Official Apple vs HP thread

[cobrakon]

Originally Posted by SoFly

I'm sure if I said the PalmPad is going to fail because the Palm Pre failed, I got get all kinds of grief. But, I wouldn't say that because I have no facts to back that up and I would just be assuming based up how the Palm Pre performed.

That would be the realm of another poster who's name ryhmes with 'pan' and ends in number.

[Targon]

The biggest problem that Palm had was not having the budget to PROPERLY advertise and hype their products. Without hype, you don't get public excitement, and without public excitement, you can't get product sales momentum. Hype is the real key, and getting the PUBLIC curious and hopefully excited about a product is a key.

The quality issues with the original Palm Pre plus having Sprint as the exclusive partner, combined with the six month delay between initial announcement and product launch added to the problems that Palm would have to make the Palm Pre really take off.

If you look at the OS, WebOS really blows the doors off iOS, and is notably better than Android in many areas, so there is clearly a great chance for HP to get public interest in new devices. So, advertising, and hype, plus new devices that have a 3.7 inch or larger screen size are what HP needs to make for some real competition.

Getting the cell phone carriers to actually SELL the devices may be the most difficult part I suspect, since Verizon has been all about Android, and AT&T has been all about the iPhone, neither company really tries to sell or even show devices other than their big flagship phones. If a phone sits in the display case, turned off, and with any slide-out keyboard hidden away, customers just won't know ANYTHING about it without a sales person who is going to show it and has enough knowledge to show the strengths of that given device.

Remember, Android devices are a dime a dozen these days, same design with different processors, amount of memory, storage, or features like a HDMI connector. The iPhone also doesn't really have anything special except the screen having a very high pixel density and good resolution for the size. The WebOS devices so far have been different because there is a real difference in how you use them(gesture area), and real multitasking to allow the user to switch between running apps without closing them or losing their place in each running app.

So, can HP get a significant percentage of the smartphone industry? Yes, but they have to really hype the hell out of the devices, in mainstream media as well as online. Showing new features that many don't know about, like e-mailing to the HP web enabled printers for printing will help, as well and showcasing how the device will work with Microsoft Exchange servers, and Lotus Notes(if that has ever been done fully without workarounds). If HP just expects the devices to sell without pushing Verizon and AT&T to ACTIVELY sell them, that is another formula for disaster.

[astraith]

Originally Posted by SoFly

Oh, I found an interesting article.

Why Apple will never make printers again | Printers | Macworld

I learned something new.



Apple never made a printer engine. NEVER made one. So, it's not because of HP, but because they were not making the insane profits off the consumables.

Remember what I said about making assumptions? Mr. Misinformation.

That article is an opinion. It's funny how your posting an article based on one writers opinion and using that to base your facts. It's ironic, as well (as HPA pointed out) that the very article that is one's opinion AGREED not with you but with HPA (BTW HPA is short for hparison). Don't believe me, do you? Let me quote it -- make it easier.

"By the late 1980s, HP and some other innovative printing vendors had done the thankless work of figuring this out; they started shipping their own Mac printer drivers. By the time Steve Jobs returned to Apple, there were plenty of high-quality Mac-compatible printers available from a wide variety of manufacturers. When the company had to winnow projects to focus on the basics, lower-margin printers were an easy cut to make."

What does that say? Basically, if you read it it will tell you that Apple no longer needed to focus on that market because companies like HP were making good printers for Mac. So, I guess HPA is wrong then. Apple stopped making printers not JUST because of HP. Shame on you HPA! Apparently, it was because every Mac printer did a better job then Apple and it no longer made sense for them to make printers for their customers when their customers were choosing companies like HP over them.

Originally Posted by SoFly

I saw no proof that Apple got out of printers because of HP. Apple got out because they were not making money off the consumables because they didn't make them. Not because of HP.

TODAY, Apple is more profitable per dollar of revenue compared to HP and they have a higher market value. So, it looks like HP should take a page from Apple's playbook and get rid of low margin products to try to become more profitable.

HP makes all these printers and consumables and yet Apple still makes more profit per dollar of revenue. So, looks like Apple made the right decision getting out of the printer market and moving on to bigger and more profitable products.

Anyways, I'm done. Get in the last word so you can move on to danbj13's post about The Daily. I'm sure that has you all riled up.

For the first paragraph, I guess you didn't read your own article. For the second, at least in the first quarter of 2010, HP made more money then Apple. HP earnings: Strong first quarter results, 2010 outlook | ZDNet and Apple Reports First Quarter Results. However, Apple is one of the largest laptop makers in the world. They sell those like pancakes man. So just because HP made more money does not nec. mean anything bad for Apple. HP still has to be afraid of Apple because they DO MAKE a lot of money in the PC hardware world and thats what HP does.

Also, a lot of Apple's rev. is from iPod, iPad, iPhone. In fact, they make more money on mobile products then they do computers. Don't believe me? Just ask Apple. I am not going to find the URL to their Back to the Mac event, but thats where it said that (unless I am mistaken -- but please don't call me Mr Misinformation -- it is me being human, making a silly error if that part of my info is incorrect.) In fact -- go out, watch it, and prove me wrong or right. It might do you good.

Anyway, which company is better? Apple or HP? *sarcasm* HP totally! *sarcasm* I have an iMac and an HP laptop. Although I use that laptop on a daily basis I enjoy my Mac more and have had less trouble with the Mac vs my HP laptop.

I also find it funny that HPA was (or still is) in the printing business and your arguing with him. Was you in the business when Apple was making printers? What gives you more knowledge then him?

[astraith]

Originally Posted by Targon

The quality issues with the original Palm Pre plus having Sprint as the exclusive partner, combined with the six month delay between initial announcement and product launch added to the problems that Palm would have to make the Palm Pre really take off.

I refuse to believe that. If that was the case, then when the Pre and Pixi moved to ATT and Verizon it should have done well. It didn't. HP ended up giving them away for FREE to move the products. The Palm Pre and Pixi were just not liked by the general public. Build quality was def. one of those issues but probably not the only cause.

However, I would say that the media did make Sprint being the leading cause of Palm's failure. They fail to mention the Evo 4G and Epic 4G -- both did very well being an "exclusive" to Sprint.

But I agree with the rest of your post!

[CGK]

The "initial partner" thing is bunk, here in the UK it was launched with TV adverts and decent placement in O2 stores and still sank without a trace...

[cardfan]

Originally Posted by astraith

I refuse to believe that. If that was the case, then when the Pre and Pixi moved to ATT and Verizon it should have done well. It didn't. HP ended up giving them away for FREE to move the products. The Palm Pre and Pixi were just not liked by the general public. Build quality was def. one of those issues but probably not the only cause.

However, I would say that the media did make Sprint being the leading cause of Palm's failure. They fail to mention the Evo 4G and Epic 4G -- both did very well being an "exclusive" to Sprint.

But I agree with the rest of your post!

This has just been rehashed to death.

[astraith]

Originally Posted by cardfan

This has just been rehashed to death.

I know! But when I read that post I just had to say something! And CGK -- didn't know that! Thanks for telling me!

[barkerja]

Originally Posted by Targon

The biggest problem that Palm had was not having the budget to PROPERLY advertise and hype their products. Without hype, you don't get public excitement, and without public excitement, you can't get product sales momentum. Hype is the real key, and getting the PUBLIC curious and hopefully excited about a product is a key.

The quality issues with the original Palm Pre plus having Sprint as the exclusive partner, combined with the six month delay between initial announcement and product launch added to the problems that Palm would have to make the Palm Pre really take off.

If you look at the OS, WebOS really blows the doors off iOS, and is notably better than Android in many areas, so there is clearly a great chance for HP to get public interest in new devices. So, advertising, and hype, plus new devices that have a 3.7 inch or larger screen size are what HP needs to make for some real competition.

Getting the cell phone carriers to actually SELL the devices may be the most difficult part I suspect, since Verizon has been all about Android, and AT&T has been all about the iPhone, neither company really tries to sell or even show devices other than their big flagship phones. If a phone sits in the display case, turned off, and with any slide-out keyboard hidden away, customers just won't know ANYTHING about it without a sales person who is going to show it and has enough knowledge to show the strengths of that given device.

Remember, Android devices are a dime a dozen these days, same design with different processors, amount of memory, storage, or features like a HDMI connector. The iPhone also doesn't really have anything special except the screen having a very high pixel density and good resolution for the size. The WebOS devices so far have been different because there is a real difference in how you use them(gesture area), and real multitasking to allow the user to switch between running apps without closing them or losing their place in each running app.

So, can HP get a significant percentage of the smartphone industry? Yes, but they have to really hype the hell out of the devices, in mainstream media as well as online. Showing new features that many don't know about, like e-mailing to the HP web enabled printers for printing will help, as well and showcasing how the device will work with Microsoft Exchange servers, and Lotus Notes(if that has ever been done fully without workarounds). If HP just expects the devices to sell without pushing Verizon and AT&T to ACTIVELY sell them, that is another formula for disaster.

If I remember correctly, there was a lot of hype before the Pre was ever released, mainly due of all the speculation and lack of concrete information; I know I was one of the many that was excited and overly-hyped.

That hype soon ended after release and I'm sure I wasn't the only one.

I feel like we're back there now. A lot of speculation and hype revolving around the 2/9 event. Who know's if this will be a repeat of history or an actual game changer for Palm (or is it HP?)

A carrier doesn't need to push a device for it to be successful, and I think that will become apparent with the Verizon iPhone. Apple will sell the iPhone, not Verizon; Verizon will continue to push Droid as they normally have.

AT&T will now shift its focus to devices other than the iPhone now that they've lost the exclusivity, but the iPhone will continue to sell like hotcakes.

HP needs to release devices that sell themselves, not shoved down your throat by carriers and marketing.

[hparsons]

Poor mods just can't win. They give us a thread where we can talk about Apple vs HP/Palm, and we begin talking about Palm vs HP/Palm.

Seriously though, while I will argue the nonsense that everyone but Apple should just surrender wherever Apple treads (gee, if that had happen, would we be paying $8000 for laser printers right now?...), I personally like to see Apple and Android improve their products. I'm not particularly impressed with the "me too" improvements that they copy from each other or from HP/Palm (their users are the ones that should like those), but I do like the actual new things they introduce.

Those introductions give my mfg something to copy. Hopefully, in the process of copying those, they will then add other features that Apple & Android will copy. And the cycle repeats.

It's the competiton that keeps us getting better devices. These companies don't spend money on R&D out of the goodness of their heart. They do it because the competition is nipping at their heels. And yes, Apple feels it too.

We consumers win when companies compete.

[astraith]

Originally Posted by hparsons

Poor mods just can't win. They give us a thread where we can talk about Apple vs HP/Palm, and we begin talking about Palm vs HP/Palm.

Seriously though, while I will argue the nonsense that everyone but Apple should just surrender wherever Apple treads (gee, if that had happen, would we be paying $8000 for laser printers right now?...), I personally like to see Apple and Android improve their products. I'm not particularly impressed with the "me too" improvements that they copy from each other or from HP/Palm (their users are the ones that should like those), but I do like the actual new things they introduce.

Those introductions give my mfg something to copy. Hopefully, in the process of copying those, they will then add other features that Apple & Android will copy. And the cycle repeats.

It's the competiton that keeps us getting better devices. These companies don't spend money on R&D out of the goodness of their heart. They do it because the competition is nipping at their heels. And yes, Apple feels it too.

We consumers win when companies compete.

Exactly.

[hparsons]

Originally Posted by barkerja

...HP needs to release devices that sell themselves, not shoved down your throat by carriers and marketing.

I agree with much of what you said (except, of course, the generally gloomy outlook); except for this last bit.

Huh??

Every phone manufacturer, including Apple, "shoves" their product "down your throat by ... marketing". Apple has a huge marketing budget. HP will be making a mistake if they don't as well.

[CGK]

Originally Posted by hparsons

Poor mods just can't win. They give us a thread where we can talk about Apple vs HP/Palm, and we begin talking about Palm vs HP/Palm.

Seriously though, while I will argue the nonsense that everyone but Apple should just surrender wherever Apple treads (gee, if that had happen, would we be paying $8000 for laser printers right now?...), I personally like to see Apple and Android improve their products. I'm not particularly impressed with the "me too" improvements that they copy from each other or from HP/Palm (their users are the ones that should like those), but I do like the actual new things they introduce.

Those introductions give my mfg something to copy. Hopefully, in the process of copying those, they will then add other features that Apple & Android will copy. And the cycle repeats.

It's the competiton that keeps us getting better devices. These companies don't spend money on R&D out of the goodness of their heart. They do it because the competition is nipping at their heels. And yes, Apple feels it too.

We consumers win when companies compete.

As a slightly staggering aside, I saw a article today which indicated that Nokia spends three time more on R&D than it's rivals and has over 5000 working on Symbian user experience.



http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...are-you-nokia/

[mikah912]

Yeah, given the end result, it's astounding. One of the perils of working for a slow, lumbering goliath.

The good news is that while HP fits that description, it's brand new in the smartphone and tablet fields, so it has a little room to be quick and nimble if it chooses to do so.

[Garage91]

the iPhone changed smartphones, its as simple as that. prior to the iPhone you had windows mobile, symbian, blackberry, and palmOS. all of them were mildly functional but the iPhone blew them all out of the water.

I dont know how anyone can say that apple isnt innovative. In what way has HP been innovative/ changed up the market?

I love my pre and cant wait for new hardware but my iPad is pretty freaking amazing. I'd say that Hp has some potential right now, but apple is definitely the better company of the 2.

[CGK]

Originally Posted by mikah912

Yeah, given the end result, it's astounding. One of the perils of working for a slow, lumbering goliath.

The good news is that while HP fits that description, it's brand new in the smartphone and tablet fields, so it has a little room to be quick and nimble if it chooses to do so.

It just blows my mind that you have 5000 working on user experience and you keep coming with something so absolutely dire. There was a great article in the Finnish press a while back that talked about how Nokia kept coming up with innovations but due to internal politics by the time they were actually released other people had come up with the same idea independently...

[astraith]

Originally Posted by Garage91

the iPhone changed smartphones, its as simple as that. prior to the iPhone you had windows mobile, symbian, blackberry, and palmOS. all of them were mildly functional but the iPhone blew them all out of the water.

I dont know how anyone can say that apple isnt innovative. In what way has HP been innovative/ changed up the market?

I love my pre and cant wait for new hardware but my iPad is pretty freaking amazing. I'd say that Hp has some potential right now, but apple is definitely the better company of the 2.

First off, let me say Apple is innovative. That's important to say. However, did you know Android was in the works as far back as 2003 -- and that in 2005, Google bought them? Google Buys Android for Its Mobile Arsenal As this link proves, Android was in the works for a long time before it was launched after the iPhone. The iPhone was in the works years before, as well. My evidence for that is basically the years of rumors about an Apple Phone before the iPhone was released and announced.

Does that change that Apple was first and was innovative? No, of course not, but this type of innovation was in the works from at least one other company. What would have happened if Google released it's OS first -- before the iPhone? Things might be different.

But, again, I am NOT saying Apple was NOT innovative. They did so many great things not only with the iPhone but with the iPod, iMac and Mac OS X. Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7 would not be what they are without Apple's influence. That is what true innovation does.

[hparsons]

Originally Posted by Garage91

In what way has HP been innovative/ changed up the market...

Which market? They're in several...

Originally Posted by Garage91

I'd say that Hp has some potential right now, but apple is definitely the better company of the 2.

The "better company" is the company that makes the products that I want. For you, that very well may be Apple. Personally, I don't want a device that locks me into one company. That means Apple is not the better company. If there were no future possiblities with HP/Palm, I'd likely be looking at an Android device, as that would be the "better company"...

... for me.

Hint - That last part is pretty important.

[nappy]

Do you remember what the first Android prototype looked like?

[barkerja]

Originally Posted by hparsons

I agree with much of what you said (except, of course, the generally gloomy outlook); except for this last bit.

Huh??

Every phone manufacturer, including Apple, "shoves" their product "down your throat by ... marketing". Apple has a huge marketing budget. HP will be making a mistake if they don't as well.

True, Apple does market the iPhone quite extensively (and quite well), but what I intended to get across was poorly worded. Marketing by the carrier, is what I meant.

Apple could scale back marketing and the iPhone would still sell very well, it's widely recognized everywhere (whether that's due to marketing or its success is to be debated; or both).

Take this for example

My point is, if HP creates something that consumers want and enjoy, the carrier pushing their product shouldn't be a concern.

[astraith]

Originally Posted by nappy

Do you remember what the first Android prototype looked like?

Wow! I actually never saw that until today! Boy has Android changed! Do you know what features it had or didn't have?