Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

#61

Post by preview »

mootothemax wrote: post #36
seldo wrote: post #5

What do people think of Meg Whitman's record at eBay? She ran for governor on her record as CEO there, but eBay has always seemed to me like a terribly-led company, sitting on its laurels as first-mover and squandering opportunities to move into new markets while startups chip away at its core business.

What do people think of Meg Whitman's record at eBay? From her Wikipedia page: During her ten years with the company she oversaw expansion from 30 employees and $4 million in annual revenue to more than 15,000 employees and $8 billion in annual revenue. [1] Seems pretty impressive to me. It's also easy to forget how many companies tried and failed in this space, including the likes of Yahoo. [1] http://en.wikipedia.o…

The growth is impressive, but did Whitman cause it to happen, or did she manage it as it was happening? My opinion is that she managed it as it was happening. That may make her a competent manager, but I think HP needs much more than just a competent manager. HP should be about technology leadership, especially if the commodity PC business is sold off.

Re: Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

#62

Post by tybris »

pedalpete wrote: post #27
tybris wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the board in older companies usually consists of people with MBAs from expensive schools who just don't get technology (hint: it's not about cutting costs, it's about building technology).

I think that is a gross generalization, and I think in large corporations like the ones we are referring to, their is room for MBAs. Better there then in start-ups ;) There is no rule that an MBA can't 'get' technology. It isn't about building technology either, it's about proving something people need and want, and getting them to pay for it. Technology is only a component of that.

> it's about proving something people need and want, and getting them to pay for it.

HP sells more stuff that people want than almost any other company (printers, desktops, etc.). Yet they're failing.

Successful technology companies (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Dell, Oracle) have business and technology interwoven like yin and yang. Business fuels technology, technology drives the business. You get there by building your business and your technology hand in hand. If you stop building, you'll fail on both. That's what you don't learn in an MBA.

Re: Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

#63

Post by cHalgan »

I wonder why there are no internal talent in HP to replace CEO (you know, the second in command which will take control of the ship if CEO is hit by a bus).

Is there a company which is actively working on internal talent pool capable of replacing the acting CEO? (I can think only of Apple, but they are not typical corporation).

Re: Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

#64

Post by maukdaddy »

tybris wrote: post #16
plinkplonk wrote: post #14

I am just a dumb developer, so I am probably not quite getting the subtle management logic at play here, but what's with random incompetents being appointed CEOs and paid millions of dollars to make things worse or at least not much better? (Bartz at yahoo, Apotheker at HP)It seems like a systemic inefficiency to me. (btw this is a genuine question, not snark. I'd appreciate anyone versed in how boards etc work enlig…

Because the board in older companies usually consists of people with MBAs from expensive schools who just don't get technology (hint: it's not about cutting costs, it's about building technology).

Thanks for the gross generalization! Some of us are highly technical, began in the technology field, and then got an MBA. Some of us have MBAs and can even code!

Re: Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

#65

Post by alttag »

plinkplonk wrote: post #14

I am just a dumb developer, so I am probably not quite getting the subtle management logic at play here, but what's with random incompetents being appointed CEOs and paid millions of dollars to make things worse or at least not much better? (Bartz at yahoo, Apotheker at HP)It seems like a systemic inefficiency to me. (btw this is a genuine question, not snark. I'd appreciate anyone versed in how boards etc work enlig…

  > ... what's with random incompetents ...?
I think at least part of the answer is that research shows groups are, in some instances, shown to make worse decisions than individuals. In groups, individual biases are magnified, and the group process introduces a whole host of potential decision flaws (e.g., information hiding, social loafing) while not consistently compensating for individual decision weaknesses. Groups often make less optimal decisions than individuals, especially in subjective cases.

Re: Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

#66

Post by headbiznatch »

arach wrote: post #31
gamache wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their acquisition of Skype made no sense. For what it's worth: eBay paid $2.6B for Skype in 2005, sold 65% of it for $2B in 2009, and then made an additional $2.5B selling its remaining stake to Microsoft in 2010. So it turned out to net almost $2B over five years. I'm not an accountant, but I could live with those numbers. (disclosure: eBay owns the company that bought the company where I work)

Skype retained its value and even became more valuable, but that doesn't mean it made strategic sense for a marketplace / e-commerce company.

It made strategic sense if they were hoping to make a couple billion dollars on their investment.

Re: Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

#67

Post by ScottBurson »

preview wrote: post #61
mootothemax wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do people think of Meg Whitman's record at eBay? From her Wikipedia page: During her ten years with the company she oversaw expansion from 30 employees and $4 million in annual revenue to more than 15,000 employees and $8 billion in annual revenue. [1] Seems pretty impressive to me. It's also easy to forget how many companies tried and failed in this space, including the likes of Yahoo. [1] http://en.wikipedia.o…

The growth is impressive, but did Whitman cause it to happen, or did she manage it as it was happening? My opinion is that she managed it as it was happening. That may make her a competent manager, but I think HP needs much more than just a competent manager. HP should be about technology leadership, especially if the commodity PC business is sold off.

Yes. eBay is a textbook natural monopoly, because buyers want the best selection and sellers want as many buyers as possible to find their stuff. All she had to do at eBay was not screw it up -- which is something, but not the same thing at all as the task she now faces at HP.

Re: Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

#68

Post by saraid216 »

headbiznatch wrote: post #66
arach wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skype retained its value and even became more valuable, but that doesn't mean it made strategic sense for a marketplace / e-commerce company.

It made strategic sense if they were hoping to make a couple billion dollars on their investment.

That's not strategy. That's a get-rich-quick scheme.

Re: Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

#69

Post by nknight »

maukdaddy wrote: post #64
tybris wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the board in older companies usually consists of people with MBAs from expensive schools who just don't get technology (hint: it's not about cutting costs, it's about building technology).

Thanks for the gross generalization! Some of us are highly technical, began in the technology field, and then got an MBA. Some of us have MBAs and can even code!

And how many boards of multinational companies are you on?

I read the comment as "an MBA is their only qualification", not "MBAs are inherently incapable of understanding technology".

Re: Meg Whitman to be named new HP CEO

#70

Post by CamperBob »

0x12 wrote: post #56
kinofcain wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Auctions are just one way of arriving at a price for a used good, haggling is another. The question isn't "Where can I auction this old stuff" it's "Where can I sell this old stuff".

An auction is a totally different thing than offering something 'for sale', auction sites typically allow people to make bids and enter in to a contract which requires them to take delivery. If craigslist is the equivalent of ebay to you then that's find with me but I think that craigslist and ebay are substantially different beasts. Also, plenty of the stuff sold there is not old.

Interestingly, eBay is implementing a new policy that requires sellers to offer either no returns at all, or give the buyer at least 14 days. No one except sellers in a couple of narrow categories will be allowed to offer 3-, 7-, or 10-day return periods starting in Q1 2012. So eBay no longer even vaguely resembles a real auction venue where cash, carry, and caveat emptor are the first three rules.

That will obviously kill womens' clothing sales completely, which is a nontrivial part of the company's overall revenue picture.

It also opens up all kinds of amusing arbitrage opportunities (buy gold coins or other assets that fluctuate in value, return them if the market goes down over the next two weeks.)

It also makes me think that eBay needs a good corporate drug-testing policy. Or maybe they're just using the wrong drugs.

Post reply on HN