Terrific....I ordered an HP desktop computer about 4 hours ago...sigh....
Thoughts on HP leaving PC business? It's insane!!
- Thread starter urchin
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: bcossa2001
Terrific....I ordered an HP desktop computer about 4 hours ago...sigh....
I wouldn't worry too much, I have a feeling that there is some other company that wants this business, since it still DOES make money, just not enough for greed mongers like Mr Apotheker and his short sighted brood.
I have a strange feeling that of all companies MicroSoft might be the buyer. Yes, I know they are not always well regarded BUT since they have a stake in seeing PC sales continue with Windows 7 and 8 it would make sense. And maybe just maybe they will actually put some honest effort into making the PSG more successful.
More competition is always better in the consumer PC business.
Terrific....I ordered an HP desktop computer about 4 hours ago...sigh....
I wouldn't worry too much, I have a feeling that there is some other company that wants this business, since it still DOES make money, just not enough for greed mongers like Mr Apotheker and his short sighted brood.
I have a strange feeling that of all companies MicroSoft might be the buyer. Yes, I know they are not always well regarded BUT since they have a stake in seeing PC sales continue with Windows 7 and 8 it would make sense. And maybe just maybe they will actually put some honest effort into making the PSG more successful.
More competition is always better in the consumer PC business.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: dparm
Our company went with Dell a few years ago and I was very disappointed.
Before the EDS sale we got dells as a tech refresh. Ive had too many problems.
I was happy that we would get an HP variant, hopefully built to a slightly higher quality standard. Not sure if that will flop back now... doubt that we will get lenovos.
Our company went with Dell a few years ago and I was very disappointed.
Before the EDS sale we got dells as a tech refresh. Ive had too many problems.
I was happy that we would get an HP variant, hopefully built to a slightly higher quality standard. Not sure if that will flop back now... doubt that we will get lenovos.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
This gives me ammunition with my upcoming discussion with our IT department about our intended shift from HP to Lenovo.
That would be a good move. Especially for notebooks (Nothing beats the T series)
I've never liked HP... As Nick said, always failed parts. overheating, etc. Good riddance.
This gives me ammunition with my upcoming discussion with our IT department about our intended shift from HP to Lenovo.
That would be a good move. Especially for notebooks (Nothing beats the T series)
I've never liked HP... As Nick said, always failed parts. overheating, etc. Good riddance.
Originally Posted By: urchin
Now is see the problem...many of you totally missed or don't want to listen to what I was saying earlier.....\
Even IF there isn't much profit in the legacy PC business for HP is it what the world at large knows them for. It makes them VISIBLE to the world and visibility is WORTH MONEY in the long term. It draws potential business customers into considering other services and products they offer since it is a instantly recognizable brand.
So you'd rather see them put their sales, manufacturing and R&D efforts into a legacy business that, while "visible", struggles to break even. And you chastise a proposed expansion into a high profit market segment where HP has already established a solid foothold, albeit less "visible" to Joe Sixpack.
Do I understand that correctly?
That's a rather interesting business model you're proposing. I'm sure it worked well for other manufactures like Tandy, Wang and Osborne.
Now is see the problem...many of you totally missed or don't want to listen to what I was saying earlier.....\
Even IF there isn't much profit in the legacy PC business for HP is it what the world at large knows them for. It makes them VISIBLE to the world and visibility is WORTH MONEY in the long term. It draws potential business customers into considering other services and products they offer since it is a instantly recognizable brand.
So you'd rather see them put their sales, manufacturing and R&D efforts into a legacy business that, while "visible", struggles to break even. And you chastise a proposed expansion into a high profit market segment where HP has already established a solid foothold, albeit less "visible" to Joe Sixpack.
Do I understand that correctly?
That's a rather interesting business model you're proposing. I'm sure it worked well for other manufactures like Tandy, Wang and Osborne.
HP has been w/o focus since Carly was at the helm. The purchase of Compaq was stupid.
Other players in the market will be glad to see HP stumble. Dells laptops are much better now than they were 2-4 years ago (E series = good, D series = mediocre). Asus, if they can get their enterprise act together, can do well in the desktop space.
Other players in the market will be glad to see HP stumble. Dells laptops are much better now than they were 2-4 years ago (E series = good, D series = mediocre). Asus, if they can get their enterprise act together, can do well in the desktop space.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
HP has been w/o focus since Carly was at the helm. The purchase of Compaq was stupid.
Other players in the market will be glad to see HP stumble. Dells laptops are much better now than they were 2-4 years ago (E series = good, D series = mediocre). Asus, if they can get their enterprise act together, can do well in the desktop space.
Agreed.
ASUS makes some top-notch server hardware. I've been playing with it a lot recently. Recently installed one of their 2U rack-mount setups for a billing system at a clinic.
HP has been w/o focus since Carly was at the helm. The purchase of Compaq was stupid.
Other players in the market will be glad to see HP stumble. Dells laptops are much better now than they were 2-4 years ago (E series = good, D series = mediocre). Asus, if they can get their enterprise act together, can do well in the desktop space.
Agreed.
ASUS makes some top-notch server hardware. I've been playing with it a lot recently. Recently installed one of their 2U rack-mount setups for a billing system at a clinic.
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
\
So you'd rather see them put their sales, manufacturing and R&D efforts into a legacy business that, while "visible", struggles to break even. And you chastise a proposed expansion into a high profit market segment where HP has already established a solid foothold, albeit less "visible" to Joe Sixpack.
Do I understand that correctly?
I have no issues with them putting more emphasis on the more profitable end of their business, but since the PC business IS making a small profit, they should keep it. It does make the company more visible and HARDWARE is what made HP what it is today.
I notice that the angle from many here is to IGNORE what you don't want to hear and twist an idea to suit your needs.
That is the problem with business today.
That and the plague of the MBA.
Then again the new "trend" in marketing is to lead the customer by the nose but let them "believe" they are making their own choice. Right?
\
So you'd rather see them put their sales, manufacturing and R&D efforts into a legacy business that, while "visible", struggles to break even. And you chastise a proposed expansion into a high profit market segment where HP has already established a solid foothold, albeit less "visible" to Joe Sixpack.
Do I understand that correctly?
I have no issues with them putting more emphasis on the more profitable end of their business, but since the PC business IS making a small profit, they should keep it. It does make the company more visible and HARDWARE is what made HP what it is today.
I notice that the angle from many here is to IGNORE what you don't want to hear and twist an idea to suit your needs.
That is the problem with business today.
That and the plague of the MBA.
Then again the new "trend" in marketing is to lead the customer by the nose but let them "believe" they are making their own choice. Right?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: urchin
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
\
So you'd rather see them put their sales, manufacturing and R&D efforts into a legacy business that, while "visible", struggles to break even. And you chastise a proposed expansion into a high profit market segment where HP has already established a solid foothold, albeit less "visible" to Joe Sixpack.
Do I understand that correctly?
I have no issues with them putting more emphasis on the more profitable end of their business, but since the PC business IS making a small profit, they should keep it. It does make the company more visible and HARDWARE is what made HP what it is today.
I notice that the angle from many here is to IGNORE what you don't want to hear and twist an idea to suit your needs.
That is the problem with business today.
That and the plague of the MBA.
Then again the new "trend" in marketing is to lead the customer by the nose but let them "believe" they are making their own choice. Right?
OK, so stop ignoring what you don't want to hear.
If you don't think HP is doing the right thing, sell any HP stock you have and buy stock in a company that is doing what you think is the right thing.
But as long as you ignore the facts, you'll keep beating this dead horse. Unless you have some way into the board room, telling all of us how wrong this is really is a pointless exercise.
Many of us have explained what they are doing and why. Yet you continue to ignore that, and then complain that folks are ignoring what they don't want to hear.
Instead of complaining, take action. Change your investments. Or better yet, if you think it's a good market to be in, start your own company and sell PC. Make that money that you claim is out there to be made.
HP got started long before there were PC's, and I suspect they'll remain in market sectors where they think they can make the most money.
Maybe they'll bring back the HP 15C calculator. I still have mine from 25+ years ago. It still works, and from what I can tell, it will bring MORE than what I paid for it should I want to sell.
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
\
So you'd rather see them put their sales, manufacturing and R&D efforts into a legacy business that, while "visible", struggles to break even. And you chastise a proposed expansion into a high profit market segment where HP has already established a solid foothold, albeit less "visible" to Joe Sixpack.
Do I understand that correctly?
I have no issues with them putting more emphasis on the more profitable end of their business, but since the PC business IS making a small profit, they should keep it. It does make the company more visible and HARDWARE is what made HP what it is today.
I notice that the angle from many here is to IGNORE what you don't want to hear and twist an idea to suit your needs.
That is the problem with business today.
That and the plague of the MBA.
Then again the new "trend" in marketing is to lead the customer by the nose but let them "believe" they are making their own choice. Right?
OK, so stop ignoring what you don't want to hear.
If you don't think HP is doing the right thing, sell any HP stock you have and buy stock in a company that is doing what you think is the right thing.
But as long as you ignore the facts, you'll keep beating this dead horse. Unless you have some way into the board room, telling all of us how wrong this is really is a pointless exercise.
Many of us have explained what they are doing and why. Yet you continue to ignore that, and then complain that folks are ignoring what they don't want to hear.
Instead of complaining, take action. Change your investments. Or better yet, if you think it's a good market to be in, start your own company and sell PC. Make that money that you claim is out there to be made.
HP got started long before there were PC's, and I suspect they'll remain in market sectors where they think they can make the most money.
Maybe they'll bring back the HP 15C calculator. I still have mine from 25+ years ago. It still works, and from what I can tell, it will bring MORE than what I paid for it should I want to sell.
The problem is that it's anyone's guess as to what sectors HP will remain in.
Is it more likely that Cisco or HP will stop making routers? Which would you rather buy?
Is it more likely that Cisco or HP will stop making routers? Which would you rather buy?
Lots of you keep speaking about this in "individual" terms..."get rid of your shares in HP,ect."
But you miss my real issue with this....
There will be many thousands of EMPLOYEES affected negatively by this move!!! Possibly tens of thousands!
This isn't just about someones "shares" or profits. It is about PEOPLE too.
It is so darn discouraging to see how so many today are only concerned about profits to the complete exclusion of anything else.
The worst part is that HP publicly announced HP dropping the PSG business. The least they could have done is keep quiet until they found a buyer, how disgraceful this move was.
This act alone make me think Leo and his geniuses should be canned, what incompetence !
But you miss my real issue with this....
There will be many thousands of EMPLOYEES affected negatively by this move!!! Possibly tens of thousands!
This isn't just about someones "shares" or profits. It is about PEOPLE too.
It is so darn discouraging to see how so many today are only concerned about profits to the complete exclusion of anything else.
The worst part is that HP publicly announced HP dropping the PSG business. The least they could have done is keep quiet until they found a buyer, how disgraceful this move was.
This act alone make me think Leo and his geniuses should be canned, what incompetence !
I think that the margin on desktop consumer PC's is too little to make it worth it. They already load the things to the top with bloatware from the factory, but that must not have been enough of a profit to make it worthwhile.
There isn't much to be made on a 300-400 dollar pc.
There isn't much to be made on a 300-400 dollar pc.
Originally Posted By: urchin
Lots of you keep speaking about this in "individual" terms..."get rid of your shares in HP,ect."
But you miss my real issue with this....
There will be many thousands of EMPLOYEES affected negatively by this move!!! Possibly tens of thousands!
And if the whole company fails, even more will be out of work than if they simply sold off one division.
Or what about the pension funds that are invested in HP? It's not just fat cats that own stock. Pensions buy stocks, I have mutual funds in my 401(k) that own stocks. I probably own some HP as well.
So which is more selfish, hang on to a business that is marginal so you can keep a few folks employed, or sell it off so that the rest of the company can do well. So those teacher pension funds and individual investor 401(k) accounts do well.
You claim to understand this will impact thousands, yet you fail to consider the thousands that are impacted if the company doesn't do well. Both employees and investors like the folks on this board are also impacted if HP, or any other company is investing it's resources into something that has little or no return.
Originally Posted By: urchin
This isn't just about someones "shares" or profits. It is about PEOPLE too.
See above, it's not just about one small subset of employees, it's about the whole company and the folks who have pension funds, their kids college money, or their 401(k) invested in HP. Don't ignore those folks just so you can save a few thousand pet employees.
Originally Posted By: urchin
It is so darn discouraging to see how so many today are only concerned about profits to the complete exclusion of anything else.
So they should just let the business run itself into the ground so everyone ends up unemployed and all the investor's money is lost?
Originally Posted By: urchin
The worst part is that HP publicly announced HP dropping the PSG business. The least they could have done is keep quiet until they found a buyer, how disgraceful this move was.
This act alone make me think Leo and his geniuses should be canned, what incompetence !
They may indeed be incompetent. I think they misjudged the markets reaction. Time will tell how the markets respond.
I've lived through this. The Sun/Oracle deal scared a lot of folks from buying Sun hardware. I'm sure some have been lost because Oracle is not the easiest to work with. But as one of the employees who is still around, I'm glad to see profits. I'm glad my expenses are paid quickly, and that any stock I buy seems to be on it's way up more than it's down.
It wasn't that way with Sun. The last few years we were wondering if we were going to make it, or if IBM was going to buy us, just to get rid of the parts they didn't want (most of it we feared) and keep the few crown jewels that didn't overlap.
But frankly, I'm sleeping better at night being part of Oracle than I did the last few years before the acquisition.
If HP sells off their PC business, the folks with talent will land on their feet. (There may be exceptions.) Some folks may decide it's time to retire, making room for others to move up. Some folks will move on to other companies. Something they were thinking about, but were too secure or complacent.
It will have some short term pain as some folks will not want to buy HP PCs because of the uncertain future. Others customers will benefit because pricing will adjust to move the metal.
Besides, if the HP management is as bad as you say, perhaps the company that acquires the business from HP will be a better place to work. So perhaps it's a good thing all that PC talent will not be saddled with the inept management.
The folks working in the PC portion of the company have a chance to work for new management that doesn't display the incompetence you say is there. That's gotta be a good thing for the people whom you express concern.
Lots of you keep speaking about this in "individual" terms..."get rid of your shares in HP,ect."
But you miss my real issue with this....
There will be many thousands of EMPLOYEES affected negatively by this move!!! Possibly tens of thousands!
And if the whole company fails, even more will be out of work than if they simply sold off one division.
Or what about the pension funds that are invested in HP? It's not just fat cats that own stock. Pensions buy stocks, I have mutual funds in my 401(k) that own stocks. I probably own some HP as well.
So which is more selfish, hang on to a business that is marginal so you can keep a few folks employed, or sell it off so that the rest of the company can do well. So those teacher pension funds and individual investor 401(k) accounts do well.
You claim to understand this will impact thousands, yet you fail to consider the thousands that are impacted if the company doesn't do well. Both employees and investors like the folks on this board are also impacted if HP, or any other company is investing it's resources into something that has little or no return.
Originally Posted By: urchin
This isn't just about someones "shares" or profits. It is about PEOPLE too.
See above, it's not just about one small subset of employees, it's about the whole company and the folks who have pension funds, their kids college money, or their 401(k) invested in HP. Don't ignore those folks just so you can save a few thousand pet employees.
Originally Posted By: urchin
It is so darn discouraging to see how so many today are only concerned about profits to the complete exclusion of anything else.
So they should just let the business run itself into the ground so everyone ends up unemployed and all the investor's money is lost?
Originally Posted By: urchin
The worst part is that HP publicly announced HP dropping the PSG business. The least they could have done is keep quiet until they found a buyer, how disgraceful this move was.
This act alone make me think Leo and his geniuses should be canned, what incompetence !
They may indeed be incompetent. I think they misjudged the markets reaction. Time will tell how the markets respond.
I've lived through this. The Sun/Oracle deal scared a lot of folks from buying Sun hardware. I'm sure some have been lost because Oracle is not the easiest to work with. But as one of the employees who is still around, I'm glad to see profits. I'm glad my expenses are paid quickly, and that any stock I buy seems to be on it's way up more than it's down.
It wasn't that way with Sun. The last few years we were wondering if we were going to make it, or if IBM was going to buy us, just to get rid of the parts they didn't want (most of it we feared) and keep the few crown jewels that didn't overlap.
But frankly, I'm sleeping better at night being part of Oracle than I did the last few years before the acquisition.
If HP sells off their PC business, the folks with talent will land on their feet. (There may be exceptions.) Some folks may decide it's time to retire, making room for others to move up. Some folks will move on to other companies. Something they were thinking about, but were too secure or complacent.
It will have some short term pain as some folks will not want to buy HP PCs because of the uncertain future. Others customers will benefit because pricing will adjust to move the metal.
Besides, if the HP management is as bad as you say, perhaps the company that acquires the business from HP will be a better place to work. So perhaps it's a good thing all that PC talent will not be saddled with the inept management.
The folks working in the PC portion of the company have a chance to work for new management that doesn't display the incompetence you say is there. That's gotta be a good thing for the people whom you express concern.
Java - the whole premise of your post is dubious. Assuming the PC market is the least bit profitable, which presumably it is, then this is a stupid move. It will not make their other products/services better or more profitable. They can easily be kept mutually exclusive. Apple still makes desktop PCs, their legacy business, even though it isn't highly profitable like iPhones, iPads, etc. Those extra profits, even if small, still help the bottom line, which helps the stock price, which helps the funds you talk about that are held by pensions, etc.
Sure Apple makes desktop PCs. They sell them for about 2x what a Windows based machine sells for. So of course they can keep making them.
Just because some can make money at selling PCs doesn't mean all can. What happened to Gateway? (Part of Acer now.) How many other PC vendors are simply no more?
HP picked up Compaq. If the PC business was profitable, why did Compaq need to go on the market? You can't assume that just because one company can make money, others can in the same business. A company like HP may be too big to make money in this space. Their overhead may be much greater than smaller, leaner, more nimble companies.
I don't think the premise of my post is dubious at all. Now we may not agree with the analysis the heads of HP have made. They may even be wrong. But if they think they can better use their time, talent and treasure in markets other than the PC market, then they would be incompetent if they didn't pursue that.
If they are looking at their numbers and see that they are losing money in the PC market, the they would be foolish to remain.
It's the principle of comparative advantage. Others may be able to do something better or more efficiently than you can. For you to keep doing that isn't a good use of your resources.
Classic example from econ 101. If I'm a lawyer who bills at $300/hour, even if I type 80 words a minute, but my legal assistant making $30/hour types 40 words a minute, it's still a better use of my resource (time) to let her type documents and I would maximize my billable hours.
HP is that lawyer. Sure, they can keep typing away, (making PCs) or they can use their resources to build computers that are 10s, 100x, or even thousands times the cost of a PC, and sell the services that go along with the support of such IT resources.
I'm not saying the PC market is not profitable. It probably is. But is it profitable enough for a company who can make higher margins on more complex gear to remain?
Going back to Apple, they have a significant advantage in this space. They don't pay Microsoft to license Windows. They own MacOS. So not only can they charge double the going rate for an equivalent Windows PC, but they also don't pay a third party for the OS installed on each machine. Therefore, saying Apple makes money in this space proves my point about comparative advantage.
HP owns HP-UX, they own software from DEC as well. Selling solutions that use HP-UX is probably more profitable than selling something that requires a cut be given to the folks in Redmond, WA.
Just because some can make money at selling PCs doesn't mean all can. What happened to Gateway? (Part of Acer now.) How many other PC vendors are simply no more?
HP picked up Compaq. If the PC business was profitable, why did Compaq need to go on the market? You can't assume that just because one company can make money, others can in the same business. A company like HP may be too big to make money in this space. Their overhead may be much greater than smaller, leaner, more nimble companies.
I don't think the premise of my post is dubious at all. Now we may not agree with the analysis the heads of HP have made. They may even be wrong. But if they think they can better use their time, talent and treasure in markets other than the PC market, then they would be incompetent if they didn't pursue that.
If they are looking at their numbers and see that they are losing money in the PC market, the they would be foolish to remain.
It's the principle of comparative advantage. Others may be able to do something better or more efficiently than you can. For you to keep doing that isn't a good use of your resources.
Classic example from econ 101. If I'm a lawyer who bills at $300/hour, even if I type 80 words a minute, but my legal assistant making $30/hour types 40 words a minute, it's still a better use of my resource (time) to let her type documents and I would maximize my billable hours.
HP is that lawyer. Sure, they can keep typing away, (making PCs) or they can use their resources to build computers that are 10s, 100x, or even thousands times the cost of a PC, and sell the services that go along with the support of such IT resources.
I'm not saying the PC market is not profitable. It probably is. But is it profitable enough for a company who can make higher margins on more complex gear to remain?
Going back to Apple, they have a significant advantage in this space. They don't pay Microsoft to license Windows. They own MacOS. So not only can they charge double the going rate for an equivalent Windows PC, but they also don't pay a third party for the OS installed on each machine. Therefore, saying Apple makes money in this space proves my point about comparative advantage.
HP owns HP-UX, they own software from DEC as well. Selling solutions that use HP-UX is probably more profitable than selling something that requires a cut be given to the folks in Redmond, WA.
- Status
