Re: Cringely's 2003 Predictions

Post #72,663 by slugbug 1/5/03 12:00:14 PM Reply	Re: Cringely's 2003 Predictions > Someone should write a long article about how these dumbass CEOs have ruined one great company after another. One thing I will say about Gerstner - at least he didn't destroy the boat he was riding in. Agree with you re: Gerstner. He actually did quite a bit to revitalize the company. That is more than can be said of many CEOs. In terms of HP, it may not necessarily need a CEO switch as much as it (and Dell and others) need to pursue different strategies. The same ol' song book ain't gonna cut it anymore. -slugbug
Post #72,710 by ben_tilly 1/5/03 3:35:30 PM Reply	I think that HP needs a change of CEO She may not be their only problem. But that doesn't mean that she isn't a problem. Book recommend: [link\|http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?isbn=0066620996\|Good to Great]. It has a lot to say about when companies turn around. And one thing that they consistently found is that big lasting turnarounds don't happen with celebrity CEOs. Demonstration in this case - the Compaq merger was, I would be, largely about her ego. She wanted to run a bigger company. Was it a good move for either HP or Compaq though? How many more moves like that can HP afford? Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #72,721 by deSitter 1/5/03 3:59:59 PM Reply	Complete Change of Attitude HP equipment once was expensive, but you knew it would not break, would not be full of operating bugs - above all, well built and reliable. Now, we just had a multifunction HP device fail badly. A 10 cent part had ruined the paper feeding. It's not worth it to get it repaired. This is not the HP I remember. The entire thing seemed flimsy. When the HP 4 lasers came out, I remember thinking how flimsy it seemed in comparison to all the HP equipment I knew. It was a good printer as it developed, but it was the start of a bad trend of sacrificing the traditional HP durability for an infinitesimal profit margin. People had so much confidence in HP lasers from the III series that they would have been happy to pay for the traditional overengineering. Right after came the HP 5 personal laser, the real beginning of the end for their reputation. -drl
Post #72,742 by Andrew Grygus 1/5/03 6:14:49 PM Reply	Sudden change of market conditions. Hewlett-Packard used Canon laser engines, but they were first to market and promoted the LaserJet, LaserJet II and LaserJet III skillfully, dominating the market. Canon also aggressively sold laser printers in the U.S., and destroyed the reputation of non-HP lasers. By contract, Canon was forbidden to sell an HP compatible printer. All other manufacturers were HP compatible, but enough people bought Canons and had severe driver problems, few would buy non-HP printers. Even Panasonic had a hell of a time getting any market share for their dual tray 5051, which was a very fine machine at an excellent price. Then, Canon came out with the faster 600-dot engine later used in the LaserJet IV, and they went to Hewlett-Packard and told them. "We're going to be using this engine, and we're going to sell this engine to anyone else who wants it, but, unless you let us off this compatibility issue, we won't sell it to you." Hewlett-Packard dropped the compatibility issue, and got the 600-dot engine, but they realized that without Canon out their spoiling the compatible market, they were now going to have to be price competitive. They designed accordingly. Could they have sold a heftier printer at a higher price? Yes, but not if they wanted to be the volume leader, and that's what they wanted to be. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #72,761 by static 1/5/03 6:58:11 PM Reply	That's fascinating. It also explains why the Laserjet II and III printers were such solid prices of kit and the IV was barely above trash. I'd wondered why that had occurred. Wade. Microsoft are clearly boiling the frogs.
Post #72,750 by Andrew Grygus 1/5/03 6:30:17 PM Reply	Hewlett-Packard and Compaq needed the merger. If they were going to stay in the PC business, both desperately needed to eliminate a major competitor before they were bashed to death by Dell and a stagnent market while fighting each other tooth and nail. Yes, it was traumatic, yes, the changes have confused everyone, but the PC business would be down anyway - the merger didn't cause that. Further, the PC business isn't coming back. The PC market for major brand names is now neatly devided: Dell for the direct market (but trying to enter the reseller market with unbranded machines). IBM for their own integration needs and for a few large VARs. HP for the reseller market (but with heavy competition from "White Box" PCs) Capellas, with his "do it like Dell" approach was doomed. Only Dell can be Dell. The reseller market is very large (or Dell wouldn't be trying to get into it), and HP is now trying to undo the damage done before Capellas' departure. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]

Welcome to IWETHEY!