Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th Aug 2011 19:34 UTC
Permalink for comment 485946
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-10-18
They want to get out of businesses they don't think they can make money in. The problem with that thinking is that IBM is better at that game than HP is.
The real tragedy here is that Palm wasn't going to work unless the buyer fixed the execution problems. HP really dropped the ball there. They let Palm go about essentially business as usual and the resulting time-to-market killed the viability of the devices in the marketplace. They were about a year late on all their devices, starting with Pre.