Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 125
Like Tree24Likes
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    The smart decision would have been to have a plan in the first place. You know, before you spent the initial $1.2 billion. The next smart thing to do would be to stick to that plan and give it time to develop. Two months is not even enough time for most plants to grow.
    Did Hurd have a plan? I didn't really get involved in the Palm -> HP discussion very deeply until Hurd was gone..
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by jessicatapley View Post
    None of this is webOS' fault. It is a fantastic operating system that was unfortunately born into the age of ecosystems.
    See, to me, this was the great promise of webOS. The selling point to HP was that is WAS an ecosystem.

    You've got a phone. You've got a tablet. You've got a computer/printer/refrigerator. Any changes you make using one device seamlessly ripples to the others because all the data lives in the cloud. Download a game to your phone, you can play it on your refrigerator! Or your wristwatch.. whatever.

    Now that webOS is neutered, other companies are (ineptly) trying to adopt this strategy. But if HP could have stuck with that original vision, we might have been seeing some increased adoption of the platform by now, imho.
  3. #63  
    well hell i looked at this thread the other day and saw no responses. Clearly i missed some discussions lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by C-Note View Post
    It will be fun to see how the next few quarters play out for them. Still not sure why they think they can walk away with cloud/SAAS market as if there is no competition there... especially after they have exposed their soft underbelly to the world.
    I'm not sure they are walking away from Cloud. They are the ones selling all the enterprise servers for Apple and Amazon, etc. And SAAS? Well HP is not historically a software company so it's not a simple thing for them. But from this it does not look like they have given up on anything. It may just not be consumer stuff. https://www.saas.hp.com/

    Quote Originally Posted by LizardWiz View Post
    Sure. What could they have possibly have lost $300 million a quarter on by keeping the Touchpad going and not doing the absolutely idiotic thing that they did. $300 million in salaries? Haha. Keep it going with targetted marketing, you don't need a whole blanket national campaign. Make new commercials emphasizing the product capabilities clearly spelled out, and the NEW pricing (not $99) and how it gives clear value. Give it a chance to get going right.

    What HP did is already a business case in historic stupidity, and Leo got fired for how he handled it. I can't see how anyone could even try to defend it, the thought is laughable.
    Well they made at least one million at an estimated build cost of $$210 each which comes to $210 million dollars. There is salaries, facilities, support, software development, press conference, developer relations meetings, advertising, utilities, deals with companies like Amazon to make a kindle app. Those aren't done for free. Even Apple had to pay to get stuff like New York Times apps. Leo didn't get fired for canceling WebOS. He got fired for because the board didn't like him and didn't like the decision to split off and sell PSG. And they reversed that decision to split of PSG. But they surely didn't backtrack and decide the correct decision was to put lots more money into WebOS. What you don't hear HP is we should not have stopped making webos phones. Make no mistake. After he was gone they decided NOT to sell Webos anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by blinktreo View Post
    Thanks for that clarification. The whole, sad episode is a little foggy to me now, and I couldn't recall when it was that HP started losing profits and how that related to the timeline of the Palm purchase. I do recall that Rubi et al were saying "we've finally got a well-heeled multinational to adopt this nascent OS and see it through".
    Well it's not a perfect day where they just started losing money. It was a gradual decline for many years. It's more like RIM. RIM is still profitable but every quarter their market share is going down, they are making less and less money each quarter. And Worse for RIM they sell only one thing, phones. HP's PSG was sort of the same. PSG (computers) was about 1/3 of the HP, Imaging (printers and ink) was about 1/3 the rest is like software and consulting and stuff. But printer ink and computers are not growing and that's what investors want. They were still making money but the market for computers was shrinking, due to many things. One, netbooks, two a global recession where both enterprise and consumers stopped buying new tech. Companies stop buying computers during recessions unless they are mandatory. And third, apparently, the ipad was sapping share. But that decline had already started when Mark Hurd was there. Keep in mind they had to Fire Carly Fiorina and then Hurd came in, and did tons of streamlining, they fired people, cut salaries, consolidated business units that they thought were wasteful, they consolidated expensive warehouses, and streamlined product offerings. In 2009 they had declining sales but were able to grow profits. So they sold less product but got more profit because they got efficient. The problem though is HP was still selling less computers then before in a recession. And Hurd was a numbers guy. He wasn't exactly about spending tons of money without a profits. They had cash at the time but i think that HP expected WebOS to at least break even out the gate. And i surely didn't expect them to be willing to spend all 10 bill on taking losses on webos for a couple of years in hopes it would turn a profit. would have been gutsy but it didn't fit HP.

    People though complain about the whole we want to be like IBM thing but they forget it was under Hurd (i think) that they bought EDS and and got into that business in the first place. Now whether Hurd would have tried to axe the PSG is a question for him.
    You come at the king. You best not miss.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Note View Post
    I think you make a good case. But a few things in relation to HP.

    1) If they thought they could get build an entire mobile ecosysem on the cheap, then they were incredibly stupid.

    2) Their profit/loss number are highly suspect. (its not really worth it to anyone, but I'd love to see an independent audit the numbers they presented)
    How many quarters was it before they even had a product to sell? When you 'can't shoot straight' by not meeting deadlines, how much unnecessary cost did that incurr? How much did they minimize profit by the penny wise/pound foolish decision to put out a the hardware they did? (And I'm not talking about the size or weight, but cracking speakers are unforgivable given the problems with the early Palm Pres)

    Also, how much of the $300 mil per quarter includes the huge write-off for the firesale, any contracts that had to be eaten, the production costs of the brands that never saw the light of the market because of their screwups.

    Their actions were somewhat akin to paying for advanced training, and after a few bad job interviews deciding that you need to take up a different career. You spent the money already, makes more sense to fix the problems.

    And if after a year of getting ready (...in the coming months) they were NOT any closer then when they started, (even accounting for the fact that competitors were also making moves) it is an even bigger indictment of their incompetence.
    Well i'm not gonna argue no mistakes were made. It's obvious they were because the products didn't sell.

    Are they stupid. Considering their history i wouldn't doubt they are stupid. Personally i thought they were stupid to buy Webos in the first place because they didn't have the skill of the financial strength to do what needed to be done. And your totally right. Building a really winning ecosystem would be monumentally expensive. That's a massive reason why i thought they were not up to it. You're talking about either partnering with people or building your own but look at IOS. The ecosystem is Apps, digital music, digital tv, digital movies, digital audiobooks, digital ebooks, a software client to sync all that media, and an abundance of 1st and 3rd party accessories. Google is just now getting a Music store off the ground and that's google. I doubt it's cheap or easy. But they also hired Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman so i don't don't think highly of them even outside of the webos context. They bought Compaq. They can't be too smart.

    Their profit loss numbers are a matter of an SEC filing and the senior executives and those working on the financials face prison time for filing fraudulent documents. They have no incentive to lie and they even pre-announced bad numbers prior right before they cancelled webos which gives them a lot more credibility. People can choose to not believe them but they have no incentive to lie and there's no evidence whatsoever that they fabricated numbers and to do so is a material misrepresentation and securities fraud. Not only that companies lie that earnings are greater then they really are. They don't go to their shareholders meeting and say essentially, "we are doing worse then we really are." That wouldn't help them. It would only tank the stock. And they have no incentive to tank their stock. So i'm inclined to believe their numbers more then anyone on precentral.

    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    Lets say you are right in your assessment of HP's financial situation. HP was loosing a small amount of money every year even without webOS. How do they turn it around? They have to invest in something! Mobile devices are the future for any computing company. Why on earth would HP not be in the business of selling them? Making Windows and Android devices would not help them. Those platforms have thin profit margins and HP would struggle to differentiate themselves with the likes of Samsung and HTC. WebOS should promise even before the TouchPad was killed and went on fire sale. People were just waiting for the right price point and more apps. HP should have invested in that. Instead they spent $10 billion buying an enterprise software company. Meanwhile Apple manage to sell more iPads, a mobile device, this year than HP sold computers. HP's temporary exit from the mobile space was premature and stupid. The OP has an excellent point.
    They may have "thin profit margins" but at the time WebOS had no profit at all. It was all potential. But you say People were just wait to buy Touchpads for the right price and apps. We'll have to agree to disagree. I saw no groundswell of people waiting for touchpads. I didn't even see lines for them until they were $99 which is totally unsustainable even if they gut the thing and take out all the memory like the kindle fire. I think considering how apps didn't come for any of the phones i think waiting on apps is optimistic. But it's foolish to keep throwing money after something that most people are not interested in. And i didn't see any interest outside of the webos community and that's not nearly enough.

    The other thing is HP didn't get out of the tablet space. They just dumped WebOS. They didn't dump tablets.
    You come at the king. You best not miss.
  5. #65  
    Actually, they did dump tablets, at least for the time being. The "Slate" isn't exactly a tablet, it's more like a netbook or laptop that happens to have a touchscreen as well, and they are much higher end than the average tablet, at least at the pricetags I've seen on them so far. They also dumped the iPAQ line of phones and mobile devices, not just the webOS line.

    All those things that ya'all point out that Apple has, they sure as hell didn't build those all overnight.
    Author:
    Remove Messaging Beeps patch for webOS 3.0.5, Left/Right bezel gestures in LunaCE,
    Whazaa! Messenger and node-wa, SynerGV 1 and 2 - Google Voice integration, XO - Subsonic Commander media streamer, AB:S Launcher
    (1:39:33 PM) halfhalo: Android multitasking is like sticking your fingers into a blender
    GO OPEN WEBOS!
    People asked me for a donate link for my non-catalog work, so here you are:
  6. kalel33's Avatar
    Posts
    280 Posts
    Global Posts
    281 Global Posts
    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by eblade View Post
    The "Slate" isn't exactly a tablet, it's more like a netbook or laptop that happens to have a touchscreen as well, and they are much higher end than the average tablet, at least at the pricetags I've seen on them so far.
    A touchscreen device that has no keyboard and is 7" or larger would make it a tablet. Ipads may have reimagined the tablet but there were Windows tablets out before mobile operating systems were the standard. It's still a tablet by any stretch of the imagination, even if it's not a mobile OS.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmleese View Post
    2 months....


    Pew: 19 percent of American adults now own a tablet, twice as many as in*December

    source: The Verge

    Pew: 19 percent of American adults now own a tablet, twice as many as in December | The Verge


    hardly a niche market & they need to adapt as this platform will surely eat into pc sales...

    though it looks like they'll tie their wagon to banking on MS really pulling off windows 8 being a homerun for tablet use. I'll admit windows 7 was a smash in fixing what Vista should have been in gutting the bugs and bloat, but its quite a big harder to improve on that and achieving a great tablet ui experience...
    The problem is not market demand, the problem is touchpad's value/price ratio. It just won't sell at that price they wanted.

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
  8. #68  
    The Touchpad was priced where every other tablet was priced at the time - lower than a few, higher than the cheapo brands.
  9. kalel33's Avatar
    Posts
    280 Posts
    Global Posts
    281 Global Posts
    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by rnld View Post
    The Touchpad was priced where every other tablet was priced at the time - lower than a few, higher than the cheapo brands.
    When it came out it wasn't any lower than any other 16GB tablet in the market. They were asking for top end pricing and the hardware wasn't top end, at least in connections or the weight/size.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
    Well i'm not gonna argue no mistakes were made. It's obvious they were because the products didn't sell.


    Their profit loss numbers are a matter of an SEC filing and the senior executives and those working on the financials face prison time for filing fraudulent documents. They have no incentive to lie and they even pre-announced bad numbers prior right before they cancelled webos which gives them a lot more credibility. People can choose to not believe them but they have no incentive to lie and there's no evidence whatsoever that they fabricated numbers and to do so is a material misrepresentation and securities fraud. Not only that companies lie that earnings are greater then they really are. They don't go to their shareholders meeting and say essentially, "we are doing worse then we really are." That wouldn't help them. It would only tank the stock. And they have no incentive to tank their stock. So i'm inclined to believe their numbers more then anyone on precentral.

    The other thing is HP didn't get out of the tablet space. They just dumped WebOS. They didn't dump tablets.
    Have you ever read an SEC filing. The only concern from the SEC's standpoint is that the profit and loss statements bottom line are reflect accurately the companies financial position. You can look up their third quarter 10-Q SEC filing on their website. (So you don't have to 'just believe anyone on PreCentral')


    The SEC does not care if a company reports expenses that are twice what anyone else will pay for the same product or service due to botched contracts, missed deadlines, or misdirected efforts.

    The reports are not granular enough to distinguish between where engineers were assigned to work within a division of a company so that their salaries could be 'legally' assigned between multiple divisions. Embarrassing stuff is hidden in them all the time. They had every incentive to hide what might be perceived as board miscalculations of a mismanaged project. Notice how nobody has taken ANY responsibility for anything related to this fiasco. Not even for the acquisition... if it was such a monumental blunder.

    And if a company spends a year (and all of the time and money that involves) and then decides 'we don't want to do this anymore' they get to claim almost all of the cost incurred as business losses.

    I keep hearing about how HP was losing money every quarter since the acquisition, but since HP didn't put out any product of their making until the Touchpad, how were they expecting to make any money before July of 2011?

    SEC filings don't account for that.

    At some point between the acquisition and Leo's announcement, HP lost the drive they needed to compete. And it was well before August of last year.

    As far as HP not dumping tablets... they have had smartphones for years. The iPaq. They have had PDA/smatphones for sale since the iPaq, but a similar lack of drive has left them in the dustbin of history as well. They were still available on the website until the Palm acquisition (about 8 or so years of lackluster effort and no real sales to mention)

    So when I see them actually make a real effort to sell tablets and not just put them in retail channels and expect them to sell themselves... then I'll believe.

    C
    Last edited by C-Note; 01/28/2012 at 10:09 PM.
    "Sometimes I feel like an OS-less child..."
    (with apologies to Billie Holiday )
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by kalel33 View Post
    When it came out it wasn't any lower than any other 16GB tablet in the market. They were asking for top end pricing and the hardware wasn't top end, at least in connections or the weight/size.
    You didn't expect them to come out with a device and say that it's cheaper because it isn't "top end" did you?
  12. kalel33's Avatar
    Posts
    280 Posts
    Global Posts
    281 Global Posts
    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by rnld View Post
    You didn't expect them to come out with a device and say that it's cheaper because it isn't "top end" did you?
    I also didn't expect them to come out with a device that wasn't "top end" and price it at "top end" pricing. They had it right when the did the first cut in prices to $300 for the 16GB. Pricing it at $499 was just suicide. I love my Touchpad but it wasn't worth near the original pricing, because the thing was just larger, heavier, and/or with less connectivity than other tablets in that price range.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Note View Post
    Have you ever read an SEC filing. The only concern from the SEC's standpoint is that the profit and loss statements bottom line are reflect accurately the companies financial position. You can look up their third quarter 10-Q SEC filing on their website. (So you don't have to 'just believe anyone on PreCentral')


    The SEC does not care if a company reports expenses that are twice what anyone else will pay for the same product or service due to botched contracts, missed deadlines, or misdirected efforts.

    The reports are not granular enough to distinguish between where engineers were assigned to work within a division of a company so that their salaries could be 'legally' assigned between multiple divisions. Embarrassing stuff is hidden in them all the time. They had every incentive to hide what might be perceived as board miscalculations of a mismanaged project. Notice how nobody has taken ANY responsibility for anything related to this fiasco. Not even for the acquisition... if it was such a monumental blunder.

    And if a company spends a year (and all of the time and money that involves) and then decides 'we don't want to do this anymore' they get to claim almost all of the cost incurred as business losses.

    I keep hearing about how HP was losing money every quarter since the acquisition, but since HP didn't put out any product of their making until the Touchpad, how were they expecting to make any money before July of 2011?

    SEC filings don't account for that.

    At some point between the acquisition and Leo's announcement, HP lost the drive they needed to compete. And it was well before August of last year.

    As far as HP not dumping tablets... they have had smartphones for years. The iPaq. They have had PDA/smatphones for sale since the iPaq, but a similar lack of drive has left them in the dustbin of history as well. They were still available on the website until the Palm acquisition (about 8 or so years of lackluster effort and no real sales to mention)

    So when I see them actually make a real effort to sell tablets and not just put them in retail channels and expect them to sell themselves... then I'll believe.

    C
    Sorry that's just not totally accurate. First I've read hundreds if not thousands of SEC filings. Sure they may not break down every department that's not the point. But they don't need to to be accurate. So i don't see how you can say profit and loss statements are "suspect." They either fabricated them or didn't. And considering they pre-announced the likelihood that they fabricated them is ridiculously low. One, Sarbanes Oxley applies to filings and has jail times up to 20 years and millions in fines. And more on point 10b5 applies to material misrepresentations by executives, especially ceo's and cfos, in public statements. That includes not just filings, but press releases and especially quarterly and annual meetings where financial results are declared in quite a bit of detail. Any misrepresentation is an actionable fraud. And HP's quarterly meetings have specifics about departments and people trade on all of them. And lies there are fraud. But there isn't even evidence of fraud except on a forum of aggrieved users.

    But this over arching theory makes little sense. That somehow they losses were not great seems crazy and revisionist to me. A way to cling to this idea that if only they released a touchpad longer it would take off. I don't see it. That touchpads in reality where selling great and that HP was making tons of money off of them and fabricated it's losses is based in no facts whatsoever. And even if they missed deadlines, paid too much for contracts or made other bad decisions that doesn't mean they didn't take the losses. And i've seen no evidence of all that stuff either way. But even if it happened it doesn't mean that if they hadn't missed a deadline or paid too much for something then touchpads somehow would have sold great. Or Veers. Or Pre 3s. And lying about earnings doesn't help hp.

    Companies typically lie about earnings when they have bad earnings and say they are good, like Enron. Companies, especially a CFO, don't normally lie when they have good earnings and claim they are bad. That's makes no sense. All they do is ruin their own stock and company value. The idea that they fabricated their losses has no basis in fact. There is no motive. The consequences are huge. It's pure illogical speculation to me. But hey it's a free country. You can believe what you want. Whatever get's you through the day. I'm done with the whole thing. I'll just agree to disagree with you on that point. That's one i'm don't think we're gonna agree on. lol.
    Last edited by SnotBoogie; 01/30/2012 at 11:14 PM.
    You come at the king. You best not miss.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
    Sorry that's just not totally accurate. First I've read hundreds if not thousands of SEC filings. Sure they may not break down every department that's not the point. But they don't need to to be accurate. So i don't see how you can say profit and loss statements are "suspect." They either fabricated them or didn't. And considering they pre-announced the likelihood that they fabricated them is ridiculously low. One, Sarbanes Oxley applies to filings and has jail times up to 20 years and millions in fines. And more on point 10b5 applies to material misrepresentations by executives, especially ceo's and cfos, in public statements. That includes not just filings, but press releases and especially quarterly and annual meetings where financial results are declared in quite a bit of detail. Any misrepresentation is an actionable fraud. And HP's quarterly meetings have specifics about departments and people trade on all of them. And lies there are fraud. But there isn't even evidence of fraud except on a forum of aggrieved users.

    But this over arching theory makes little sense. That somehow they losses were not great seems crazy and revisionist to me. A way to cling to this idea that if only they released a touchpad longer it would take off. I don't see it. That touchpads in reality where selling great and that HP was making tons of money off of them and fabricated it's losses is based in no facts whatsoever. And even if they missed deadlines, paid too much for contracts or made other bad decisions that doesn't mean they didn't take the losses. And i've seen no evidence of all that stuff either way. But even if it happened it doesn't mean that if they hadn't missed a deadline or paid too much for something then touchpads somehow would have sold great. Or Veers. Or Pre 3s. And lying about earnings doesn't help hp.

    Companies typically lie about earnings when they have bad earnings and say they are good, like Enron. ..., I'll just agree to disagree with you on that point. That's one i'm don't think we're gonna agree on. lol.
    Perhaps you've missed the point. (I work with a team that builds the Sarbanes reports for our company... so I do more than just read the reports) The SEC does not care about the particulars of profit and loss, the numbers can be accurate, the particulars are not even addressed in most filings. If you think the SEC inspires fear in companies, you are mistaken. There are teams of lawyers employed to make sure that they can issue a report that meets their needs and stays on the right side of the line. (Notice the LEGAL disclaimers issued with almost every public statement by most every public company)

    If you don't believe that, see how far the shareholder lawsuits go. The actions generated over the public statements made by upper management and executives indicating they were in the for the long haul (#1 plus, Sprint not a marathon, cooler than Apple, etc.), that made people feel deceived. See the link below.


    If a new CEO wants to kill an existing project, it is very common to vilify the project by piling up on it as a lost cause. It just happened to me this year. I'm sure most here who have worked in such circles can relate similar stories.

    Still doesn't answer the question of why losing money in every quarter is a surprise when you are not selling anything on which to make a profit
    until July of 2011. The losses may be accurate but the premise of uncontrolled bleeding is totally disingenuous. If I'm building a commercial property, I am borrowing money and losing money... until I finish and sell or lease out the property after completion. If you are under-capitalized (by choice or circumstance), you don't finish the project and lose your investment.

    Finally, unless you are confusing me with someone else, I don't think I ever said that given more time, things would have changed. I've said that they did things wrong. They didn't need more time, they needed more change.

    In the meanwhile, the tech world is passing HP by:
    Last edited by C-Note; 01/31/2012 at 12:06 PM.
    "Sometimes I feel like an OS-less child..."
    (with apologies to Billie Holiday )
    k4ever likes this.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by SnotBoogie View Post
    Well they made at least one million at an estimated build cost of $$210 each which comes to $210 million dollars. There is salaries, facilities, support, software development, press conference, developer relations meetings, advertising, utilities, deals with companies like Amazon to make a kindle app. Those aren't done for free. Even Apple had to pay to get stuff like New York Times apps. Leo didn't get fired for canceling WebOS. He got fired for because the board didn't like him and didn't like the decision to split off and sell PSG. And they reversed that decision to split of PSG. But they surely didn't backtrack and decide the correct decision was to put lots more money into WebOS. What you don't hear HP is we should not have stopped making webos phones. Make no mistake. After he was gone they decided NOT to sell Webos anything.
    I don't get it.
    $210 million in sunk costs for production, which is not ongoing until you sell through your inventory.
    Software development/Support costs = Salaries, servers and infrastructure have already been purchased.
    Facilities and utilities are more than likely sunk costs as well, unless they have a facility for the sole purpose of webOS.

    $20 million for salaries.
    I'll give you facilities...$1 million a year?
    Press conference, developer relations, etc...$3 million a year?
    Amazon deal? Yeah right, but I'll throw in $1 million anyway.

    So...how do you come up with $1.2 BILLION again?

    Oh yeah, that's right the $1 BILLION ad campaign.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Note View Post

    If a new CEO wants to kill an existing project, it is very common to vilify the project by piling up on it as a lost cause. It just happened to me this year. I'm sure most here who have worked in such circles can relate similar stories.
    I agree. This happens in just about every business. It's politics. Apotheker was brought in to turn HP into IBM-lite (He was the former CEO of SAP if you didn't know). He was focused on a software centric HP. He moved the webOS software division from the PSG (the computer hardware division), killed the webOS hardware division of the PSG, then tried to spin off the PSG. I believe his intentions all along were to do this. If webOS hardware was seen as even remotely successful it would have threatened his reasoning for ridding HP of the PSG altogether, since the future of computing is tied to mobile devices. It would have also called into question his spending of over 80% of HP's cash reserves on Autonomy at a time when HP needed to invest heavily in webOS' hardware future, since it was tied to HP's overall hardware future. The problem for him is that investors, not webOS fans, Android fans, or iOS fans, saw through his scheme and got him booted from the company.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by LizardWiz View Post
    I don't get it.
    $210 million in sunk costs for production, which is not ongoing until you sell through your inventory.
    Software development/Support costs = Salaries, servers and infrastructure have already been purchased.
    Facilities and utilities are more than likely sunk costs as well, unless they have a facility for the sole purpose of webOS.

    $20 million for salaries.
    I'll give you facilities...$1 million a year?
    Press conference, developer relations, etc...$3 million a year?
    Amazon deal? Yeah right, but I'll throw in $1 million anyway.

    So...how do you come up with $1.2 BILLION again?

    Oh yeah, that's right the $1 BILLION ad campaign.
    Someone overinflated the cost to make things look worse than they were. The same way someone overinflated the importance of Best Buy in today's Internet sales driven market.
  18. #78  
    If Best Buy truly owns 20% of the market, while hundreds of other retailers divide up the remaining 80% (and let's assume Walmart has a nice chunk of that), just how unimportant can they be?
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by jrstinkfish View Post
    If Best Buy truly owns 20% of the market, while hundreds of other retailers divide up the remaining 80% (and let's assume Walmart has a nice chunk of that), just how unimportant can they be?
    Look what you just wrote. They own 20% of the market. There is a whole 80% not owned by them. If you are a small company you can hedge your bets on Best Buy and be some what profitable, but you will only reach 1/5th of your potential customers. To a large company like HP that has a ton of retailers in their portfolio, Best Buy is just a blip on the radar. HP can make a size-able amount of sales without them. Hedging their bets on only Best Buy and judging the success of a product on just one retailer (who sold your product at a much higher cost than others, I might add), as some have suggested here, is a bit foolish.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    Look what you just wrote. They own 20% of the market. There is a whole 80% not owned by them. If you are a small company you can hedge your bets on Best Buy and be some what profitable, but you will only reach 1/5th of your potential customers. To a large company like HP that has a ton of retailers in their portfolio, Best Buy is just a blip on the radar. HP can make a size-able amount of sales without them. Hedging their bets on only Best Buy and judging the success of a product on just one retailer (who sold your product at a much higher cost than others, I might add), as some have suggested here, is a bit foolish.
    They didn't hedge their bets only on Best Buy.
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions