>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>Behalf Of george c stachnik
>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:47 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [HP3000-L] The Real Story About HP's Announcement...
>
>WHO'S TO BLAME?
>============
>A lot of the rhetoric that has appeared on this list in the last three
>weeks has sought to fix blame on HP for "killing" the HP e3000.  It's
>easy, in hindsight, to look back on the last 30 years, (and a number of
>the emails that I've responded to have tried to do exactly that) and
>second guess the decisions that HP made.
>
>*  Did HP put enough energy and resources into marketing
>    the HP e3000?
>
>*  Should HP have positioned the HP e3000 differently against
>    the HP 9000?
>
>*  Should we have spent more money on advertising?
>
>*  Should we have spent our advertising dollars in publications
>    like the Wall Street Journal?
>
>If all you're concerned about is the HP e3000, then these are all
>"no-brainers".  The answers are clearly "yes", "yes", "yes" and "yes."
>But HP isn't (and should not be) concerned with ONLY one product, even
>when that product is the HP e3000.  It's important to recognize that
>every decision is a trade-off.  It's easy for the armchair-quarterbacks
>among us (and I'm as guilty of this as anybody) to point out things that
>HP "coulda, shoulda" done on behalf of the HP e3000.  But it's not
>always so easy to see what impact those decisions might have had on HP's
>other product lines, or on HP as a whole.
>
>*   If HP had put more energy into resources into marketing
>    the HP e3000, would we have ended up like DEC - who put
>    their resources behind the VAX and wound up being sold to
>    Compaq?

        Or perhaps you would have ended up like IBM with a solid mid-range
platform, like the AS/400, in your stable of products to be sold.

>
>*    If we had positioned MPE/iX as being "more reliable than
>    HP-UX" might we have lost tens of thousands of HP 9000
>    sales to UNIX competitors who pointed out that "even
>    HP admits that HP-UX is unreliable - they say that their
>    old proprietary system is more reliable than their new UNIX
>    box."

        This implies the only way to marked the HP e3000 is to attack the HP9000?!?
You can't market them side by side, most likely in separate ads, as be two
good choices that are different?  In my toolbox I have both a "flat head"
and a "Phillips" screwdriver.  True I could force the use the "flat head"
much of the time on "Phillips" head screws, but it's not the best tool for
the job and isn't going to do as good a job.  Likewise, there is no single
computer that is the best for every job, including the HP e3000 (and the
HP9000).

>
>*    If we had spent our advertising dollars on The Wall Street
>    Journal, or the New York Times, or even ComputerWorld,
>    should have have paid for it by pulling all our ads from
>    HP pubs like Interact, HPworld & the Newswire?

        Again, you assume an all or nothing approach?!?  Why couldn't you spread
your advertising dollars across multiple types of publications.  If you're
not sure how to do that, then ask the folks over in the 9000 division.  They
don't seem to have trouble advertising at HPWorld, Interact, and other
non-HP specific publications, like the ones mentioned.


Thanx,
        Jon

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *