Originally posted by jettredmont
I voted negative on this, for reasons stated in the origiinal post: HP and Apple should be attacking different segments of the market; HP rebranding an iPod does nothing for anybody except get Carly a vanity product.
Thus, this isn't so much a negative development as it is a non-positive development, being hyped to death.
But then, perhaps I've seen too many substance-free "partnerships" and "rebranding" efforts in my time.
Can anyone point to a single HP rebranding effort which paid off for the "other guy"? Their digital cameras? Their early scanners? Anyone?
You are more wrong than a very wrong thing
HP is global in a way in which Apple is not.
Whilst the iPod is really big in many markets, those markets do at least need a viable Macintosh market to justify an Apple-led marketing effort as local non-Apple distributors are not going to do that job.
There are a whole of markets , many of which will be developing countries, where HP will be able to reach consumers using its marketing resources.
And, because its halfway between a reseller arrangement and an OEM arrangement, HP will have to commit to a volume purchasing agreement which effectively gives Apple a guaranteed six-figure in unit shipments every quarter.
So, HP pays for the marketing, reaches the customer once, Apple gets the long-term benefit once there is a local iTMS for that end-market.
And all of this doesn't even take into account all of the Windows bigots who would never buy anything with an Apple logo front-and-centre or those who have easier access to an HP reseller than an Apple reseller.
No, this is a good thing - the trick is making it stick and not letting it be a one-off.
