HP Drops iPod Reselling

[eSnow]

Bad sign for Apple.

Apple has never been successful in licensing out any of their technology - not with the clones and now they failed with HP. They will not successfully license the iTMS or MacOS/86.

At the bottom of this is hubris - they believe they can do it better and go alone - like they did with the Macs and the original MacOS. They have been marginalized by this in the desktop market and they will in the music player market some years down the road.

 

[wnurse]

I really don't think HP was smart by rebranding an Apple iPod. 1, I don't want a HP logo on my shiny new iPod. And 2, HP isn't known as the most reliable computer manufacter out there. There was the risk of people buying a HP iPod and thinking that it could be of the same quality as one of they're desktops or notebooks. Let's just put it this way, I wouldn't buy a HP iPod becuase the only thing HP actually knows how to make is a printer. Even if it was made by Apple.

Just a little of topic but who is a reliable computer manufacturer?. At some point in some mac forum, the following has been claimed to have crappy computers (crappier if they partnered with apple and then unpartnered)

Dell
HP
Gateway
IBM (before they sold)

At this rate, is there any other company other than apple who doesn't make crappy computers?.
Just curious.

I am sure when Radio Shack terminates the agreement with Apple to sell ipods (and they will), it will suddenly be stated that Radio Shack is known for crappy stuff, etc, etc. Not sure who these facts are known by, what percentage of the population knows, etc. Soon afterwards everyone becomes an expert in Radio Shack retail strategy and you will even see a few post that say.. Radio Shack - Ipod = Death.
Just waiting for the day.

Imagine, HP is bigger than apple, was here before apple and all of a sudden, just because they don't want to be raped by apple anymore, they are crappy?
Since when did Apple ever get that power, to effect the financial health of another major company?. Did Microsoft change their name to apple when i wasn't looking?.. cause the only company in the world that can effect other companies in the software business is Microsoft. No other company (not even the IBM, the largest computer company in the world) has that much power.

I think HP will be alright. I'm sure they are not crying and weeping over the loss of HP branded ipods.

 

[sushi]

I vote negative...people were always going around "not understanding" why HP sold iPods. It simply opened up so many more channels for the iPod to be sold in. It also put iTunes on HP desktops and notebooks...no downloading needed. When this deal was announced in Jan 2004 I saw tons of positives for Apple and virtually no negatives.

The end of this relationship is something I feared would happen, and is bad for Apple in my opinion.

Agreed.

I liked that HP was selling rebranded iPods. Personally, I thought that they looked good. It was a win win situation for both companies.

Now we have Walmart plus Radioshack coming on line iPod exposure will continue to increase.

What I find most disturbing is how HP has gone down over the years. In the 70s and 80s they were an awesome company. They produced many super devices such as computers, calculators and measurement systems. Then their printer market exploded and the other areas seemed to go downhill. And now with Compaq, they seem worse. Sorry for the rant, but I was a big HP fan. Was is the operative word. Today as a company they leave a lot to be desired.

I credit HPs change with their changes in leadership. Dave Packard and Bill Hewitt were unique individuals and genuine leaders. When they were gone, HP went downhill fast.

That is my concern with Apple. Steve is the driving force. When he retires all bets are off. I hope Apple will not go the way of HP.

Here's wishing now that HP has a change in leadership they will improve to be what they once were. Carly killed them IMHO...worse than Apple's Skullhead!

Sushi

 

[ryannel2003]

I like many others associate HP with poor quality -- excepting, of course, printers and calculators.

Therefore, people are more likely to buy an iPod that does not say "HP" on it -- Apple has a better brand and sells at the same price.

Also, there are the academic discounts that are so easy to get from Apple.

Exactly my point!

 

[ryannel2003]

Just a little of topic but who is a reliable computer manufacturer?. At some point in some mac forum, the following has been claimed to have crappy computers (crappier if they partnered with apple and then unpartnered)

Dell
HP
Gateway
IBM (before they sold)

At this rate, is there any other company other than apple who doesn't make crappy computers?.
Just curious.

I am sure when Radio Shack terminates the agreement with Apple to sell ipods (and they will), it will suddenly be stated that Radio Shack is known for crappy stuff, etc, etc. Not sure who these facts are known by, what percentage of the population knows, etc. Soon afterwards everyone becomes an expert in Radio Shack retail strategy and you will even see a few post that say.. Radio Shack - Ipod = Death.
Just waiting for the day.

Imagine, HP is bigger than apple, was here before apple and all of a sudden, just because they don't want to be raped by apple anymore, they are crappy?
Since when did Apple ever get that power, to effect the financial health of another major company?. Did Microsoft change their name to apple when i wasn't looking?.. cause the only company in the world that can effect other companies in the software business is Microsoft. No other company (not even the IBM, the largest computer company in the world) has that much power.

I think HP will be alright. I'm sure they are not crying and weeping over the loss of HP branded ipods.

I have never said a single bad word about my Dell. I think every computer manufacter deserves credit where it is necessary . I purchased a Dimension 4700 1 1/2 months ago, and not a single problem (yet). In that amount of time, my HP laptop had already been reformatted twice for video problems (Drivers from HP screwed up the computer). And not to mention the questionable quality of the laptop. Felt like a cheap toy. For comparison, my neighbors 1 1/2 old Dell Dimension 8300 hasn't had not one problem. My grandmother's HP desktop has already been in the shop once and possibly about to go again. I don't like HP quality lately. Plus, buying Compaq (in my opinion) was a waste of time becuase all Compaq's are redesigned HP's with a different case design and logo. They should drop Compaq as well and just keep "HP".

P.S. If anybody doesn't remeber, back in the mid-90's Apple wasn't selling a thing. They had a PowerBook and a PowerMac, both of which were very expensive. It wasn't until the iMac came along that the company started to gain strength. I say this becuase many people will argue that buying Compaq was a smart idea. My mom used to have a Compaq and it was a nice one (bought in August 2000) and up until 1 month ago, still saw daily usage. I would be very surprised if any HP or Compaq product today lasted that long without any trouble at all.

 

[Trekkie]

I vote negative...people were always going around "not understanding" why HP sold iPods. It simply opened up so many more channels for the iPod to be sold in. It also put iTunes on HP desktops and notebooks...no downloading needed. When this deal was announced in Jan 2004 I saw tons of positives for Apple and virtually no negatives.

The end of this relationship is something I feared would happen, and is bad for Apple in my opinion.

What praytell venues for selling did it open up that aren't there? It's getting so you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who sells iPods... Not sure I understand what you mean there.

If HP accounted for >10% share of iPod sales I'd agree with your assesment that it hurts Apple, but it didn't. I don't actively look for the hPod but I've never seen it in my local Best Buy, I've seen Apple's stuff everywhere.

I don't think HP marketed it at all. I think Mr. Hurd is just going through and shooting all of Carly's crap. I hope HP focuses on it's core competencies which was measuring equipement and printers and kills everything else / spins everything else off. Dell is going to eat their lunch with printers if they're not careful.

 

[JGowan]

Apple has never been successful in licensing out any of their technology - not with the clones and now they failed with HP. They will not successfully license the iTMS or MacOS/86.

At the bottom of this is hubris - they believe they can do it better and go alone - like they did with the Macs and the original MacOS. They have been marginalized by this in the desktop market and they will in the music player market some years down the road.

You state the obvious and then make it sound as a negative. We don't know at this point exactly why HP isn't going to to continue the reselling. Perhaps it was an Apple decision; perhaps a clause in the contract about their performance. Perhaps Apple simply doesn't need for them to sell the iPod and still be successful, while all the while, HP is pocketing profits that could've gone in Apple's coffers.

You say "They have been marginalized by this in the desktop market and they will in the music player market some years down the road" -- I say "BUNK!" Starting with the original iMac, there has been HIT after HIT from Apple. Everything that has come out has been a wonderful product that has sold plenty for a company of Apple's size. The Cube has been just about the only thing that has come out that the public didn't take to and that was most likely simply the price issue. All the people I know who have them love them. Bottomline, Apple will always be one or more steps in front of just about everyone, with incredible new things coming out every single year.

Hell, they just sold HALF a BILLION SONGS in 24 quick months. I think this spells out good things for the iPod for years to come. A prediction of a number like this would have been ridiculed and scorned if given at the iTunes Store Grand Opening. But, now, Apple has showed everyone what they are truly capable of. You seem to forget this. Why? The countdown was just last week. Sounds like Naysaying for the sake of it.

You say "they believe they can do it better and go alone" -- I think so too.

 

[walkingmac]

I agree, I don't know of anyone who actually bought one, I am sure somewhere, some fool (sorry if your one) did

I honestly don't get this sentiment. Why is buying an HP iPod make someone a fool? There's no difference between the two items, what's it matter which one they bought, it's not like they bought an inferior mp3 player

Wow. Thanks for the insult. Apology not accepted.
Last year at Christmas, it was virtually impossible to find an Apple-branded iPod...my wife frantically searched around until hearing a commercial for an American TV store that pointed out that they had the hard-to-find iPods in stock.
I'll let her know how foolish she was when she gets off the treadmill.

OK... clarification... While yes there is no difference and I did give HP props for such a direction, I still don't get why anyone wanting an iPod would intentionally seek out an HP branded iPod. They don't make a super great product that you would want an HP branded product to 'complete the set' as if it were a SONY line up lets say. Most people who bought HP branded iPods I would say were more of an impulse buy and were not well educated customers. However, they also made for 'extra' stock of iPods for people in the holiday season to find a new iPod. Thats all that was ment in that statement, I thought it would come across as such, to all those who took offense, lighten up. The fact that HP is backing out is a little bit them realizing that it was a little foolish, a bit too idealistic, worth trying, but not overly (if at all) profitable (did HP advertise the fact they they sold iPods any more then the random ads you saw in the Bust Buy type ads in the sunday paper?).

 

[SiliconAddict]

Yah, without HP selling Apple wares, Apple's market share might drop 0.02%!

No but is it really hurting them. Someone on this thread said HP accounts for 5%. Its still 5%. Even if its only 2% its still 2% sales. How in any way shape or for is losing a reseller a good thing?

 

[Lanbrown]

Just a little of topic but who is a reliable computer manufacturer?. At some point in some mac forum, the following has been claimed to have crappy computers (crappier if they partnered with apple and then unpartnered)

Dell
HP
Gateway
IBM (before they sold)

At this rate, is there any other company other than apple who doesn't make crappy computers?.
Just curious.

I am sure when Radio Shack terminates the agreement with Apple to sell ipods (and they will), it will suddenly be stated that Radio Shack is known for crappy stuff, etc, etc. Not sure who these facts are known by, what percentage of the population knows, etc. Soon afterwards everyone becomes an expert in Radio Shack retail strategy and you will even see a few post that say.. Radio Shack - Ipod = Death.
Just waiting for the day.

Imagine, HP is bigger than apple, was here before apple and all of a sudden, just because they don't want to be raped by apple anymore, they are crappy?
Since when did Apple ever get that power, to effect the financial health of another major company?. Did Microsoft change their name to apple when i wasn't looking?.. cause the only company in the world that can effect other companies in the software business is Microsoft. No other company (not even the IBM, the largest computer company in the world) has that much power.

I think HP will be alright. I'm sure they are not crying and weeping over the loss of HP branded ipods.

I had a Dell computer at a company I worked for, I had to put it in and take it out of the docking stations around 20 times each morning in order to get it to boot. I was not the only one with this problem. Dell was clueless as to why.

HP is known for their lak of quality, either hardware or software. Sometimes the hardware is great but the software leaves a lot to be desired.

Gateway, well they are having problems.

IBM, they were pretty rugged machines, I have one now as a company laptop.

 

[SeltsamNaivling]

Agreed.

They probably stopped selling them because no one wants to buy something with HP branded on it. When I think of HP I think of bubbly, slow and frustrating computers.

Agreed. I would actually like to see HP try to make an MP3 player, it would be interesting to see what the "great" minds of HP came up with. eh?

 

[eSnow]

You say "They have been marginalized by this in the desktop market and they will in the music player market some years down the road" -- I say "BUNK!" Starting with the original iMac, there has been HIT after HIT from Apple. Everything that has come out has been a wonderful product that has sold plenty for a company of Apple's size. The Cube has been just about the only thing that has come out that the public didn't take to and that was most likely simply the price issue.

Of course there was the eMate and there are still piss-poor sales of the G5 towers. And the current laptop line is hurting so much that Apple has to switch to intel to regain momentum in this segment.

Maybe it is because I have been around in the days of the Apple II, Apple III and early Macs. Apple even back then was a renegade company which invariably produced big successes (Apple II), big misses (Apple III) and were never really able to capitalize on their mainstream products or their technological advances. They never licensed out their Apple II-design and tried to stop cloning via software. Consequently, IBM and a little company named Microsoft produced the de-facto standard of the next 25 years and Apples marketshare fell from like 50% to less than 4%.

Which of the following technologies have gained acceptance outside the Appleverse?
- Resource forks (first meta-data filesystem)
- Appletalk (first desktop networking standard)
- ADB (first peripheral bus standard)
- Apples intelligent monitor connector
- Applescript (maybe not the first scripting language, but still a very easy one)
- Hypercard (first multimedia app for ordinary people)


QuickTime and FireWire are the only semi-exceptions I can think of.

All the people I know who have them love them. Bottomline, Apple will always be one or more steps in front of just about everyone, with incredible new things coming out every single year.

Apple is burning not like a candle, but an acetylene blow torch - this is part of what makes them attractive to me. But whenever things go bad (like after the 68K->PPC transition, the early G4 fiasco), they go bad big time. Some times, I'd prefer Apple to build alliances and unite with other companies instead of always trying to go alone.

And my main point was: Apple is structurally incapable of cooperating - this only encourages others to build alliances against Apple.

 

[fixyourthinking]

Both Apple and HP iPods offer a one year hardware warranty.

Apple offers 90 days phone support; HP one year of phone support.

This was actually a big selling point of the HP iPods in my opinion.

The tattoos were a neat difference too.

 

[BenRoethig]

They probably stopped selling them because no one wants to buy something with HP branded on it. When I think of HP I think of bubbly, slow and frustrating computers.

Nobody wants to buy HP except one out of every five computer buyers.

 

[ryannel2003]

Nobody wants to buy HP except one out of every five computer buyers.

When I think HP, I think of my POS laptop that gave me so much heartache I almost cried. When I think HP, I don't think a re-branded Apple iPod. What I do think would probably result in a suspension off these boards.

 

[ryannel2003]

This was actually a big selling point of the HP iPods in my opinion.

The tattoos were a neat difference too.

That's true, but after buying the HP iPod and using HP's support you'd be wishing that you had gotten an Apple and spent $59 to get Applecare.

 

[BenRoethig]

When I think HP, I think of my POS laptop that gave me so much heartache I almost cried. When I think HP, I don't think a re-branded Apple iPod. What I do think would probably result in a suspension off these boards.

We all know HP's computers are complete crap. We also know they have a big share of the market.

 

[ryannel2003]

We all know HP's computers are complete crap. We also know they have a big share of the market.

And I think we all know why HP has a big part of the market share: retail. Out of all the Wal-Marts, Target's, Circuit City's, Best Buy's, etc. that I have been too HP is the one and only manufacter that they actually promote. I was browsing through the Wal-Mart sale paper yesterday and lo and behold HP and Compaq were the two main ads for desktops and laptops. Even though Wal-Mart does sell eMachines, Toshiba, and some other no-name companies. It's the same with with Best Buy and Circuit City, who on commercials are always promoting a HP/Compaq product. If Dell did retail like HP/Compaq does, then they would blow the doors off the sales of HP. But unfortunaetly, Michael Dell still hasn't realized why HP is close behind.

 

[Trekkie]

And I think we all know why HP has a big part of the market share: retail.

That and buying Compaq's marketshare/brand name helped a lot too. Prior to the Compaq buyout HP was the dark machine in the corner, not the hot seller.

 

[ryannel2003]

That and buying Compaq's marketshare/brand name helped a lot too. Prior to the Compaq buyout HP was the dark machine in the corner, not the hot seller.

Prior to HP buying Compaq, I would've actually considered buying a Compaq or HP. Our pre-HP aquisition Compaq was an excellent machine that ran with 5yrs of hard usage and not one problem during that time. Around the year 2000, I remeber everbody talking about buying a Compaq, not a Dell computer. But then something magical happened at Dell and soon that was all you heard about. Since the aquisition though, the quality has seemed to go downhill.

 

[solvs]

No but is it really hurting them. Someone on this thread said HP accounts for 5%. Its still 5%. Even if its only 2% its still 2% sales. How in any way shape or for is losing a reseller a good thing?

That's assuming those who bought HP iPod's would have bought something else WMA based. Maybe 1-2%, which could be a little hit to Apple's bottom line, but not the full 5%. Even then, I still expect them to continue to lead purely on ease of use. Cool only lasts so long, but I still see them at a greater than 50% marketshare for awhile as long as they continue to remain fairly competitive. Comparatively.

They have been marginalized by this in the desktop market and they will in the music player market some years down the road.

Except they were never ahead in the computer market. And people bought PCs because of businesses. Still do. This is entertainment we're talking about. It's a whole other ballgame, and Apple is doing a good job. That won't change any time soon. DaringFireball.net had a good article on this.

 

[JGowan]

OK... clarification... While yes there is no difference and I did give HP props for such a direction, I still don't get why anyone wanting an iPod would intentionally seek out an HP branded iPod. They don't make a super great product that you would want an HP branded product to 'complete the set' as if it were a SONY line up lets say. Most people who bought HP branded iPods I would say were more of an impulse buy and were not well educated customers. However, they also made for 'extra' stock of iPods for people in the holiday season to find a new iPod. Thats all that was ment in that statement, I thought it would come across as such, to all those who took offense, lighten up. The fact that HP is backing out is a little bit them realizing that it was a little foolish, a bit too idealistic, worth trying, but not overly (if at all) profitable (did HP advertise the fact they they sold iPods any more then the random ads you saw in the Bust Buy type ads in the sunday paper?).

While you were being a little cavalier in your earliest post with the insult, I realize it's a message board afterall and it's sometimes hard not to wrangle in all of the cynicism, sarcasm & joking that's dying to spill out.

Insult aside, I agree with your attitude... an Apple Fan would (99.99% of the time) would never even consider buying an HP-branded 'pod. They would search high and low to find the real McCoy and probably only get an HP one if it was a gift for someone else or if they simply had no possible other choice.

Then who would buy one? "Switchers" and family & friends of the Apple Fan, both being bullied by Generic McSalesman.

 

[kingtj]

Feared it would happen??

I agree with you that it had a net benefit for Apple. (Any time a company can get another big company to resell their products for them, it's obviously beneficial, is it not? The objective is always to sell as much of your product as possible. That's called "business", folks!)

But I'd hardly say I was "fearful" for this particular relationship ending. It's arguable that it already served its purpose anyway. I know, first hand, that quite a few people were introduced to their first iPod because they grabbed an HP branded one from one of the chain stores that offered a better deal on it than Apple did on their models. (EG. Sometimes, by purchasing the HP branded product, you were able to get a much better extended warranty offered through the chain store than you'd otherwise get via "Applecare" for Apple's own branded device.) But now, I think the iPod has pretty much reached "market saturation" - so the sales are to more educated buyers this time around. That means, people who will say "Yeah... last time I was real worried about my iPod's battery dying off on me or dropping and breaking it, so I wanted the best/longest warranty I could get. But now, I see mine never did any of those things, so I'm confident it's a good enough product that I won't let extended warranties affect my purchasing decision next time on one." That also means people will no longer choose the HP model out of ignorance. (EG. PC users thinking only the HP model would be sure to work properly on a Windows-based computer, which is some B.S. I heard several stores salespeople spout off at Circuit City, etc.)

I vote negative...people were always going around "not understanding" why HP sold iPods. It simply opened up so many more channels for the iPod to be sold in. It also put iTunes on HP desktops and notebooks...no downloading needed. When this deal was announced in Jan 2004 I saw tons of positives for Apple and virtually no negatives.

The end of this relationship is something I feared would happen, and is bad for Apple in my opinion.

 

[seashellz]

Very stupid move on APPLEs part.
HP has 100,000 outlets around the country.

FREE advertising for APPLE, which in the publics mind, is still a very
small company forever on the edge of bankruptcy.

I seem to remember that APPLE refused to give HP credit or a price break for old units, or if there was a new, lower price point in the chain.
Which is likely why this came about-not just new management.


APPLE seems determined to stay at <5% of the market-expenses be damned!

Just because none of us would want an iPod with an HP logo on it, doesnt mean the general public felt that way.

HP accounted for 5% of all iPod sales-small, but much better than a kick in the ass-and again-FREE advertising for APPLE.

Oh-and did I mention-FREE advertising for APPLE?

sad.

 

[inkswamp]

For the last time already... Apple needed HP back before the iPod was proven to the runaway hot consumer item that we all now know it to be. Some of you get this, but most don't seem to understand it. Now that it's clear that the iPod has a lot more life to it than originally assumed, retailers are going to be lining up at Apple's door to offer them shelf space for it. Apple no longer needs help in getting retail shelf space so their relationship with HP is anachronistic at this point. All of you doom-n-gloomers need to think about the context. This isn't going to hurt Apple one bit. In fact, having HP in the mix probably complicates things for Apple and their marketing efforts in undesirable ways.