|
|
 Originally Posted by PalmPixi_User23
Very true words indeed, but don't forget that HP could still make profits(not big but small) only if they willing to try the right way with the WebOS operating system. I don't want to pay a trip to a street down memory lane, occasionally we might have to do that here when talking about the HP many stupid/silly things they continue to do to this very day. HP looks to seek profits, but how is their plans moving on forward to accomplish this ? 
Let's take a look at TouchPad release, it was catastrophic, horrible event ever performed by a company that was used to be known for its excellence in service and a computer devices like HP. TouchPad was overpriced, WebOS was filled with bugs that I'm sure it effected its sales, no music or video store, developers were even given enough time with the SDK nor HP created interest with developers. Then, you got a device like the Veer which was poorly executed and too small for a market that got used to seeing many phones with a display that measured 4 to 5 inches. And forget the Palm Pre 3 which was never officially released, so HP can not compare or say that getting into the smartphones market was risky....because the potential of that device sadly enough can't be said.
So obviously, if these things are not even corrected properly before releasing any kind product whether it is a tablet or a phone, of course no profits could be made under those circumstances. However, if HP could done things properly I'm sure that to could have slowly seen profits there.
Webos has never been profitable. Not for Palm. Not for HP. The idea that it can be profitable is pure speculation. But HP doesn't need a tiny profit. They need products that will stem the decline/stagnation in there PC and Printing business and those are large. Not only has it not been profitable it's surely not, in it's present level of interest, gonna stem that huge tide. Earnings this last quarter fell $158 Million from last quarter. That's a lot to make up on top of the estimated $330 million per quarter rising to $500 million dollars that Cathey Lesjak CFO said they'd have to expend per quarter just to keep launching devices. that was back when they announced the ending of webos hardware. Add to that the cost of building out an ecosystem. And this is all in an environment where outside of webosnation there is not demand for webos phones.
Let's be honest. They were already in the mobile space with webos and people didn't buy them in any level enough to sustain the program. And problems were not just a simple fix of changing hardware. There were software problems as well not easily fixed. All that stuff you mentioned had to be fixed. There was an article about why webos had problems illustrating supply chain problems because Apple and Samsung get all the displays, problems getting html programmers of adequate caliber, apparently a problem google had with their poor html based apps too. All that stuff the ecosystem etc costs billions, and there's zero guarantee it will end up profitable. Sony even owns media, music, movies, makes phones and computers and they are still doing crappy in the mobile space. HP would have to make licensing deals for all those properties to sell out of a store.
People can say touchpad was overpriced but to be feasible it has to be priced more then it costs to build. And components cost what they cost. It's easy for people not paying for components and not accountable for the losses to shareholders to say, take a loss, sell it for $200 but that's silly and not realistic.
people have to want to buy the product your selling and there's no evidence of people outside of the small webos community that people want it. And to get it even competitive i think is a cost that's not feasible for most.
And even if you fix all the stuff that's you highlight as a problem there's not telling if it will be profitable. I don't know windows phone 7 more then using it in a store but it didn't seem full of bugs. It's not that Nokia phone that seem ok hardware. But windows phone 7 isn't doing exactly gangbusters. But the difference is Microsoft has, windows generating profits, and a giant vault of cash. HP isn't in that situation and doesn't have the cash to fund years of a stagnant OS.
i just don't think it's guaranteed to be a profit. Not that it couldn't have had they done it right but it's HP. They've been disfunctional for a long time. I'm wasn't betting on them any more then i'd bet on the Buffalo Bills to win the Super Bowl.
|
|
|
