thing not giving two cents to the fact that HP quit on the TouchPad.

    This is another example of someone making something seem bigger than what it really is.
    No, you made that seem bigger than it was. Do you think that anyone would buy an HP tablet after this fiasco, Windows or webOS, without questioning HP's commitment?


    ---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)
  7. #307  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    No, you made that seem bigger than it was. Do you think that anyone would buy an HP tablet after this fiasco, Windows or webOS, without questioning HP's commitment?


    ---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)
    This is a blip on the HP radar.
  8. #308  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    No, you made that seem bigger than it was. Do you think that anyone would buy an HP tablet after this fiasco, Windows or webOS, without questioning HP's commitment?


    ---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)
    If it is another generic Windows 8 tablet device that happens to be made by HP, sure people will buy it just as easily as they would buy any of the other generic Windows 8 devices out there.

    If it's WebOS device, people would probably say why should I buy that over an iOS, Android, or Windows 8 device.

    BUT, for a different perspective, I just texted my cousin who is a 30 something female that is a nurse that is college educated. I asked her if she knows what WebOS is. She didn't know. Probably 95% of the population doesn't know that HP cancelled the TouchPad or that it used WebOS. So, I don't think they would care when it was time to buy a tablet in the future.

    What HP needs to do is come up with that magic combination of price, features, advertising, etc to get people to buy their product over the competition.
  9. #309  
    If it is another generic Windows 8 tablet device that happens to be made by HP, sure people will buy it just as easily as they would buy any of the other generic Windows 8 devices out there.

    If it's WebOS device, people would probably say why should I buy that over an iOS, Android, or Windows 8 device.

    BUT, for a different perspective, I just texted my cousin who is a 30 something female that is a nurse that is college educated. I asked her if she knows what WebOS is. She didn't know. Probably 95% of the population doesn't know that HP cancelled the TouchPad or that it used WebOS. So, I don't think they would care when it was time to buy a tablet in the future.

    What HP needs to do is come up with that magic combination of price, features, advertising, etc to get people to buy their product over the competition.
    Ask someone what iOS is and they will probably give you the same answer, but they would know what an iPhone was, so not a good point. Doing the research to buy a new HP tablet and you stumble on a story on how this is not HP's first (or second) tablet and they abandoned the last one after two months of sales and you begin to wonder. But hey, the tech industry may be short on memory since everyone seems to have forgotten or brushed over Apple's hard times since they finally have product that sell well again.


    ---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)
  10. #310  
    No, she knows what iOS is because she wanted to know more about iCloud for her iPod Touch.

    I really don't think that BestBuy or Amazon talks about HP's failed WebOS tablet when consumers go to look for a new tablet to buy.

    What does Apple back in the day of selling expensive Macs that didn't sell well have to do with today?

    Back in the mid 80s Hyundai sold a product called the Hyundai Excel. It was a piece of ****. Today they are selling cars that people actually like. Point being the masses don't go back in time to see how a company failed to see what to buy today. They look at what is available today to make their purchasing decisions.

    Maybe you will start looking at things from the point of view of the masses and not your narrow view. It's the masses that companies are after, not YOU.
  11. #311  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    snip...HP was well suited for that market and Apple was not which would have leveled the playing field in their competition with each other. Slowly introduce consumer related services and apps (like they are doing now) and prosumers would have rejoiced from getting more use out of the device instead of dealing with consumers saying "it's about time" or "it's too late".
    Sorry, but by the time the touchpad came out, the iPad was already making inroads into the enterprise.
    Citrix
    RSA
    Numerous document editing apps
    Salesforce
    Onenote
    Good for Enterprise
    Manage devices in the enterprise:
    Airwatch
    Mobile Iron
    Boxtone
    Just do a search for ios in business.
    ios Business Apps

    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    snip... They are still way behind Windows PCs today despite the resurgence. Great superior products, poor management (until Jobs regained control of the company), non-existent or little advertisement, not successful (4% of market share vs 90%).
    What's more important, market share or profit? Android has market share but Apple takes home more than half of the mobile profits. In regard to computers, Apple makes a healty profit of that business, so in the end, what is of more value, market share or profit? Apple is now worth more than Microsoft. For a very brief time this year they were worth more than Exxon.
  12. #312  
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Note View Post
    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
    on point 1) i'd largerly agree. Many, especially hear liked the form factor. Especially those that came from treos. But me i tolerated the vertical slider. The pre 2 was more of the same and the pre 3 had zero chance from the second i saw it. it was a large pre minus to me. Honestly i had decided i wasn't sticking with webos probably 8 months prior to them even announcing the pre 3 based on feeling that webos didn't fit my needs but that aside, my point is even seeing the Pre 3 it felt just like more of the same. OS appeared largely the same and that idea always hurt the products for me. And the veer, a mini more of the same put it over the top in the "i've had enough category." But i think at first glance that hurts it with the non webos loyalists too. And i think you make a valid point about largely catering to the people that already liked the pre. Problem is for a consumer product that needs to expand it's user base that's a bit of a problem.

    as for point 2) One thing to note is PSG was 1/3 of HP revenue but was, for quite some time, years, a declining percentage of their profits. People think HP's problems started with Leo but HP had been having issues before Hurd even got their. Every quarter wasn't bad but psg was declining. From the questionable decision to buy compaq to the mere fact that people where simply buying less computers. Couple that with the declining economy and they had a division that looked kinda like RIMM in the since that it wasn't unprofitable but it was headed in the wrong direction. It was like a boat with a dead engine slowly drifting towards a waterfall. I mean even RIMM can go on for a long time even declining because people still by a crap load of blackberries. They just don't buy them like they buy iphones and Android has stolen their market share. HP just wanted something to stop PSG from bleeding profits. What the didn't want was some 5 year multibillion dollar investment with no guarantee of profit.

    But as for your questions i think HP read the tea leaves for the most part i just don't think there is anything they can do about declining pc sales a bad economy any more the Best Buy can get people to buy more CDs now. Well other then the obvious which is make sexier laptops but that's not gonna cure everything. HP needed growth. 2/3rds of hp, imaging and psg, were largely and likely permanently stagnant. Webos was supposed to be growth and i think they just looked at it and calculated the cost and made an estimate that it wasn't gonna actually grow bigger and they cut it loose.

    But i would draw a distinction between hp and google because google was a search company that makes cloud software and they were making software. Where as HP was a hardware company, with no (that i can think of) notable consumer software products trying to crack a software business with an OS. it's a new thing for them. And android was looking to license from the beginning. Palm was under the flawed impression that they could execute without licensing. From early on i thought they should license it (partly because as i stated above i didn't really like the pre form factor). But that's in the past. Also one of the reason HP didn't want to license it originally is because HP's goal is still to sell the hardware. Interesting since Google's goal in Android originally was not to profit off the OS but to get a foothold in online search, though studies have shown that it hasn't worked. I think there is merit to the IBM comparison because both them and HP were in same business and had the same goals.
    You come at the king. You best not miss.
  13. kalel33's Avatar
    Posts
    280 Posts
    Global Posts
    281 Global Posts
    #313  
    Quote Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
    When the iPod came out back in 2001 no other MP3 player on the market at that time had all that the original iPod had in one, one, ONE MP3 player.
    You mean like expandable memory, battery replacement, FM radio, able to play multiple formats, cheaper than $400, Windows compatible(first gen was not), USB compatible for those who don't own firewire. onboard recording, and equalizer. Other players out there had all that, which the Ipod did not have. It goes both ways when you make statements like that.
  14. #314  
    No, she knows what iOS is because she wanted to know more about iCloud for her iPod Touch.

    I really don't think that BestBuy or Amazon talks about HP's failed WebOS tablet when consumers go to look for a new tablet to buy.

    What does Apple back in the day of selling expensive Macs that didn't sell well have to do with today?

    Back in the mid 80s Hyundai sold a product called the Hyundai Excel. It was a piece of ****. Today they are selling cars that people actually like. Point being the masses don't go back in time to see how a company failed to see what to buy today. They look at what is available today to make their purchasing decisions.

    Maybe you will start looking at things from the point of view of the masses and not your narrow view. It's the masses that companies are after, not YOU.
    My aunt owned an Excel and it was a POS, but it was $5000 at the time and Hyundai sold a lot of them. It gave Hyundai a reputation for not selling quality cars. I bought a Hyundai Accent in the late 1990's. I didn't want to buy it, given Hyundai's reputation, but my wife was in college and we couldn't get financing for anything else new. It was the only car I ever owned that I never had a problem with. I still quickly replaced it once she graduated and started her career but I never forgot how well it ran. Fast forward to today when I can afford a BMW as a second car, but because I'm frugal and helping my kids through college, I opted for a compact car. I had a lot of choices, but I ended up buying a Hyundai Elantra GS instead of the Ford Focus or Chevy Cruze. Why? Because Hyundai decided a few years back to warranty their cars for 10 years. So yes, I agree that Hyundai is making cars good looking cars now, I own one. However, Hyundai's are popular because of the warranty. There is really nothing else special about them when compared to the competition. They have always been inexpensive and have had good quality as of late.

    I want webOS to succeed because I believe it is a good OS that has some good features no other OS has. Problem is I don't think you or some of the others here do. That's alright, that's your opinion but please respect the opinion of others. There shouldn't be fights on webOS Nation every time someone says they like something about webOS. This is a webOS community. It has a narrowed focus, not narrow minded people. We want to see it grow and take constructive criticism on the OS.


    ---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)
  15. #315  
    Quote Originally Posted by sinsin07 View Post
    What's more important, market share or profit? Android has market share but Apple takes home more than half of the mobile profits. In regard to computers, Apple makes a healty profit of that business, so in the end, what is of more value, market share or profit? Apple is now worth more than Microsoft. For a very brief time this year they were worth more than Exxon.
    Apple was brilliant in that respect --

    1. Convince the world that your products, that use the same parts as Windows PCs, are superior
    2. Command a higher price because of #1
    3. Profit like crazy

    They've pulled off this scam better than high-end gaming PC manufacturers (you WILL pay more for a custom paint job, sucker!). Yeah, I'm a Mac owner, my first real PC was the first Power Mac back in the early 90s, but I'm more in love with the OS than the Apple brand. I find Windows 7 to be ugly and awkward.

    As for Hyundai, I was tempted earlier this year after test driving a Genesis Coupe. Sweet car that apparently thinks your back-seat passengers will be no taller than 5'2". Went with some American muscle instead
  16. #316  
    Quote Originally Posted by jrstinkfish View Post
    Apple was brilliant in that respect --

    1. Convince the world that your products, that use the same parts as Windows PCs, are superior
    2. Command a higher price because of #1
    3. Profit like crazy

    They've pulled off this scam better than high-end gaming PC manufacturers (you WILL pay more for a custom paint job, sucker!). Yeah, I'm a Mac owner, my first real PC was the first Power Mac back in the early 90s, but I'm more in love with the OS than the Apple brand. I find Windows 7 to be ugly and awkward.

    As for Hyundai, I was tempted earlier this year after test driving a Genesis Coupe. Sweet car that apparently thinks your back-seat passengers will be no taller than 5'2". Went with some American muscle instead
    Ha! I love it. People will pay more for an item if there is a "perceived" value in it, not necessarily a real value. I can't fault Apple because people want to pay more for their devices then they are worth. I just get tired of those people trying to convince me that the device is worth more than it is. Then call me a hater when I don't buy it. I just think they are trying to make themselves feel better about their purchase. We all do that. I like the look and feel of OS-X, except for the button placement. I always set up my Linux desktop to look like it.

    I made a comment that webOS users need to be more like Apple users, just without the pretentiousness. Apple users will buy Apple products regardless of whether or not there is something cheaper or better available. They are loyal to Apple and that loyalty is reciprocated. When they lined up for the iPhone, they started a revolution in the mobile industry.

    Also, I saw a nice red Genesis Coupe at the Hyundai dealership. My wife and I were entertaining the thought of owning one. We plan on giving the car we purchased to our daughter after she graduates from high school and we didn't want her speeding around in the Genesis Coupe. It was real nice though!
  17. #317  
    Quote Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
    I was talking more about today not what happened back in the 80s.

    But, the one thing Apple didn't do was sell cheap computers. They continued and still do sell computers that cost more than the competition. They still go for the premium customer.
    But I think that is the point. The dominated the PC market with a 'better' product but got jobbed by the Microsoft / Intel duopoly who produced an adequate product but a very good marketing plan.

    I fear the same thing will happen in phones. One can argue they have a better product, but the flood of choices and channels on the Android side will leave the in a distant second place. That is what swamped Apple on the PC side back in the 80's and early 90's.

    HP's webOS was not perfect, but adequate, but their marketing choices (hardware, product identity, and the market segment targeted) accentuated the negative rather than their strengths

    C
    "Sometimes I feel like an OS-less child..."
    (with apologies to Billie Holiday )
    k4ever likes this.
  18. #318  
    Quote Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post

    as for point 2) One thing to note is PSG was 1/3 of HP revenue but was, for quite some time, years, a declining percentage of their profits. People think HP's problems started with Leo but HP had been having issues before Hurd even got their. Every quarter wasn't bad but psg was declining. From the questionable decision to buy compaq to the mere fact that people where simply buying less computers. Couple that with the declining economy and they had a division that looked kinda like RIMM in the since that it wasn't unprofitable but it was headed in the wrong direction. It was like a boat with a dead engine slowly drifting towards a waterfall. I mean even RIMM can go on for a long time even declining because people still by a crap load of blackberries. They just don't buy them like they buy iphones and Android has stolen their market share. HP just wanted something to stop PSG from bleeding profits. What the didn't want was some 5 year multibillion dollar investment with no guarantee of profit.

    But as for your questions i think HP read the tea leaves for the most part i just don't think there is anything they can do about declining pc sales a bad economy any more the Best Buy can get people to buy more CDs now. Well other then the obvious which is make sexier laptops but that's not gonna cure everything. HP needed growth. 2/3rds of hp, imaging and psg, were largely and likely permanently stagnant. Webos was supposed to be growth and i think they just looked at it and calculated the cost and made an estimate that it wasn't gonna actually grow bigger and they cut it loose.
    Enjoyed your response. But I'm wondering if this is just the future of modern consumer electronics. When you are first with something new you make a mint. If you are not, its just another commodity.

    Big screen TV's, VHS, DVD players, MP3 players, Phones, have all gone through this evolution. HP and everyone else had better get used to it. It's why I gave them at least partial credit for attempting to get out of the consumer market all together.

    Apple sees that too. The Mac mini, the iPod Nano, the plans to sell older phone and tablet versions at a discount. (Once upon a time companies wold never think of cannibalizing sales of new product by continuing to sell an older one).

    I would suspect that most of the Android phones sell at very little profit compared to the handful at the top of the line... and even those drop in price quickly. A Droid x2 sells for for $50 at Verizon it's not even very old. Motorola was struggling before they were purchased by Google, even with their success with the Droid line.

    Perhaps the only way to make a profit is to build it well, make a limited run, and continue to make improvements with each release. Apple does this well, it builds anticipation for the "next iPhone". But with their success, they don't need a limited run to create desire. If Android continues to chip away at their market, I expect to see that as a strategy going forward.
    "Sometimes I feel like an OS-less child..."
    (with apologies to Billie Holiday )
  19. #319  
    Here is a snip from your original post:

    Quote Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
    ...Give some examples of a mediocre product that succeeded over a product that failed that was supposed to be better................

    Looking forward to your list.

    Quote Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
    I was talking more about today not what happened back in the 80s.....
    You never set a time limit. Besides Apple still sells personal computers today. If we were to use the breakdown figures for each company, Apple is still so far behind it's sad. Here are the figures for 2010 (don't think 2011 figures are out yet):

    Apple Ranks Third in Global PC Sales With iPad Included - Mac Rumors

    Noticed that you have to add iPad sales (cheat) for Apple to even rank in the top 4. Without iPad sales they would be in single digits. With iPad sales they barely make 11%. Apple was decimated by the Windows clones in the '80s and Apple made better products, they just priced themselves out of the market.

    Two things I want to point out:

    1) HP is still the highest ranked Windows clone with 17.7% of the market, without TouchPad or any other tablet sales.

    2) I need to adjust my figure for Apple's market share from 1998-2010 down. They actually dipped far below 4% during that time period. However, they are on the rise, slightly:

    Apple computer sales grow faster than PC sales for five years - but why? | Technology | guardian.co.uk
  20. #320  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    Also, I saw a nice red Genesis Coupe at the Hyundai dealership. My wife and I were entertaining the thought of owning one. We plan on giving the car we purchased to our daughter after she graduates from high school and we didn't want her speeding around in the Genesis Coupe. It was real nice though!
    Ok, I'm veering dangerously off-topic, but ... they are definitely fun to drive, especially the stick, but make sure you take a seat in the back and decide whether or not you can live with people bonking their heads on the rear glass I've got a 145 pound mastiff-mix that I have to tote around, so the Genesis Coupe probably was not gonna happen anyway.

Posting Permissions