TamsPPC Interviews HP Austria About WM Strategy

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://tamsppc.tamoggemon.com/2008/12/02/hp-speaks-ipaq-the-rudolf-gruber-interview/' target='_blank'>http://tamsppc.tamoggemon.com/2008/...uber-interview/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"HP's mobile strategy has recently left a few open questions in some analyst's heads. As TamsPPC has had an excellent relationship with HP ever since we debuted on a rx4240, we proudly present you this interview with Rudolf Gruber. Rudolf Gruber is the sales manager for mobile devices for HP Austria - he sat down with us for a no-holds-barred interview looking at topics like custom UI's, PDAs, the future of touchscreen devices and Windows Mobile 6.1 upgrades."</em></p><p>I want to commend Tom Hanna of TamsPPC for asking some necessary questions of HP and writing this article.&nbsp; That said, I was extremely disappointed with this interview; if anything, it reinforces my negative perception of HP.&nbsp; They refuse to go into detail about how they will differentiate themselves from the rest of the industry ("investing a lot of R&amp;D"?&nbsp; Meaning?) and sidestep many of the issues (the WM6.1 "explanation" was particularly bad, in my opinion, even from a business standpoint).&nbsp; To be brutally honest, I think HP deserves its increasingly marginal role; it could have owned the entire handheld world a few years ago, but tossed it out the window, and still doesn't have a clue, despite making a few attractive devices.&nbsp; Is there anyone in our readership that plans to invest in HP mobile devices in the near future?</p>

[Fritzly]

I am not surprised at all aboout HP attitude; the people in charge nowadays are the leftover of that arrogant and greedy champion of incompetency that was Carly Fiorina; she and her accolytes destroyed not only the potential mobile market but, much worse and tragic, the one that HP was synonimous of: the printer market.

[Pony99CA]

That said, I was extremely disappointed with this interview; if anything, it reinforces my negative perception of HP.&nbsp; They refuse to go into detail about how they will differentiate themselves from the rest of the industry ("investing a lot of R&amp;D"?&nbsp; Meaning?) and sidestep many of the issues (the WM6.1 "explanation" was particularly bad, in my opinion, even from a business standpoint).
I particularly liked this bit of corporate speak when asked about lower-priced devices. "Portfolio bandwidth including affordable price bands are major influencers in the Smart Mobile Device Market." Who speaks like that? (To be fair, maybe the translator "helped" there.) Is that the same as saying "Having affordable devices is important," or does it mean something else?

However, I think your comment about R&D spending was off-base. Here's the full quotation:

Nevertheless for larger screens the future is highres, touchscreen and improved UI. HP is investing a lot in R&D for those areas to develop products, which are time to market in terms of latest technology, securing a superior user experience.
I think it's clear what "investing a lot in R&D" means there -- HP is researching (and maybe developing) devices with larger high-res touch screens and improved user interfaces. I wouldn't expect anything more detailed than that.

I also didn't think the WM 6.1 explanation was that bad. Remember that the question was asked specifically about the HP 210/211.

Taking Windows Mobile 6.1, the key improvements were rather relevant for the Smartphones (eg. UI, OTA device management), which are not of big value for pen/based PDAs. On top of that the 21x platform is mainly selling into Enterprise and MidMarket, where long life cycles and ROM stability are key influencers.

A big part of HPs enterprise customers are running their own applications on our pen/based products. Thats the reason why their are expecting platform stability for at least 2yrs.
We're obviously not happy with it, but for enterprise customers deploying mission-critical applications, I can understand why they'd want ROM stability.

Of course, that doesn't mean that HP couldn't develop a WM 6.1 upgrade for those customers that wanted it; nobody would be forced to use it. However, having to support two OS releases would increase HP's support burden (they couldn't say "We're only supporting WM 6.1" to customers that kept WM 6.0 for stability).

Basically, we're not the target market for the 210/211. It's called an "Enterprise Handheld", even.

To be brutally honest, I think HP deserves its increasingly marginal role; it could have owned the entire handheld world a few years ago, but tossed it out the window, and still doesn't have a clue, despite making a few attractive devices.&nbsp; Is there anyone in our readership that plans to invest in HP mobile devices in the near future?
I agree that HP could have done a lot better. They used to provide OS upgrades for most of their devices, and now provide almost none. They do seem to provide bug fixes, though.

As for buying an HP device, I'm considering the 210/211. I can get one for under $300, but the announced lack of a WM 6.1 upgrade worries me. Will they provide an upgrade to WM 6.5 or WM 7? Based on their history lately, I'm guessing they won't.

Steve

[SomeAudioGuy]

I still maintain the last great standalone PPC was the HX2750. Nothing since has come close to that level of performance, and the built in fingerprint scanner was a perfect way to easily lock down a device without having to enter an alphanumeric password on a soft keyboard.

I just don't see any real focus from HP. The devices look nice, but they just seem to be basic spec pda's. We're a long way removed from the days where HP/Compaq used to innovate in this space.

Also I guess my needs have moved on too. When I can pick up an HTC Touch Pro for less than a 210, I'll deal with some of the compromises (slower cpu, smaller screen) to use the more feature packed device (more RAM/ROM, gps, cell radio, best keyboard on the market) and carry one less bulge on my utility belt.

[Janak Parekh]

I think it's clear what "investing a lot in R&D" means there -- HP is researching (and maybe developing) devices with larger high-res touch screens and improved user interfaces. I wouldn't expect anything more detailed than that. I disagree. This is a generic checklist that every mobile device vendor is looking into, so HP is providing no new details here.

In the past, HP had designed videos for concept devices that were particularly stunning. Those concept devices never made it to market, but that was a great idea to demonstrate their R&D is still alive. I've not seen any such thing since -- just corporate-speak.

We're obviously not happy with it, but for enterprise customers deploying mission-critical applications, I can understand why they'd want ROM stability. That's a cop-out. I've done enterprise support for a variety of applications, and enterprises want both stability and upgradability to maximize the lifetime of their hardware investment, especially if newer versions of WM improve enterprise integration and related features. Microsoft even published a document about new management security features in WM6.1 for enterprises. (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/en-us/business/solutions/enterprise/mdm-security-features.mspx) Some of these only apply to phones, but I consider encryption to be a biggie in particular for all classes of handhelds.

The one class of enterprise apps I would consider upgrades to be bad for are vertical applications (i.e., POS devices etc.); if HP is trying to make that the keystone of their argument, then they should focus on it and explain in greater detail.

Of course, that doesn't mean that HP couldn't develop a WM 6.1 upgrade for those customers that wanted it; nobody would be forced to use it. However, having to support two OS releases would increase HP's support burden (they couldn't say "We're only supporting WM 6.1" to customers that kept WM 6.0 for stability). Well, consider passing the cost on to customers, then. The enterprise market could certainly consider future-proofing a feature. To dismiss it by saying that the enterprise wouldn't even want this is weak.

--janak

[Pony99CA]

I disagree. This is a generic checklist that every mobile device vendor is looking into, so HP is providing no new details here.
Perhaps, but I think they spelled it out more than your initial story implied. It may have been a generic feature list, but it wasn't just "more R&D spending", either.

In the past, HP had designed videos for concept devices that were particularly stunning. Those concept devices never made it to market, but that was a great idea to demonstrate their R&D is still alive. I've not seen any such thing since -- just corporate-speak.
I don't recall any of those videos. Do you have a link to any that are still active? (I'm not doubting you, just curious to see what they were like.)

The one class of enterprise apps I would consider upgrades to be bad for are vertical applications (i.e., POS devices etc.); if HP is trying to make that the keystone of their argument, then they should focus on it and explain in greater detail.
I assumed that's what they meant when they said, "A big part of HPs enterprise customers are running their own applications on our pen/based products."

Well, consider passing the cost on to customers, then. The enterprise market could certainly consider future-proofing a feature. To dismiss it by saying that the enterprise wouldn't even want this is weak.
I don't believe Compaq or HP ever provided free OS upgrades; they were $30 (maybe $40). They probably felt that would cover their costs, but maybe it didn't, and they'd have to price the upgrades so high now that almost nobody would buy them. If that's the case, why bother producing them at all?

I guess I'm just not as incensed at HP this time as I was over their WM 2003 SE non-upgrade excuses (http://thoughts.svpocketpc.com#THOUGHT_IPAQ_WM2003SE_UPGRADE). Or maybe I've just come to expect less from them nowadays than I used to. :( It's too bad, because (as you said) they probably could have owned a bigger part of the Windows Mobile space than they do now.

Steve