Slashdot Mirror
HP Spinning Off WebOS and Exiting Hardware Business
A number of readers submitted rumors about some announcements HP was set to make today. Now, the announcements have actually happened, and the news looks grim. For starters, they are exiting the tablet and phone market and repositioning webOS for use in appliances and vehicles. While confirming they are in talks to acquire Autonomy, they also announced they are considering exiting the PC hardware business entirely in order to focus on their software business.
"According to one source who has seen internal HP reports, Best Buy has taken delivery of 270,000 TouchPads and has so far managed to sell only 25,000, or less than 10 percent of the units in its inventory."
http://allthingsd.com/20110816/ouchpad-best-buy-sitting-on-a-pile-of-unsold-hp-tablets/
I hope that HP will somehow weather the turbulence and emerge stronger than ever. This is the company that built Silicon Valley and for decades was the benchmark for tech innovation, and it's so painful to watch them floundering like this. And I'm especially saddened that WebOS never really had a chance to strut it's stuff. I'm a very happy iPad owner, but I have the greatest respect and admiration for what the Palm team accomplished with WebOS's interface, and I was hoping that it would take off and keep Apple on their toes.
I personally blame Carly Fiorina for the travails of a once-proud company.
So HP is jettisoning all of the things that made it HP two years ago and just focusing on the stuff they got when they bought Palm? Does this sound like they are trying to blow up the company to anyone else?
I'm sorry to see it go, but I'm not at all surprised. I was a release-day Palm Pre buyer (Sprint), and I LOVED WebOS, but Palm really blew it. If there were more apps and the hardware was better (and upgraded more regularly) I would probably have gone with WebOS over Android or iOS, but in the end they left me hanging with no decent upgrade path (the Pre was an okay first-gen device, but really needed a major followup at the one-year mark) and they just didn't attract the app developers (I mean the major developers, the indie devs were fantastic!). End result, I'm now a happy Android user (HTC Evo), but I still miss the great parts of WebOS (Cards, Konami-code to root, etc).
Well, I'll just keep hoping that some of that good stuff makes it to Android eventually. Last I heard that's where most of the WebOS team ended up.....
As for WebOS in vehicles....great, just what I need. People have enough crap that they play with instead of paying attention to the road, now they're going to be swiping through multiple cards on their in-dash systems looking for things while careening down the highway? Wonderful....
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
So can I get a TouchPad for $100 now?
for the same reason Carly fired almost all of R&D, sold the itanium engineers to Intel, and considered getting out the printer market, despite those sales being the majority of their revenue: greed, short-sightedness, selfishness, and the desire to be seen in the news.
HP's software business is EDS, which is charging governments vast sums of money for IT systems that don't work.
Profit margins in the PC hardware business are razor-thin, and not likely to improve. So while their PC business does generate a large percentage of their revenue, it is a much smaller percentage of their profits.
You have to work really hard for that PC dollar. In desktop PCs Microsoft makes several times the profit dollars per unit than HP or Lenovo does. Lenovo's crowing about "huge" $100M profits on $5B sales right now- about 2 percent. That's a lot of work and risk for $100M profit to be a good thing. You could blow $100M just by, say, building an initial run of half a million tablets that don't sell.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
So, HP was an instrument company, started with an ingenious application of a light bulb no less. Then they became a computer company sort of by attrition, since they needed machines to control their instruments -- IIRC. Then servers came sort of naturally when they got to dabble with UNIX. Then the core instrument business got spun off as Agilent, pretty much tarring the name of Hewlett and Packard IMHO. Then the PC business gets spun off too. So what remains is servers? What the heck software is HP shipping that hasn't to do with their own hardware? It's becoming more and more of a joke to keep the same name. Their business got nothing to do with Hewlett nor Packard. They're turning in their graves. </rant>
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Compaq
that's keeping a lot of people employed
I obviously wasn't intending to talk about anything like this, but hey, you brought it up. :P So this statement you made is one that I see a lot of people making and I think it shows a disconnect between the understanding of what a profit actually means and what jobs are. You probably don't want to hear about it, but it bothers me, so deal.
A profit is far more than just making moneyIt shows that you are creating wealth. One of the fundamental law of economics is that trade creates wealth. By trading, you should end up with more than you gave up. When you can't make a profit, it shows that resources are being improperly allocated. If HP decides they suck at PCs and close down, that doesn't mean those jobs and resources are lost. It means they have to be reallocated. If HP sold 1,000,000 PCs a year, that doesn't mean there are 1,000,000 PCs less going to be purchased. A business staying around that doesn't make a profit is preventing those resources from being used by a company that can make better use of them and create more wealth. This creation of wealth is one of the biggest assets to the advancement of humanity and to encourage the opposite prevents progress from happening. The problem that a lot of people have, of course, is that the wealth ends up in the hands of the top and the elite, but this frustration should not be used to advocate the prevention of wealth creation. This is the result of very different causes.
Who blames Carly because she was rude? From all accounts I've heard, the Compaq merger was a huge mistake, as was the spin-off of Agilent and the iPod cross-licensing with Apple. You think that the party thrown when she left was just because she was rude? Why did HP's market cap raise by $8 BILLION when she left? Surely market traders on Wall street wouldn't care whether she was gruff with her employees.
I couldn't care less about Fiorina's personality, and frankly it has no bearing on the success of the company. By all accounts Steve Jobs is a complete asshole to work for, the proverbial boss from hell, but investors will forgive anything if he delivers results. Fiorina did not deliver, and the acquisition of Compaq was in my opinion a dramatic strategic mistake. The culture of engineering innovation at HP seemed to go out the window on her watch, and the company became a low-margin mass producer.
I've compared her before with Steve Ballmer of Microsoft. Both come from marketing backgrounds; when both assumed leadership of their respective companies engineers took a distant back seat; and investors rewarded both with flat stock prices in recognition of their inability to innovate and grow the business.
I'm a little surprised more /.'ers aren't familiar with HP's software and services division. HP is considered to be one of the "Big 4" of enterprise infrastructure, service, and asset management, along with CA, BMC, and IBM. HP's acquisition of EDS strengthened their professional consulting position, and put them squarely in competition with IBM as their main software/services competitor.
Enterprise software is basically a license to print money. Companies and governments spend inordinate amounts of cash on the Big 4's closed-source software, enterprise license agreements, support contracts, and implementation services. If HP is anything like CA or IBM, they're making the vast majority of their money on enterprise software and services, and very little on PC's and devices. Spinning off or selling their PC / device manufacturing business made sense for IBM, and it makes sense for HP, especially in light of the consumer competition in that space. There simply isn't the same competition in the enterprise space, hence why the Big 4 can charge the inflated prices they do for their software and services.