In message <[log in to unmask]>, Christian Lheureux
<[log in to unmask]> writes

<with some snips>

>IMO, HP is the most interesting supplier to deal with because they have one
>of the most complete offering :
>
>- Servers
>- Storage
>- Backup hardware
>- Middleware (OpenView...)
>- Networking hardware
>- Multi-platform maintenance
>- Services
>
Very true. But if we are to believe that the HP/Compaq merger makes
sense, then we have to believe that Compaq is bringing something to the
party.

So if HP already has this most complete offering, what *is* it they
think Compaq brings? More of the same (i.e. the volume/critical
mass/remove a competitor angle)? Or something else?

>The fact that some HP products or some components of HP solutions are
>not HP genuine parts is irrelevant.

So HP, like the car makers, is selling 'package insurance'. I often
wonder if Canon, now pretty universally respected for their copiers,
regret letting HP have their laserjet engine, or whether the 'package
insurance' that HP brought to this then-new product, with HP's software
wrapper and name endorsement, was critical to its success.

>But I'll stick with HP anyway, because they have this extensive product
>offering. Lousy marketing, but great products.

Maybe Compaq will bring a good marketing department?

But one thing is true with commodity products - they have to be easy to
buy. Just look at Dell. They are *so* easy to buy from.

When HP no longer have unique products like the HP3000 to sell, they
will find the limitations of their processes may become critical. SOP
can no longer be 'Sales Order Prevention'....

Fun thought: What if HP had decided to merge with Dell? Best or worst of
both worlds? :-)



--
Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris

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