The stock market hates HP's new strategy
google.com
google.com
Moving toward an enterprise only strategy could make HP healthier and more profitable in the long run. It may even reap additional benefits from a consolidation of vision.
The PSG offers less and less synergy with the rest of the company with each passing year. Especially if WebOS is dead, which everyone knew but nobody wanted to admit.
The problem is HP could have kept webOS in zombie mode and discretely shopped around the company under the guise of licensing talks. Maybe HP already did that and its last option walked out the door.
And the same with the PSG. HP could have kept that under wraps and saved the news until the transition was nearly complete. "By the way, PSG, the #1 PC maker in the world, is doing great and we think it will do even better as an autonomous company which will happen as soon as the SEC allows it starting from today."
Instead HP delivered an abortion of bad news with little to no concern how it would be received. It's like Apotheker thought to himself, "this is clearly the best solution" and therefore it requires absolutely no explanation. Everyone should just "get it" like he does.
But instead they decided to chase last decades model which makes high margins in the short term.
And why does no one want to try to compete with Apple?
WebOS has nothing to do with capitalizing on the cloud. It's just one of many clients to the cloud.
MySpace bought HP servers, but Facebook doesnt. That market will commoditise too, as cloud that uses software not hardware redundancy doesnt need the high margin features.
And the future of business software is gradually being built by Salesforce, Google, Dropbox and so on. The landscape will change drastically.
While there is innovation in clients, owning a platform is still part of a viable strategy. There is still an opening for a business friendly platform, as Microsoft can still lose and RIM is weak.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Enterprise software -- the largest software market by a long-shot -- is not scared of ... Dropbox. That's like saying that cars will be wiped out by lawnmowers. The statement doesn't make any sense. Nor does using Facebook and MySpace as examples of enterprise infrastructures. They're medium sized companies with disproportionately large infrastructure needs. What happens at Facebook says virtually nothing about what happens at Mercedes. And nobody in the enterprise trusts Google since enterprise software is all about managing worst case scenarios, and Google's "here, talk to a robot" isn't even in the same galaxy as an acceptable partner program for the enterprise.
Salesforce is the only one of those companies that even should be mentioned in the same breath and they're mostly a pain in the ass for Oracle and SAP because they've been chipping away at the low end of the market (very successfully). It is plausible that they'll continue to push upward and conquer increasingly larger markets, but that's something that will take a decade or two to unfold.
If HP or IBM or SAP or Oracle wanted to do what, say, Dropbox does, they would throw effectively unlimited funding at the problem until it was solved. They might not even bother to market the result publicly, to avoid diluting their brand, but if they chose to do so, then the unfortunate small company concerned would probably be gone in a few months (assuming the large company didn't just litigate it out of existence because it was easier, if you're in a jurisdiction like the US).
Put another way, companies like Dropbox don't do well because they have a magic recipe that the big boys don't, they do well because they've chosen a niche where they're too small for the big boys to care about and where there are plenty of smaller businesses who will value and pay for that kind of offering because they don't have the same kind of resources in-house to do it themselves.
Edit... I should also mention Google, who aren't likely to be competing in the "enterprise" arena any time soon for a very different reason: they aren't set up to support that scale of customer. If you want to sell software to an engineering giant or a global services firm with an employee count in six figures, you don't show up with a few web pages and an e-mail address, you send a CxO or two on a plane to their head office to schmooze them, and then you appoint an SVP whose only role is to lead a large team of sales and support staff dedicated to jumping when that customer says jump.
And if there is one thing we've learned from Microsoft etc. is that throwing unlimited funding at a problem fixes it.
The main problem for Dropbox is simply scale. You, as a service provider, need to keep up with the storage and bandwidth requirements. The only way to deal with that is through buying more hardware/Cloud CPU time and bandwidth. If you're Dropbox, that means that you might need to get more funding. If you're IBM or HP, and they've made it a priority, it's much easier to get what you need.
Dropbox isn't really all that special from a technical perspective at this point. Any of the large tech firms can solve it easily, and Apple, Amazon and Google have all come out with services that do basically the same thing as Dropbox.
In any case, your comment is a cheap shot. Microsoft have a relatively strong track record when it comes to establishing footholds in new markets, even if they've been slow to see the opportunity at first, by committing vast resources and running loss leaders for a while if necessary to establish their product. They also have some of the best R&D in the business, thanks in no small part to hiring some of the smartest people and putting them in top class facilities.
As me how much Microsoft software I've used in last say an year. I know. Zero. Microsoft isn't a behemoth it used to be.
>In any case, your comment is a cheap shot. Microsoft have a relatively strong track record when it comes to establishing footholds in new markets, even if they've been slow to see the opportunity at first, by committing vast resources and running loss leaders for a while if necessary to establish their product
I wouldn't be so sure of a strong track. I think the only thing they have to show for themselves in last decade is Xbox. I can't think of any other new market where they have been as successful. I do understand where you are coming from, MS does have a reputation of going into new domains and becoming a NUMBER TWO player. But that's hardly what a company of the caliber of MS aspires to do. I do have respect for MS and its research facilities, but that doesn't mean I believe that it has what it takes to kill off start-ups with good momentum, like Dropbox. At best it can be the Bing to Google.
Microsoft Windows desktop market share: 90+%
Microsoft Office market share: 90+%
Internet Explorer market share: 40-50% (still by far the most popular browser)
> I think the only thing they have to show for themselves in last decade is Xbox. I can't think of any other new market where they have been as successful.
A few obvious examples:
Client division: Windows 7
Server and Tools division: Windows Server, Visual Studio, SQL Server, Exchange Server
Business division: Office
Entertainment and Devices division: XBox 360, various games, various mice/keyboards/etc.
R&D: Seems to employ/fund just about everyone doing industrial programming language research except for the 3 Google managed to hire, and a huge proportion of the industrial HCI research too.
MS obviously aren't dominant in all of these fields (compare Oracle for DB, the other major consoles for gaming, etc.). However, no start-up is going to compete with these sorts of products any time soon.
The most obvious targets for disruption by smaller players are the browser market, except that both Chrome and Firefox have basically written off business users as clients so MS will have a base there for as long as it wants one, and programming, except that with the resources and R&D Microsoft are throwing into that field lately it seems more likely that MS will pull away from the small time competition rather than losing ground for the foreseeable future.
That means at best, start-ups are going to be competing against Microsoft's secondary portfolio, things like BizTalk and Dynamics, and it's not as if there's a huge amount of innovation going on in the start-up sector in unsexy fields like that (unless you still think a business plan featuring the word "cloud" in big enough letters is worth VC funding, I suppose, but since the likes of Google Docs haven't even made a dent I don't suppose MS will be too worried about that sort of start-up for now).
>Internet Explorer market share: 40-50% A side-effect of the above.
I hate to be sidetracked by my perceived opinion of Microsoft. I am not the one to spew hate on MS. I have a lot of respect for MS and its research philosophy.
However, the point I am trying to make is that Microsoft has never solved a problem by throwing money at it. When they have tried, they have ended up (inspite of having good products) in number 2 position.
They really aren't. Revenues 2010 from various quickly Google'd sources and Wikipedia:
DropBox $100M
IBM $99.9B
Oracle $26.8B
SAP $17.9B
All of the big players there saw double-digit revenue growth relative to the previous year, too.
If you're about to reply with something about DropBox having a $5B valuation according to their next funding round, please consider that (a) AFAIK the round hasn't actually closed yet, and the markets have been pretty messed up recently so it's a lot less likely now than it might have been even a month ago, (b) GroupOn have been getting "valuations" well into 11 figures as well, which tells you how much this crazy maths is actually worth as a guide to future potential, and (c) DropBox are probably still small enough to be wiped out just by bad press and/or lawsuits over their reportedly dubious security and privacy policies, at least until any new round of funding goes through, and (d) in any case, a $5B valuation is a long, long way from having $5B in cash available to invest in attacking the enterprise market.
> From niches will come the important profitable software of the future.
I'm not sure what sort of niches you're imagining here. Pretty much every deployment of the heavyweight enterprise software is bespoke. That's why the developers tend to have teams dedicated to each major customer: they make a fortune on the consulting and customisation, on top of the cost of the software itself.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2286656,00.asp
and it was discontinued in 2009:
HP makes lots of money through EDS selling consulting services and outsourcing services to do all that stuff. Stuff that is being fed by the move to more and more cloud services whether internal or external.
And when I say enterprise services, I mean software as a service stuff like Salesforce. There are more services that business need than Salesforce such as data warehousing that HP is in a strong position to enter or dominate. That said, even though something like Salesforce is a turn key solution hosted off site, it doesn't mean there isn't an enterprise sales process. A middle manager doesn't buy up 1,000 seats of Salesforce subscriptions at $65 per month without going through the normal enterprise approval process. I've seen it and it can take several months even though your average small business owner can sign up in 10 minutes with a corporate credit card. The real deal involves contract scrutiny and due diligence work. And just because Salesforce is easier, it doesn't mean you don't need a ton of development and integration work to bring it in line with your existing practices and software tools which usually requires outside experts at least for training if not complete outsourcing.
It requires a long term view that businesses are no longer good at in general.
It's not going to be the market it once was, but those companies have very, very good reasons to use enterprise software: they can't rely on no-name cloud providers for legal and ass-covering reasons, they need the local installations and control of their infrastructure, and their sales structure is optimized for dealing with large corporations.
> And why does no one want to try to compete with Apple?
Doing your own hardware is expensive, and getting good margins much more so. HP hasn't made high-quality hardware in ages, and they can't possibly compete with Apple or Google's partners in the arena when they have to catch up and invest even more money than them.
But, where does salesforce.com come into play? They seem to be pretty successful.
If I had to bet - it will be short-term (5-10 years) enterprise software continues to be successful. But longer term (10 years+) cloud software demolishes the whole concept of "Local installs and management of every enterprise software under the sun."
Amazon Federal http://aws.amazon.com/federal/
"Amazon Web Services (AWS) offers federal government agencies a secure, reliable, and cost-effective computing platform in the cloud. By using AWS products, government organizations can focus on meeting their mission-critical objectives, and spend less time procuring, developing, or managing IT resources. "
"Security: In order to provide end-to-end security and end-to-end privacy, AWS builds services in accordance with security best practices, provides appropriate security features in those services, and documents how to use those features. AWS’ compliance framework covers FISMA Low, PCI DSS Level 1, ISO 27001, SAS70 type II, and HIPAA."
Apple does have genius technology, but you can't underestimate the influence of Steve Job's eye for design in the success of Apple products.
"Technologist" is sufficiently squishy that I can't make an argument against it, but I can cite Stross in "Steve Jobs and the Next Big Thing." Stross has a good anecdote about how Jobs didn't know how to use an email client when he was running NeXT, and that he would have his secretary print everything out for him.
http://www.amazon.com/Steve-Jobs-Next-Big-Thing/dp/068912135...
Fiorina killed it many years ago. Even though she is long gone, the company has been infested with the drones since then. The company will of course linger for decades as an enterprise software/hardware provider. As exciting as SAP.
1. HP tablet sales fail.
2. HP warns of low earnings, then announces them.
3. Promise to make announcement only after market closes on the 18th.
4. Rumors that they are spinning Compaq back out.
5. Changes mind and makes announcement.
6. They are buying Autonomy (enterprise/IBM space)
7. They are shooting the mobile device effort in the face.
That is... a lot of change to suddenly announce, especially given that the Palm/WebOS aqusition[1] not more than a year ago was the big new vision for the company.They made one product and couldn't sell it[2] and pulled the plug on the entire vision while at the same time announcing a huge corporate shift.
Busy day for HP.
[1] http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/hp-buys-palm/
[2] http://allthingsd.com/20110816/ouchpad-best-buy-sitting-on-a...
I really, really hope they license WebOS to a good phone manufacture, The only real problem with the touchpad was underpowered hardware. I read somewhere that they got WebOS running once on iPad hardware for testing purposes and it rocked. WebOS on a dual core tablet has the potential to be really cool.
I can't really imagine that HP has put the effort of completely porting webos over to a different hardware platform, but I think that instead they might have tested the enyo toolkit on the iPad and have seen tremendous performance improvements. Those, I think, can be attributed to the superiority of MobileSafari (having hardware acceleration and having a very fast Javascript VM being the primary sources of better performance).
Except it's an A8 instead of an A9.
but what is HP currently? all their consumer-level products are shit. i don't have any experience with their current enterprise services, but from the way apotheker is talking i'd assume they have a decent infrastructure in place there to build upon. their last few CEOs have kind of run their consumer hardware manufacturing division into the ground, maybe pulling out is the best thing to do at this point.
HP is buying spree feels like recently dumped women who finds solace in shopping and dumping the new dress in overflowing closet.
On serious note, WebOS is praised all around for beauty and technical supremacy yet HP wants to drop it because the failed to execute one piece hardware. This is a very emotional and personal reaction.
... and then nothing happened. Both HP and Microsoft turned out to have ZERO vision, and just decided to stop innovating, kicked back, and collect their big fat dividend checks. And now Apple is eating their lunch with two fists.
a) "decision to cease all webOS devices (including the TouchPad) a mere 48 days after the launch" - Leadership doesn't know what they're doing w/acquisitions.
b) "expensive acquisition of Autonomy" - $10b to jump into a new market via acquisition which we just proved we're not good at.
c) "material layoffs" and "talent drain over the next 12-24 months' - I believe this. Current talent bails. Changing focus means new recruiting, years of training / efficiency building.
As a shareholder, ouch.
via:
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2011/08/19/hp-drops...
Sure, some of the code are still crappy, but at least they are less crappy than yesterday.
Are all of BigCorp programmers doing this? No.
Will they? maybe, especially with the newer/younger generations.
Mobile and tables are making in-road to enterprise.
Enterprise slowly decided to give cloud (SaaS, not the other *aas) a chance because they don't like to have in-house IT departments (whether this is good or bad I don't know).
When you see BestBuy using Google AppEngine even for their simple app, I think that's a sign of change.
Is it going to get better all across the board? probably no. But they're changing nonetheless.
I just going to say it like this: There was a reason HPUX bit the dust.
In this case getting out of the business of making stuff was probably the right thing to do. Blame the US patent system, not the HP execs. The decision would've been an easy one after the Motorola sale.
Buying Palm was nonsense. HP was never the company to make it work. Contrary to that, Autonomy, one of the best software companies in the world, is a good fit for HP's enterprise strategy.
Spinning off the PC business is very likely a step towards selling it altogether, similar to what IBM did years ago.
I think these are all steps in the right direction and I'm thinking of buying the stock once the current stock market panic has settled down a bit.
Most investors set stop loss levels for themselves. So when a stock crashes through those levels it triggers a lot of sell orders which makes the stock go down more triggering more stop losses, etc. Once the cascade has stopped, the game changes a little bit and fundamentals are reconsidered.
[Edit] And I didn't mean a 10% bounce immediately after the fall, but rather a gradual move up over the course of a few weeks.
By what metric? From my perspective they are reviled by their clients and their own (engineer) employees.
I made a lot of assumptions, but again, giving people benefit of the doubt.
SAP.
The development team were well looked after and the CEO now is the same as then, so I'd hope the internal culture is still pretty pleasant - I really enjoyed working there and most of the employees genuinely believed in the product's ability to deliver (when not mis-sold, which, well ... seemed to happen reasonably rarely, which is about the best I've seen in any sales department). I only left due to discovering I really HATED living in Cambridge, which wasn't really something they could fix.
HP has never been good at software. Hands up, who fondly remembers a nice HP software experience? Who remembers a hair-pulling awful one?
(And before you say webOS; please, webOS is nicely designed, but engineering wise it's bug ridden and terrible.)
- Steve Wozniak, interviewed by Jessica Livingston in "Founders at Work"
http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html
How sad that it's come to this.
Any Agilent people here who can say if it still follows the old HP spirit?
Of course few simple strategies are good so this one probably is not either.
Dear webOS developer:
We have opened the next chapter for webOS, and we understand that you must have many questions. Yesterday we announced that we will focus on the future of webOS as a software platform but we will no longer be producing webOS devices. While this was a difficult decision, it's one that will strengthen our ability to focus on further innovating with webOS as we forge our path forward. Throughout this journey, our developers will continue to be a vital part of the future of webOS.
I feel genuinely sorry for these people - the WebOS team within HP. I'm assuming they knew nothing until the news was made public, and it must hurt like hell to have to compose an email like this (and then have PR sanitise it)
The list price is $789.00 but they were purchased for about $599.00. At that price the margin can't be very much. My guess -- $150.00
But it takes a lot more energy and logistics to move 1MM desktop PC's than it does to move 1MM iPhones.
If HP is getting out of this market (behind Dell and IBM) it must mean desktop PC's as we know them are dead.
Then again, I'm not scooping up bargain HP shares, so my idle speculation isn't extremely compelling even to me.
If you think about all the services Amazon offers they're basically just an OS and some hardware away from being a "full stack" iOS competitor.