Yeah, they tried to sell smart phones for a whole two months, that's not nearly long enough for them to be in the market. Their one release of smart phones wasn't even their own design, it was simply the product that was in the line at the time they bought Palm and when it wasn't an instant smash hit they quickly declared failure.
That idiot Leo just wanted to write it off and kill it like the PC business he wanted to sell.
You can add the webOS tablet and the Slate (from Windows) to that list.
PCs are low margins for HP. They are trying to be the next IBM. They did try to sell smart phones under WebOS but that went no where (no doubt because of the creepy commercials). Maybe they'll regroup and sell an innovative Android device or WP8 device.
NO! We have too many Samesungs already! They need to evolve WebOS and make it work.
What do most of these failing electronics companies (think HTC & HP) have in common? Windoze and Android.
Samesung claims to be innovators, yet if they were seriously innovators, they'd develop their own world-class OS instead of relying on others.
WebOS was a pretty good operating system. Palm failed by only offering it on Sprint to start. They were hurting, but picked too small of a carrier to launch a new platform. THAT'S where Palm took a nosedive towards the grave. The weird commercials didn't help, either.
If HP gets WebOS going, provide developers with a good SDK, and PROMOTE IT the right way, they could have something good.
RIM's problem is they were too obsessed with small screens, physical keyboards and rollerballs for WAY too long. HELLOOOO 1990s! Even Palm knew the trend was changing, hence WebOS and the Palm Pre. They just tripped at the starting line by only offering it on Sprint in the beginning. If it would've launched on AT&T, it would've been much more successful (and I would've bought one instead of my first iPhone...).
Meg Whitman? I assume the same Meg Whitman that had eBay buy Skype? And without sufficient rights to sell the business and its technology to a third party? Without bringing any benefit to their business and losing eBay billions when they did try to sell it?
It does make for depressing reading how people who appear to be incapable of making better decisions than an average minimum wage worker can get into positions to hoard a billion dollar fortune:
but still a massive screw-up to not buy the original IP. It actually looked like a scam by the Skype founders - they knew exactly what they were selling.
People like Meg Whitman can drift from company to company writing down the big numbers that will impress any new employer as though they were personally responsible for expanding a company or increasing the revenue and their rewards are obscene. All CEOs should be paid $1 and anything else should come from the value they help create. If they don't create any value, they leave with $1 and a parachute that doesn't open. Being in a position to get so much reward for so little work is a privilege and to reward people just as much for failure as success is wreckless. People also shouldn't immediately assign all success (or to be fair all failure) to the CEO alone unless what happened was as a direct result of what they did.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrayven
Yeah, they tried to sell smart phones for a whole two months, that's not nearly long enough for them to be in the market. Their one release of smart phones wasn't even their own design, it was simply the product that was in the line at the time they bought Palm and when it wasn't an instant smash hit they quickly declared failure.
That idiot Leo just wanted to write it off and kill it like the PC business he wanted to sell.
You can add the webOS tablet and the Slate (from Windows) to that list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
PCs are low margins for HP. They are trying to be the next IBM. They did try to sell smart phones under WebOS but that went no where (no doubt because of the creepy commercials). Maybe they'll regroup and sell an innovative Android device or WP8 device.
NO! We have too many Samesungs already! They need to evolve WebOS and make it work.
What do most of these failing electronics companies (think HTC & HP) have in common? Windoze and Android.
Samesung claims to be innovators, yet if they were seriously innovators, they'd develop their own world-class OS instead of relying on others.
WebOS was a pretty good operating system. Palm failed by only offering it on Sprint to start. They were hurting, but picked too small of a carrier to launch a new platform. THAT'S where Palm took a nosedive towards the grave. The weird commercials didn't help, either.
If HP gets WebOS going, provide developers with a good SDK, and PROMOTE IT the right way, they could have something good.
RIM's problem is they were too obsessed with small screens, physical keyboards and rollerballs for WAY too long. HELLOOOO 1990s! Even Palm knew the trend was changing, hence WebOS and the Palm Pre. They just tripped at the starting line by only offering it on Sprint in the beginning. If it would've launched on AT&T, it would've been much more successful (and I would've bought one instead of my first iPhone...).
It does make for depressing reading how people who appear to be incapable of making better decisions than an average minimum wage worker can get into positions to hoard a billion dollar fortune:
http://exiledonline.com/how-meg-whitman-failed-her-way-to-the-top-at-ebay-collecting-billions-while-nearly-destroying-the-company/
The worst they'd do is fire her and she just goes somewhere else with her billion dollars.
Some more details on the Skype deal make it sound a bit more rosey:
http://gigaom.com/2009/11/10/whitman-on-skype/
http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/19/ebay-skype-sale/
but still a massive screw-up to not buy the original IP. It actually looked like a scam by the Skype founders - they knew exactly what they were selling.
People like Meg Whitman can drift from company to company writing down the big numbers that will impress any new employer as though they were personally responsible for expanding a company or increasing the revenue and their rewards are obscene. All CEOs should be paid $1 and anything else should come from the value they help create. If they don't create any value, they leave with $1 and a parachute that doesn't open. Being in a position to get so much reward for so little work is a privilege and to reward people just as much for failure as success is wreckless. People also shouldn't immediately assign all success (or to be fair all failure) to the CEO alone unless what happened was as a direct result of what they did.
Like a lead parachute.
Good post; thanks for the read.