Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By k4ever
  • 1 Post By cgk
  1.    #1  
    http://mobilesyrup.com/2012/07/09/go...-market-share/

    If only that firesale for the TouchPads and phones were this stunt to gain marketshare instead of Leo being a *****.



    <staff edit>
    Last edited by HelloNNNewman; 07/09/2012 at 11:04 AM. Reason: please watch your language
  2. #2  
    Tony,

    When I made that suggestion here a lot of folks attacked my suggestion as not making business sense. I even listed the numerous times Microsoft and others employed this strategy, but was told that it was naive for HP to do so.

    HP should have continued flooding the market with TouchPads at a loss. The goal is to gain market share so they can sell services and apps to the users. Then (hate to say it) sell access to those users to other companies. Apple does this. Facebook does this and so does Google. Market share is worth more than the hardware price when you OWN the OS. HP and all those that defended their actions on this are, IMO, stupid.

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    C-Note likes this.
  3. #3  
    ..plus the hit HP took to its reputation for this fiasco was more than the loss they would have took on the hardware. Their stock tumbled losing 1/4 of its value in less than a day.

    HP can still turn this around. Open source does not mean lack of profits. In fact open source companies make the bulk of their money on services. HP should produce a Nexus/G1 like Open webOS device and throw enough weight at it so people know they are serious. The goal would be to gain market share and give developers enough confidence to make apps while serving as a pilot program for other hardware makers to get on board.

    I would also embed some type of tracker (not a malicious one) into Open webOS that IDs the number of devices it is installed on or track the number of downloads. People go nuts over statistics even if the numbers are useless, like Apple's original app count (both BBOS and Windows Mobile had more apps at the time but Apple's app for that campaign and emphasis on numbers convinced people that they were on top). If Open webOS could gain just 10% market share (total on all INSTALLED devices), it would be a major player again.

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
  4. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    Tony,

    When I made that suggestion here a lot of folks attacked my suggestion as not making business sense. I even listed the numerous times Microsoft and others employed this strategy, but was told that it was naive for HP to do so.
    That is a naughty bit of revisionist history you are engaged in (but I can see how it would appeal to rewrite history so you were a man of foresight), what actually happened was that you were told that it made no sense for HP *because* they are not amazon or google they built the ecosystem first, •then• subbed a tablet, you would do it back to front with limited content to upsell. Moreover the nexus is designed to be sold at those prices so if it was being sold at cost (16gb isn't) that is not the same as a device designed and costed to be sold at twice the price.

    You would have HP follow the gillette model before they were producing the blades for the handle.



    Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express
    Last edited by CGK; 07/30/2012 at 03:29 AM.
    SnotBoogie likes this.
  5. #5  
    Both Google and Microsoft are in vastly different positions then HP were. Both have huge cash positions to tolerate losses. Google can take losses, it's got a store it's making money off and Google lives off massive ad revenue not Android, apps sales, or tablets in general. Microsoft, in the past took losses on the xbox but it's a completely different model. unlike a tablet Microsoft, was taking a nice licensing fee for every game on their console, microsoft makes it's own games, has a publishing company to publish other people's games and they recoup their loss by selling about one and half games. HP wasn't going recover their loss selling one and a half apps. Plus NOBODY buys an xbox and buys zero games for it. Not to mention they also have huge subscription fees from xbox live, plus they get revenue from controllers and other common accessories. Simply not the same numerical prospect as selling a phone and a 99cent app and a 10 dollar third party case and that's if you buy those at all. i never bought a single accessory for my phone. Buy contrast for my xbox i've bought like 15 games, two extra controllers, spare batteries, two of the cheapo headsets, 4 1 year subs to xbox live, a spare hard drive. But people want to ignore the one huge fact that HP was in a very different financial position then the common sited companies and that is they simply couldn't swallow huge losses. HP was not Google. They weren't Microsoft. The same solution won't work for companies in different positions. It's sort like Tiger Woods with 205 yards to the green hitting an 8 iron. That he can do it doesn't mean you can do it cause you don't hit an 8 iron that far.
    You come at the king. You best not miss.

Posting Permissions