The original HP deal could have been Steve's RDF at work, but I rather liked Carly so I don't think that's exactly right. Things were different at HP then and I wonder what worse a position HP would be in if they decided to sink funds in the media player business.
I think the real goal of the PC manufacturers is to offer free music players to lure in naive/"value conscious" buyers. Apple did this at back to school time and I'm sure sold tons of laptops since they'd come with a free iPod mini. Difference here is that the iPod is a solid, reliable, trendy product!
Anyhow, HP still has a chance to innovate by converging their media players, cameras, and printers. I'm not saying all the products will be insanely great, but they'll be better than Dells' crap. I can't say I'd run out to buy an HP PC though.
Bundling Itunes with HP's saves someone the hassle of downloading Quicktime and iTunes. Since 80% of the home users HP has will be using an iPod, they just download the software. It's a bit of inconvenience but not that much.
What the h*** are you talking about? 80% of mp3 owners may have iPod's but what makes you think that every home computer owner is MP3 player owner? That was just the point, not every one is interested in MP3 players, even that small icon on desktop or that small sticker on box can make someone think "If big company like HP trusts APPLE, maybe I can as well".
Havn't seen this much crap for a while on these boards. Carly Fiorina did the deal with Steve bacause she was feeling the heat after the predictably disastrous Compaq 'merger' and wanted some of that iPod action. Apple's negotiators did what THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO DO. The got the best deal possible. Carly is gone and the new management team will distance themselves from the previous regime's deals; as all new management teams do. This is their earliest opportunity to exit. End of story. I doubt that continuing the deal was ever the remotest possibility. This will not effect Apple one iota. No story.
From Apple's POV, I guess they should try to maximize the business deals in their favor, on the other hand, people who got stuck with a shitty HP iPod (PC only), might think ill of Apple.
Are you sure? if they use the same OS that Apple does then why is it not mac compatible?
Would/could/has Apple released a version of iPod updater that makes them Mac compatible?
From Apple's POV, I guess they should try to maximize the business deals in their favor, on the other hand, people who got stuck with a shitty HP iPod (PC only), might think ill of Apple.
No one got stuck. The HP iPod is not PC-only. It is not sh..ty either, it actually had a better warranty.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It's not even about suing. It's about Apple doing what the contract allowed them to do.
It's about more than that. Apple entered into the partnership with HP. Then deliberately tryed to cut off HPs Access to the market with its deal with Walmart and RadioShack. That is just not playing nice with your partner. Of course, I love Apple products and have no love for HP or its products but Apple played dirty pool with its partner.
Apple entered into the partnership with HP. Then deliberately tryed to cut off HPs Access to the market with its deal with Walmart and RadioShack. That is just not playing nice with your partner. Of course, I love Apple products and have no love for HP or its products but Apple played dirty pool with its partner.
Apple entered into a deal with HP to allow HP to sell HP-branded version of the iPod through HP's distribution channels.
Apple created retail/sale agreements with two retailers.
Apple is doing business. Nothing wrong with what they did. I just don't see how they knifed HP in any way. If Apple violated their agreement with HP, that is a different story...and they'd probably have been sued. But if it is just that HP either a) signed a deal that favored Apple too much, and/or b) didn't know how to execute their end of the deal very well...then it is HP's fault.
No one got stuck. The HP iPod is not PC-only. It is not sh..ty either, it actually had a better warranty.
It's about more than that. Apple entered into the partnership with HP. Then deliberately tryed to cut off HPs Access to the market with its deal with Walmart and RadioShack. That is just not playing nice with your partner. Of course, I love Apple products and have no love for HP or its products but Apple played dirty pool with its partner.
Actually, my brother bought an HP iPod and, yes, it WAS PC only. As far as the warranty goes, I'm not aware of that aspect...
I don't see how HP can enter the MP3 market without cruisifying theirselves. It's just too late. I mean, iRiver and Creative BARELY have a chance if at all.
Although on the other hand, I am concerned that HP might have a insider understanding about how the iPod works, etc., that theirs can copy it.
I too think it would be hard to break into that market without something interesting. One of the larger of the competitors, Rio, is dead and gone. Every electronics brand seems to be in that market.
I thought it was a mistake when HP had the "invent" tagline but simply did an obvious rebrand of a competitor's high profile product. I don't see how HP would have an edge in designing a product through a sales and distribution arrangement. How the iPod works is reasonably well known, if not, easily reverse engineered.
Competitors couldn't beat iPod with more features and a lower price, and there are some that look nice, but nothing to sway the mindshare away from Apple.
Apple entered into a deal with HP to allow HP to sell HP-branded version of the iPod through HP's distribution channels.
Apple created retail/sale agreements with two retailers.
Apple is doing business. Nothing wrong with what they did. I just don't see how they knifed HP in any way. If Apple violated their agreement with HP, that is a different story...and they'd probably have been sued. But if it is just that HP either a) signed a deal that favored Apple too much, and/or b) didn't know how to execute their end of the deal very well...then it is HP's fault.
I agree with you that Apple is doing business, and it is fair game to try to get in to store chains, I am glad that Apple did. I would rather have an Apple iPod myself.
Still, Apple can be a tough partner to deal with. HP should have had its deal nailed down better with Apple. They bought iPods at a certain price, and then the price went down, and there they were, higher costs, effectively, to meet the new price points of Apple. I don't blame them for not wanting to keep iTunes on their pcs.
It would not have hurt to have iTunes on HPs, and to have relationship with HP. 8% is 8%.
I never did see much of any advertising that HP did to push the iPod. They really need to look at their own part in this. Really, they would be as well off to just ask Apple if they(HP) may sell Apple iPods, and get a price where they make something, buy an allotment, and then push them. They don't refuse to sell their printers to Apple users. That is business. I buy HP printers. I think they are better than their pcs, at least in my experience.
Comments
I think the real goal of the PC manufacturers is to offer free music players to lure in naive/"value conscious" buyers. Apple did this at back to school time and I'm sure sold tons of laptops since they'd come with a free iPod mini. Difference here is that the iPod is a solid, reliable, trendy product!
Anyhow, HP still has a chance to innovate by converging their media players, cameras, and printers. I'm not saying all the products will be insanely great, but they'll be better than Dells' crap. I can't say I'd run out to buy an HP PC though.
Originally posted by mcloki
Bundling Itunes with HP's saves someone the hassle of downloading Quicktime and iTunes. Since 80% of the home users HP has will be using an iPod, they just download the software. It's a bit of inconvenience but not that much.
What the h*** are you talking about? 80% of mp3 owners may have iPod's but what makes you think that every home computer owner is MP3 player owner? That was just the point, not every one is interested in MP3 players, even that small icon on desktop or that small sticker on box can make someone think "If big company like HP trusts APPLE, maybe I can as well".
Originally posted by melgross
It isn't their fault that Apple did what they did. Perhaps they could have sued, perhaps not.
It's not even about suing. It's about Apple doing what the contract allowed them to do.
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
From Apple's POV, I guess they should try to maximize the business deals in their favor, on the other hand, people who got stuck with a shitty HP iPod (PC only), might think ill of Apple.
Are you sure? if they use the same OS that Apple does then why is it not mac compatible?
Would/could/has Apple released a version of iPod updater that makes them Mac compatible?
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
From Apple's POV, I guess they should try to maximize the business deals in their favor, on the other hand, people who got stuck with a shitty HP iPod (PC only), might think ill of Apple.
No one got stuck. The HP iPod is not PC-only. It is not sh..ty either, it actually had a better warranty.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It's not even about suing. It's about Apple doing what the contract allowed them to do.
It's about more than that. Apple entered into the partnership with HP. Then deliberately tryed to cut off HPs Access to the market with its deal with Walmart and RadioShack. That is just not playing nice with your partner. Of course, I love Apple products and have no love for HP or its products but Apple played dirty pool with its partner.
Originally posted by AquaMac
Apple entered into the partnership with HP. Then deliberately tryed to cut off HPs Access to the market with its deal with Walmart and RadioShack. That is just not playing nice with your partner. Of course, I love Apple products and have no love for HP or its products but Apple played dirty pool with its partner.
Apple entered into a deal with HP to allow HP to sell HP-branded version of the iPod through HP's distribution channels.
Apple created retail/sale agreements with two retailers.
Apple is doing business. Nothing wrong with what they did. I just don't see how they knifed HP in any way. If Apple violated their agreement with HP, that is a different story...and they'd probably have been sued. But if it is just that HP either a) signed a deal that favored Apple too much, and/or b) didn't know how to execute their end of the deal very well...then it is HP's fault.
Originally posted by AquaMac
No one got stuck. The HP iPod is not PC-only. It is not sh..ty either, it actually had a better warranty.
It's about more than that. Apple entered into the partnership with HP. Then deliberately tryed to cut off HPs Access to the market with its deal with Walmart and RadioShack. That is just not playing nice with your partner. Of course, I love Apple products and have no love for HP or its products but Apple played dirty pool with its partner.
Actually, my brother bought an HP iPod and, yes, it WAS PC only. As far as the warranty goes, I'm not aware of that aspect...
Originally posted by icfireball
I don't see how HP can enter the MP3 market without cruisifying theirselves. It's just too late. I mean, iRiver and Creative BARELY have a chance if at all.
Although on the other hand, I am concerned that HP might have a insider understanding about how the iPod works, etc., that theirs can copy it.
I too think it would be hard to break into that market without something interesting. One of the larger of the competitors, Rio, is dead and gone. Every electronics brand seems to be in that market.
I thought it was a mistake when HP had the "invent" tagline but simply did an obvious rebrand of a competitor's high profile product. I don't see how HP would have an edge in designing a product through a sales and distribution arrangement. How the iPod works is reasonably well known, if not, easily reverse engineered.
Competitors couldn't beat iPod with more features and a lower price, and there are some that look nice, but nothing to sway the mindshare away from Apple.
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Actually, my brother bought an HP iPod and, yes, it WAS PC only.
So you couldn't use the Mac iPod updater? I had used a PC formatted Apple iPod on a Mac without issue, though I did eventually reformat it.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Apple entered into a deal with HP to allow HP to sell HP-branded version of the iPod through HP's distribution channels.
Apple created retail/sale agreements with two retailers.
Apple is doing business. Nothing wrong with what they did. I just don't see how they knifed HP in any way. If Apple violated their agreement with HP, that is a different story...and they'd probably have been sued. But if it is just that HP either a) signed a deal that favored Apple too much, and/or b) didn't know how to execute their end of the deal very well...then it is HP's fault.
I agree with you that Apple is doing business, and it is fair game to try to get in to store chains, I am glad that Apple did. I would rather have an Apple iPod myself.
Still, Apple can be a tough partner to deal with. HP should have had its deal nailed down better with Apple. They bought iPods at a certain price, and then the price went down, and there they were, higher costs, effectively, to meet the new price points of Apple. I don't blame them for not wanting to keep iTunes on their pcs.
It would not have hurt to have iTunes on HPs, and to have relationship with HP. 8% is 8%.
I never did see much of any advertising that HP did to push the iPod. They really need to look at their own part in this. Really, they would be as well off to just ask Apple if they(HP) may sell Apple iPods, and get a price where they make something, buy an allotment, and then push them. They don't refuse to sell their printers to Apple users. That is business. I buy HP printers. I think they are better than their pcs, at least in my experience.