Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 10:24 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Not too long ago, a lot of people were pleasantly surprised when HP announced it would buy smartphone maker Palm. While Palm launched a very well-received mobile operating system, the hardware it ran on was of questionable quality, leading to lower-than-expected sales and thus financial problems. Now that HP has bought Palm, we're certainly going to see the webOS running on top-notch smartphones, right? Well, not if it's up to HP CEO Mark Hurd. Update: This gives a slightly different angle.
Order by: Score:
HP is stupid
by kragil on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 11:15 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

I don't think he is misquoted. It is just that he has no vision, like Balmer.
For most people smartphones will be the only computer they need (just add WiDi and a BT keyboard to a ARM dualcore and 1GB Ram and you have a copmuter that will do 99% of what most people need).

HP obviously does not want to have a future with such a big potential.

Reply Score: 6

RE: HP is stupid
by Kroc on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 11:26 UTC in reply to "HP is stupid"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

HP don't want to be in the commodity game anymore. They're in a deep pit with their PC business, busy dying. HP may believe that smart phones are also going to become a commodity. Profitability is with something unique, focused and that differentiates itself. Whilst WebOS looks like a great OS for mobile devices, the App Store wars going on right now with each phone OS fighting for developer attention is not a useful war to be late to join.

Putting WebOS in other places, much like Android appearing on tablets and TVs will create more differentiated devices. Printers, for example is something distinctly HP and certainly unique. It will be interesting to see what they come up with, let's just hope it's not a 600 MB printer driver.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: HP is stupid
by Erunno on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE: HP is stupid"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

HP don't want to be in the commodity game anymore. They're in a deep pit with their PC business, busy dying.


I can already hear their death rattle with their net income of almost 10 Billion dollars last year which has been growing for the past 3 quarters despite the recession...

Seriously Kroc, as much as I like many of your articles but comments like this make the strong impression that you are living in a reality distortion field of your own.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: HP is stupid
by Kroc on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HP is stupid"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

A market with slowing growth, product saturation, terrifyingly low margins and being totally dependent on Microsoft and Windows is not a place to be resting your fortunes on. HP want more than to be the lackey that jumps when Microsoft say so.

HP’s PC business may be profitable, but like Microsoft’s stock over the last decade, there’s no growth and no future doing the same thing forever. HP want to be the next Apple and they will _never_ get there with Microsoft clinging to their ankles. This is why the Palm purchase has been such a big thing and caused airbourne seating devices within Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: HP is stupid
by Nelson on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HP is stupid"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yeah, that shitty, terrible, consistent Microsoft stock. Probably one of the more sounder investments in the market is getting trashed why?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: HP is stupid
by LobalSurgery on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: HP is stupid"
LobalSurgery Member since:
2006-09-07

Your comment made me, curious, so I looked up 10 year stock performance for various tech companies (all data from Google Finance, rounded to the nearest percentage point as of 12:45 EST):

Motorola: -82%

Dell -69%

Cisco: -64%

Oracle: -43%

HP: -34%

Microsoft: -20%

Adobe: +1%

IBM: +17%

Google: +363% (Aug. 2004 - Present)

RIM: +524%

Apple: +1029%

So yes, I'd agree they've done a better job than numerous other tech companies, and worse than others, but at a -20% return over 10 years, I'd hardly want to label it a sound investment. Overall, it certainly has been a rough decade for stocks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: HP is stupid
by Erunno on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: HP is stupid"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

After the DotCom bubble burst one would think that people learned that performance at the stock market has not necessarily anything to do with the real performance of a company. But I guess the confidence in the infallibility of the markets is still strong with some people. I guess that's in the end just another kind of reality distortion field, just a potentially far more damaging one.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: HP is stupid
by ecruz on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: HP is stupid"
ecruz Member since:
2007-06-16

this is for "lobal surgery"...

You did not do a good job of researching the stock prices. Like I said to Nelson on another reply, most of you do not know much about stocks, profits, and the market.

Just one example, HP.

On june 1, 2000, stock price was 18.46, today closed at 40.87. Do your own math and how can you come with -34% return.
You bought at 18.46 and if you were to sell today at 40.87 the "real" return my math challenged friend is:
+121% for the last ten years.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: HP is stupid
by LobalSurgery on Fri 4th Jun 2010 01:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: HP is stupid"
LobalSurgery Member since:
2006-09-07

This is for "ecruz"...

The "HP" in my original post was for Hewlett-Packard, whose stock symbol is HPQ. I believe the data you quoted is for Helmerich & Payne, Inc, an oil and gas well drilling company, for which the stock symbol is HP. As I listed only tech companies, I assumed people would understand "HP" to mean Hewlett-Packard and not the stock symbol of a company in a completely non-relevant field.

Today Hewlett-Packard's stock closed at $47.48, which is a far cry (-33%) from where it was 10 years ago, at $71.13.

Are there additional errors in my math that you would care to point out, or do you normally take to insulting others without inspecting your own work?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: HP is stupid
by nt_jerkface on Fri 4th Jun 2010 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: HP is stupid"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Oh come on you can't just look at stock price.

A company can have great products and an expanding market and yet still be unappealing to stock traders due to reasons like not being profitable enough in the short term.

There doesn't even have to be a rational explanation. Plenty of stocks have risen and fallen based on hype, trends, global events that in no way affect the company, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: HP is stupid
by ecruz on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: HP is stupid"
ecruz Member since:
2007-06-16

MSFT and HP stock are getting trashed Nelson, because 99% of the people that read OS News have never bought stocks or know anything about making money in the market. Plain and simple.

Even if you give them MSFT stock 20 years ago, their warped thinking would not accept the gift.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: HP is stupid
by Flatland_Spider on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HP is stupid"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Procurve networking equipment and Services are profitable. Not necessarily other divisions.

HP is anything but an MS lackey. You're forgetting they develop OpenVMS and HP-UX, and will ship laptops with FreeDOS installed. HP only cares about selling customers hardware and services.

HP wants to be IBM; they don't care about Apple. Apple is a problem for MS and Dell. Apple doesn't operate the #1 or #3 services company in the world, so HP doesn't care.

When Hurd says Palm is dead and WebOS will get crammed into printers, that's pretty much what's going to happen. The iPaq is barely alive, and HP only keeps going because customers run MS Exchange on HP servers. It gives the sales reps one more things to throw into the sales pitch. WebOS and the Pre doesn't fill that kind of niche. It's just a bunch of awesome special effects to add to printer menus, and it's full featured enough that they can push adds for HP products to it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: HP is stupid
by Kroc on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 21:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: HP is stupid"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I was focusing entirely on the consumer desktop space. Everything else, yup, doing well. It‘s HP’s consumer space that needs a real injection and Palm/WebOS could be it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: HP is stupid
by tomcat on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HP is stupid"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"HP don't want to be in the commodity game anymore. They're in a deep pit with their PC business, busy dying.


I can already hear their death rattle with their net income of almost 10 Billion dollars last year which has been growing for the past 3 quarters despite the recession...

Seriously Kroc, as much as I like many of your articles but comments like this make the strong impression that you are living in a reality distortion field of your own.
"

Not to mention the fact that HP recently overtook IBM in the worldwide server market. HP is not hurting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: HP is stupid
by Moochman on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE: HP is stupid"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Putting WebOS in other places, much like Android appearing on tablets and TVs will create more differentiated devices. Printers, for example is something distinctly HP and certainly unique. It will be interesting to see what they come up with, let's just hope it's not a 600 MB printer driver.


WebOS is not a printer OS. As a matter of fact, printers are such commodity itmes that I can't imagine WebOS could add anything remotely useful to them without driving the cost of the device through the roof beyond what any normal consumer is willing to pay. The idea of WebOS for printers is just dumb.

WebOS is designed for smartphones. It would probably be a good fit for tablets, too, but that's not what it was first and foremost designed for, and that's not what Palm has in its DNA. If it wasn't a smartphone OS that HP wanted, they should never have bought one.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: HP is stupid
by arpan on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HP is stupid"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Precisely. It's right there in the name WebOS.

So, what do they expect us to do, browse the internet on their printers?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: HP is stupid
by cerbie on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HP is stupid"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

You know, I've been seeing lots of Sharp and Kyocera ads lately, touting support for things like email, and even local web services (intranet stuff). Many high-end printer + kitchen sink devices already have reasonably large color displays, real or on-screen keyboards, etc., and they already hook to networks.

I used to work at a place that had a few older HP and Xerox printers like that (obviously less fancy, due to age).

It may not get to your average $50 printer, but I don't see how it is unreasonable to think of using networked software, with a business printer, or higher-end consumer all-in-one, having a GUI client.

You could even have an app for your cell phone that could pretty much be an equivalent to a remote desktop connection for it. More importantly, though, it can be basically the same across many devices.

While I think vertical market tablet, maybe POS boxes, and other SFF/embedded devices (which HP makes plenty of, you know), may be more at home with WebOS, don't count out printers.

At the end of the day, though: as long as HP gets its focus back on service and R&D, and stays away from the low margin sales of everything under the sun with silicon in it big enough to carry an HP logo (the Fiorina era), I think it'll work out.

Edited 2010-06-03 20:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Wow
by bolomkxxviii on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 11:26 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

Amazing. Do they have glasses that will correct vision that near-sighted?

Reply Score: 4

Cooltown
by flypig on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 12:05 UTC
flypig
Member since:
2005-07-13

Maybe HP are planning to finally deliver on their "Cooltown" vision from 2001?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNbDj7OAbh0

From the video:

"It's a vision of a world where everybody and everything is connected wirelessly through the World Wide Web; people, places and even objects have websites... people connect through a wide variety of smart, wireless information appliances..."

I don't know whether it makes sense to drop Palm's smartphone development (it certainly seems odd to me), but I can understand the point of adding proper (unified) OS support to all of their other appliances.

Reply Score: 1

Not the whole story
by cpuobsessed on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 12:10 UTC
cpuobsessed
Member since:
2009-06-09

He didn't dismiss the ideal of staying in the smartphone business either. I didn't hear anything about taking apart Palm and ditching smartphones, his main focus was to put WebOS on other devices as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not the whole story
by lavo on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 12:59 UTC in reply to "Not the whole story"
lavo Member since:
2010-04-05

Thank you for posting this comment. Not once did the HP CEO mention Palm at all, and for all we know, Palm isn't going anywhere. They still seem to be doing events, marketing, and hopefully releasing new phones. I'd put money on that Palm become what the Newton group were before Steve came back (Newton Inc.).

You might find that HP ditch the smartphone segment altogether, and leave it to Palm. Meanwhile, they leverage all the work done on WebOS and use it in their own devices. And hopefully provide some better hardware to Palm ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not the whole story
by Moochman on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 13:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Not the whole story"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh, yes he did mention Palm, in the quote "We didn't buy Palm..."

For all intensive purposes Palm *is* HP once the deal goes through. If he says "HP is not interested in..." you can be pretty sure that it applies to HP's subdivisions too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not the whole story
by cpuobsessed on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not the whole story"
cpuobsessed Member since:
2009-06-09

Uh, yes he did mention Palm, in the quote "We didn't buy Palm..."


His main reason wasn't to go into smartphones but to add webos to other items.

When I first heard this story I said it was a smart move because then they would have a complete application stack, from server to user. Having a smartphone division is just a bonus revenue for them. I do hope they keep up the smartphone business side.

Edited 2010-06-03 14:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

New Speak!
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 13:56 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

That is a very value proposition.


If I had HP Stock, I'd be selling now. That is the kind of language I would expect from a a guy starting up a E-business web-portal in 2001, who expects to make a mint in an IPO for his website that people will stay on because of the large number of ads on it, and the comic sans logo.

Reply Score: 4

RE: New Speak!
by Kroc on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 14:13 UTC in reply to "New Speak!"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

That is the kind of language I would expect from a a guy starting up a Social Network in 2006, who expects to make a mint in an IPO for his website that people will stay on because of the large number of users on it, and the Futura logo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: New Speak!
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE: New Speak!"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

My language, or Mark Hurd's language?

For the record, I would build an anti-social network, where users get points for being rude to each other, you can't have friends, only enemies and you can only dislike statuses/comments/links that people have on their page. The system would regularly send messages on your behalf to other users, spreading gossip and innuendo from analysing your profile. If you didn't accept an invitation to the site, a profile for you would be set up any-ways based on google search results about you.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: New Speak!
by vivainio on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: New Speak!"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Hurd's.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: New Speak!
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 4th Jun 2010 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: New Speak!"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

For the record, I would build an anti-social network, where users get points for being rude to each other, you can't have friends, only enemies and you can only dislike statuses/comments/links that people have on their page. The system would regularly send messages on your behalf to other users, spreading gossip and innuendo from analysing your profile. If you didn't accept an invitation to the site, a profile for you would be set up any-ways based on google search results about you.


We could call it "Usenet 2.0".

Reply Score: 3

RE: New Speak!
by vivainio on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 14:57 UTC in reply to "New Speak!"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

"That is a very value proposition.


If I had HP Stock, I'd be selling now. That is the kind of language I would expect from a a guy starting up a E-business web-portal in 2001, who expects to make a mint in an IPO for his website that people will stay on because of the large number of ads on it, and the comic sans logo.
"

Is that sentence English in the first place?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Neolander
by Neolander on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 15:20 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Would you really expect from someone whose name is "Hurd" to have some good business sense ?

...


...


Sorry...

Reply Score: 4

Out of touch!
by jboss1995 on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 18:04 UTC
jboss1995
Member since:
2007-05-02

How do they get there jobs?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Out of touch!
by vodoomoth on Mon 7th Jun 2010 09:21 UTC in reply to "Out of touch!"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Excellent question.

I've heard much about the good webOS and the Palm Pre. Searched for videos on Youtube and saw a dog slow Pre Plus booting in 2 minutes and XX seconds. Reaction? "Never, ever".

I don't see how they'll manage to put it in printers. I already have a Deskjet F4580 wifi printer, which gets ready to print in a little more than 30 seconds... I know I would hate it if I had to do more than switch it on, print 3 or 4 pages, turn it off until the next time I need to print something. Which hasn't happened in the past two months.

Reply Score: 1