[sinsin07]

Well according to some of the folks here we already have webosheeple.

The second part of your post requires such an extensive response that I broke out the wireless keyboard for my TouchPad to keep up with the amount of typing I'm about to do:

Apple locks down deals because they know when to negotiate from a position of weakness and when to negotiate from a position of strength. The old bait and switch. When Apple first negotiate the deal with the music industry, I believe that they took whatever deal was given to them. Once the iPod became popular and the music industry was raking in the money from mp3s sold on it, Apple renegotiated the deal. They first asked that the price be dropped to .99 cents. Then they got DRM free content added.

Apple used the success of their mp3 store to dive into the movie and TV content business. Again negotiating deals that benefited the industry first, then renegotiating once they gained power in the market. Same thing with apps and other content. Apple did not demand 30% of content sales until they became unstoppable in the market.

Google or HP can't approach this asking for the same price as Apple. Android's market does not make nearly as much money on the sale of content. Mainly because most of the stuff is free and . HP is too new and unproven in the market to demand the same level of compensation as Apple. You can't get people to switch from their cash cow to your milk if it taste the same of is bitter. It has to taste better.

Sheeple is a required part of mobile success. The problem is people don't want to admit it and are quick to label others so as to dismiss any other reason as to why something may have success.

I enjoy your posts, but is this really necessary:

...Android users are cheap...

?

[C-Note]

I thought that's what HP did - they bought their own mobile platform, spent a ton of money on it, took their sweet time, released smartphones and a tablet, priced it as a differentiated Apple-esque price...and failed. I'm sure you have all sorts of reasons why they did it wrong but you can't deny that this was their original strategy - to be like Apple.

The problem is that HP can't be like Apple in the mobile space. Not only are they way behind but they can't possibly invest enough to catch up. For example, Apple has over a thousand engineers working on the mobile chip design alone. They can do that because they sell 100 million of these devices a year. What did HP aspire to? I think it was something like 10 million units the first year.

Thus far, I haven't heard anyone come up with any viable case for future profit HP could derive from the mobile space. Buy a music content company, buy a video content company, buy a cloud services company, partner with Amazon. None of these are going to generate much profit if you are outsourcing everything. All I hear is what HP should have invested in. The case has not been made for excess returns - that's MBA-speak for making more than the 4 or 5 percent return that you could have made just by buying bonds and calling it a day.

I'm sure there is someone that was capable of executing the mobile strategy better than HP did. I just don't think you will find them here on this forum. If you've decided that HP execs were just idiots then there really isn't any need to read this thread any longer - you've already fully explained what happened. You should sell any HP stock you own and never buy anymore devices from people who are idiots.

Agree with most of your thoughts but you then come off the rails with your conclusion. It's the same mistake that many webOS fans make. Spending money does not always equate with have the best strategy.


Let me illustrate:

1) What was their target market? (of course we can't be sure, but guess)
2) What did they do to appeal to that market... or some other market segment? (Price, features, or cachet)
3) How much did they understand their competition?

My guesses -

1) their market WAS the Apple tablet user. But when JohnRube says "I've never used an iPhone" he either thinks his target market is stupid or they didn't do enough market reseach assuming that they could just roll something out.
The iPad market is built on a foundation of being an entertainment friendly device, though obviously it is expanding to be more. What did HP offer at the same price as an iPad to persuade anyone to go in their direction? Nothing

2) If you are not going to compete on features or prices, go for a different market segment. You know who is outselling Apple?... the e-book readers. With NO camera, NO high powered processor, NO big 10" screen. They decided to target a different market segment and have been successful. They can't even do Exchange mail without a lot of effort, but they still sell. Becasue of MARKETING (not just advertising). They identified a niche and rode into it hard before the market hole closed.

3) They TALKED about "being #1 plus" and being "as cool as Apple", and that is a good thing (despite the fact that everyone like to make fun of that). It shows that they at least understood the concept that it is as important to be good as it is to have a good financial quarter. Everyone talks about Steve Jobs as an example, but nobody follows through. They of course did NOTHING to live up to that.

Finally, you may be right about there being nobody here how could do better, but you could very well be wrong. (Most likely you are)

Forget the mathematics and the number of alternate opinions, you assume that only people in the executive ranks are good enough to be executives. But you forget a few things.

1) People in power oven make decisions in an echo chamber where they hear "yes men" constantly agreeing with them. It is why a lowly FBI field agent could see a terrorist threat when her superiors cold not or a mid level account can see the danger to a large investment firm when the bosses think they are invulnerable.. (This is a known and much discussed phenomena).

2) Why do people keep going back to "HP made the best decision" when EVERY trade publication has Leo A as the worst tech CEO of the year and maybe the decade? Were any of you saying the same thing when they decided to purchase Palm for 1 billion?

3) How do you know that business exec are not amusing themselves by lurking in these forums

4) Success should never have been equated with matching Apple dollar for dollar. Whatever the "next big thing" will be (and there will be one), it will not be an overnight success.

C

[jrstinkfish]

The iPod was released in Oct 2001.

The iTunes Store debuted April 2003.

And the iPod wasn't really a massive success until late 2004 and beyond. People tend to rewrite history and think that once Steve broke out the iPod on stage, a revolution instantly began and everyone in the world peed their pants in anticipation of it, which wasn't really the case.

[jrstinkfish]

Staples was and Amazon were selling the TouchPad for up to $100 less than Best Buy. If Best Buy had HONORED THE REBATES they wouldn't have been in that mess.

Do we have any evidence that Staples and Amazon sold more Touchpads than Best Buy? Or any proof that people outside of the tiny webOS userbase were eager to buy a Touchpad for $100 less anyway? Even if BB had honored the rebate, I doubt they would've moved many more.

Really, outside of this forum, there was zero buzz about the Touchpad ... and this is from a guy who is surrounded by tech nerds on a daily basis, it was all iPad (not a bad tablet if you toss aside your prejudices) and Xoom (blech, horrible product) talk.

[k4ever]

I thought that's what HP did - they bought their own mobile platform, spent a ton of money on it, took their sweet time, released smartphones and a tablet, priced it as a differentiated Apple-esque price...and failed. I'm sure you have all sorts of reasons why they did it wrong but you can't deny that this was their original strategy - to be like Apple.

The problem is that HP can't be like Apple in the mobile space. Not only are they way behind but they can't possibly invest enough to catch up. For example, Apple has over a thousand engineers working on the mobile chip design alone. They can do that because they sell 100 million of these devices a year. What did HP aspire to? I think it was something like 10 million units the first year.

Thus far, I haven't heard anyone come up with any viable case for future profit HP could derive from the mobile space. Buy a music content company, buy a video content company, buy a cloud services company, partner with Amazon. None of these are going to generate much profit if you are outsourcing everything. All I hear is what HP should have invested in. The case has not been made for excess returns - that's MBA-speak for making more than the 4 or 5 percent return that you could have made just by buying bonds and calling it a day.

I'm sure there is someone that was capable of executing the mobile strategy better than HP did. I just don't think you will find them here on this forum. If you've decided that HP execs were just idiots then there really isn't any need to read this thread any longer - you've already fully explained what happened. You should sell any HP stock you own and never buy anymore devices from people who are idiots.

Of course HP was trying to be like Apple. I mentioned that in the second sentence of the third paragraph of my post. And no HP is not like Apple right now. It took Apple 10 years along with considerable amount of money and effort to execute that strategy. You even dwelled on this in you post above.

The MBA style of running a business works well for established markets. Once the playbook has been developed the MBAs can step in and execute it well. That doesn't work with the technology market. It will never be an established market because technology is constantly changing. The playbook is constantly changing. You need visionaries like Steve Jobs who constantly pushed the boundaries of technology running the show, not bean counters. You need considerable investments in emerging technologies that can't be explained in a few sound bites to your investors. You have to develop strategies that push your platform and your technologies forward. You have to give those strategies time to bloom, not just two months.

You have to take chances. When something doesn't work the first time, you don't give up and sell the damn whole business. You go back to the drawing board. How many cell phones did Samsung make that weren't hits until they made the Galaxy line? Did they quit the cellular industry after one failure? What about HTC, no one even knew who the were a few years ago and they already had a dozen devices on the market before anyone even took notice. Remember the Apple Newton? Did Apple give up after this failure?

Yes, HP execs were idiots. Only an ***** would spend $1.2 billion to get into a market with the disadvantages they had, which you so eloquently pointed out, expect high sales on a generation 1 product in that market in less than two months, then exist the market when those sales numbers don't pan out. Oh, btw, they announce their departure from the market after only two months during an earnings call without telling their employees, suppliers, developers, and retailers before hand. To top it off they didn't even have a plan or even a statement prepared after the initial announcement. Then they claim to not have enough money for the investment, yet they blew $10 billion of their cash reserves on Autonomy to start over in another market that will require even more investments from them before they see a dime of profit.

If I ran my unit like HP ran their business, I would be out on the streets or in jail.


---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)

[k4ever]

The position of strength only goes so far, though. At this point, content companies are extremely wary of handing over more market share to Apple. You act as if these companies have no idea that terms are liable to change when Apple's market share of their content gets more significant. I'm sure that much of the interest of these companies like Time, Inc. in weBOS was a desire to have channels for their content other than iTunes. With no prospects for growth, however, there is little reason for these content companies to continue to be interested.

Diversity in a market drives down prices. The content providers made Apple powerful in their market. They can't expect someone to step forward and challenge Apple without their support. Your statement leads me to believe that webOS could step forward and be a contender if the industry supports them. WebOS is stuck in the chicken or egg dilemma right now. No one wants to buy webOS devices because they lack content, yet no provider wants to provide content to webOS because it lacks users. Someone has to give. In this business that someone needs to be the content providers. They need to diversify their content deals. It doesn't cost them money too much money to make a webOS app or portal for their content. If they sale one movie, book, or several mp3 files to a handful of users on the platform they make the money back on the app develop. If the sale goes well for the user they create a loyal customer generating even more revenue down the line. Look at Amazon. They don't restrict their content just to Kindle owners or their website to Windows PC owners. Their books work across multiple platforms and their website works on all web browsers, including the ones that run on niche operating systems.


---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)

[k4ever]

Sheeple is a required part of mobile success. The problem is people don't want to admit it and are quick to label others so as to dismiss any other reason as to why something may have success.

I enjoy your posts, but is this really necessary: ?

No one ever wants to admit that they are the same as everyone else. We are all unique and all of our thoughts, dreams, and ideas are unique to, d@mn it!

Yes it is necessary. I want to see diversity in the mobile market. Android is flavor of the month right now, but iOS is the preferred taste. If Android users don't start paying for the good apps, developers are going to move on. We can't keep constantly expecting more for less. These folks have to eat.



---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)

[k4ever]

And the iPod wasn't really a massive success until late 2004 and beyond. People tend to rewrite history and think that once Steve broke out the iPod on stage, a revolution instantly began and everyone in the world peed their pants in anticipation of it, which wasn't really the case.

Thank you! It took one of the most popular product several years of development and over two years on the market to be successful, yet HP execs thought they could pull off the same amount of success with one year of development and two months on the market. ...and some folks here don't think that HP execs are mentally challenged?


---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)

[k4ever]

Do we have any evidence that Staples and Amazon sold more Touchpads than Best Buy? Or any proof that people outside of the tiny webOS userbase were eager to buy a Touchpad for $100 less anyway? Even if BB had honored the rebate, I doubt they would've moved many more.

Really, outside of this forum, there was zero buzz about the Touchpad ... and this is from a guy who is surrounded by tech nerds on a daily basis, it was all iPad (not a bad tablet if you toss aside your prejudices) and Xoom (blech, horrible product) talk.

If you go back into the archives of PreCentral's and webOSRoundup's front page stories, you will see several that mentioned the sales by Staples, Amazon, and others. Not one was for Best Buy. These sites tracked those sales like Bloomberg tracks the stock market so I'm sure they didn't miss one. Also we had some lively discussions in these forums about whether or not the rebates were a good thing, even though they are standard MO for HP.

You are right, there was zero buzz for anything other than an iPad. However everyone I know knew about and liked the Russel Brand commercials. Looking back, those commercials mentioned webOS more than they mentioned the TouchPad. So everyone knew what webOS was, just not so much about the hardware.


---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)

[sinsin07]

No one ever wants to admit that they are the same as everyone else. We are all unique and all of our thoughts, dreams, and ideas are unique to, d@mn it!

Yes it is necessary. I want to see diversity in the mobile market. Android is flavor of the month right now, but iOS is the preferred taste. If Android users don't start paying for the good apps, developers are going to move on. We can't keep constantly expecting more for less. These folks have to eat.



---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)

Those kind of comments will not spur any buying spree from any potential android users reading here. All it does it create flame bait.

Do you have any hard evdeience that webos users are more inclined to spend money on an app than an android user?

My impression from reading posts here is webos users are in the same category. For example, all the lamenting over Sprint not getting new webos devices. People didn't want to leave Sprint and pay more for a webos device on a supported carrier. Then there is the splashtop app. People crying over the $10 price tag. Longtime webos users not buying a launch touchpad but jumping all over the firesale and crying when they could not get a firesale touchpad. This all smacks of what you are labeling other OS users.

No, not everything mentioned has to do with app purchases, but if webos users won't buy webos devices due to price of service or price of device, app purchases become a moot point.

Certain individuals here like to label other OS users as sheeple, not realizing that's exactly what webos suffers from, lack of sheeple.

[rnld]

Between 2001 and 2003, 600,000 iPods were sold.

What were the sales of the competition during the same time frame?

[k4ever]

Those kind of comments will not spur any buying spree from any potential android users reading here. All it does it create flame bait.

Do you have any hard evdeience that webos users are more inclined to spend money on an app than an android user?

My impression from reading posts here is webos users are in the same category. For example, all the lamenting over Sprint not getting new webos devices. People didn't want to leave Sprint and pay more for a webos device on a supported carrier. Then there is the splashtop app. People crying over the $10 price tag. Longtime webos users not buying a launch touchpad but jumping all over the firesale and crying when they could not get a firesale touchpad. This all smacks of what you are labeling other OS users.

Sometimes a little poke starts a discussion. It isn't on the same level as the flame bait we see here all the time. It is a true statement that I covered in detail with post on apps sells earlier in this thread from some news sites.

I agree there are some webOS users in this forum that fit the category. They are looking for the omega webOS device before they will open up their wallets. No device has truly everything you want or need, not even the iPhone. Yet, if we don't buy or support webOS devices in the future, people will stop making them just like HP did. I bought my TouchPad at Best Buy on day one for full price. I was saving up to buy another one for my wife when HP announce they were discontinuing them. I eventually paid $250 for my wife's TouchPad on Amazon. I also bought the SplashTop app at full price along with over $90 worth of other apps.

Jumping ship from one cell provider to another is expensive, especially if you have a family plan. It would cost me $1000 to move to Verizon, then an extra $100 per month to get less options than I have with Sprint. That $1000 breaks down to at least $150 per phone times 4 phones, activation fees for each line, and accessories like screen protectors and cases. I went through this same thing switching my family from ATT to Sprint when the Pre first came out. I didn't just switch because of the Pre. I had recently moved across the country and ATT did not work in my new area. If it was just me, I would have jumped ship for the Pre 2, but it is not. I know a lot of Sprint users here in the same boat.

Edit: I guarantee you that if Sprint ever offers an update webOS phone, I will upgrade.

---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)

[sinsin07]

Sometimes a little poke starts a discussion. It isn't on the same level as the flame bait we see here all the time. It is a true statement that I covered in detail with post on apps sells earlier in this thread from some news sites.

I agree there are some webOS users in this forum that fit the category. They are looking for the omega webOS device before they will open up their wallets. No device has truly everything you want or need, not even the iPhone. Yet, if we don't buy or support webOS devices in the future, people will stop making them just like HP did. I bought my TouchPad at Best Buy on day one for full price. I was saving up to buy another one for my wife when HP announce they were discontinuing them. I eventually paid $250 for my wife's TouchPad on Amazon. I also bought the SplashTop app at full price along with over $90 worth of other apps.

Jumping ship from one cell provider to another is expensive, especially if you have a family plan. It would cost me $1000 to move to Verizon, then an extra $100 per month to get less options than I have with Sprint. That $1000 breaks down to at least $150 per phone times 4 phones, activation fees for each line, and accessories like screen protectors and cases. I went through this same thing switching my family from ATT to Sprint when the Pre first came out. I didn't just switch because of the Pre. I had recently moved across the country and ATT did not work in my new area. If it was just me, I would have jumped ship for the Pre 2, but it is not. I know a lot of Sprint users here in the same boat.

Edit: I guarantee you that if Sprint ever offers an update webOS phone, I will upgrade.

---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)

There are better ways to open up discussion without inflammatory comments.

I understand the family situatiion, however does everyone of those posters fall into that category? What about the die hard webos family leader? He can certainly leave his family on Sprint and migrate to another webos friendly carrier, either by ETF or when one of his/her lines expire. What I remember is a flat out refussal to consider moving. It would seem the carrier is more important than the OS, and they just so happen to luck out with sprint getting webos. If they ain't willing to move, not much hope for the OS.

Do you think all the iPhone users on ATT were always AT&T customers? (I can only a vouch for two, one of my daughters and me lol)

[k4ever]

There are better ways to open up discussion without inflammatory comments.

I understand the family situatiion, however does everyone of those posters fall into that category? What about the die hard webos family leader? He can certainly leave his family on Sprint and migrate to another webos friendly carrier, either by ETF or when one of his/her lines expire. What I remember is a flat out refussal to consider moving. It would seem the carrier is more important than the OS, and they just so happen to luck out with sprint getting webos. If they ain't willing to move, not much hope for the OS.

Do you think all the iPhone users on ATT were always AT&T customers? (I can only a vouch for two, one of my daughters and me lol)

I apologize.

On a family account, the primary pays the bulk of the fees, each additional phone line is normally $10-20. So for my cell phone bill, I pay $140 for my account, then $20 dollars a piece for my other 3 lines. If I were to say, move to Verizon, I would pay the same for my account (since it is a single account). However, one of my 3 remaining lines on Sprint would become the primary account holder and pay the $140 I was paying. So I would still increase my family's monthly cell phone bill by $140 going the single account route for me. It doesn't make financial sense. I know not everyone here is in the same boat, but people's finances are a private matter.

I also found it funny that people in my new area switched to ATT for the iPhone only to find out that ATT did not work in 90% of the places that Verizon and Sprint did. I owned the original iPhone for less than 30 days only to return it because it required me to pay extra for a data plan and it lacked the apps that I needed. Kind of ironic now. However, I bought an iPod Touch which is essentially the same thing and enjoyed it until it was eventually replaced in time used by my Pre.


---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)

[sinsin07]

I apologize.

On a family account, the primary pays the bulk of the fees, each additional phone line is normally $10-20. So for my cell phone bill, I pay $140 for my account, then $20 dollars a piece for my other 3 lines. If I were to say, move to Verizon, I would pay the same for my account (since it is a single account). However, one of my 3 remaining lines on Sprint would become the primary account holder and pay the $140 I was paying. So I would still increase my family's monthly cell phone bill by $140 going the single account route for me. It doesn't make financial sense. I know not everyone here is in the same boat, but people's finances are a private matter.

I also found it funny that people in my new area switched to ATT for the iPhone only to find out that ATT did not work in 90% of the places that Verizon and Sprint did. I owned the original iPhone for less than 30 days only to return it because it required me to pay extra for a data plan and it lacked the apps that I needed. Kind of ironic now. However, I bought an iPod Touch which is essentially the same thing and enjoyed it until it was eventually replaced in time used by my Pre.


---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)

I apologize if you think I was dircecting my observations at you. I understand the family situation and thanks for the clarification.

[rnld]

And the iPod wasn't really a massive success until late 2004 and beyond. People tend to rewrite history and think that once Steve broke out the iPod on stage, a revolution instantly began and everyone in the world peed their pants in anticipation of it, which wasn't really the case.

Really? There was no MP3 market at that point. The Rio and the Nomad Jukebox were out there for a year or so but they were buggy and cheaply made.

The iPod was ahead of it's time by a long shot.

[rnld]

The iPad grew out of the wildly successful iPhone.

The Touchpad grew out of the faltering Pre/Pixi.

What other tablet computer was in the marketplace in April 2010 when the iPad was released?

[jrstinkfish]

Really? There was no MP3 market at that point. The Rio and the Nomad Jukebox were out there for a year or so but they were buggy and cheaply made.

The iPod was ahead of it's time by a long shot.

Never said it wasn't ahead of its time, just said it wasn't a runaway success until years later. Check the sales history and you'll see it was ignored by most of the non-Apple world until late-2004, 2 years after it was introduced.

[jrstinkfish]

Thank you! It took one of the most popular product several years of development and over two years on the market to be successful, yet HP execs thought they could pull off the same amount of success with one year of development and two months on the market. ...and some folks here don't think that HP execs are mentally challenged?

I get what you're saying, but I don't think the same rules apply to those two products. I do agree that HP really jumped the gun on killing the Touchpad, but I can understand why they were spooked enough to do it.

I've performed in bands in unpopular genres. We would promote a show like crazy, and when the night arrived, we just knew the place would be packed. Then we hit the stage, and there's 30 people there, mostly friends. Very depressing, and makes you question why you put so much effort into something, filled yourself with such hope, when the payoff was nil. I think this is how HP felt when they enthusiastically unveiled the TP and it fizzled (partly due to their own decisions, partly due to its unknown OS), and they probably looked ahead and didn't see much changing, especially when there was already a juggernaut steamrolling all other tablets. They'll have this black eye for a while, and then people will forget.

[rnld]

Never said it wasn't ahead of its time, just said it wasn't a runaway success until years later. Check the sales history and you'll see it was ignored by most of the non-Apple world until late-2004, 2 years after it was introduced.

You can make the claim that once the public embraced MP3s in a big way and the iTunes store was launched, the iPod became even more popular.

Other than that - for an Mp3 player to sell 600,000 units in it's first 14 months at a $400 price point in 2001 was a huge success that was built upon.

The Touchpad was introduced into a marketplace late and offering nothing that didn't already exist on other tablets other than multiple cards.