Comment by stuff4ben 6 days ago
If 1.2 billion dollars in valuation was destroyed in 49 days because the CTO wasn't there, there's something to be said about the CTO's inability to delegate and ensure they have a team that supports their decisions and vision and can carry on without them. "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
The device was always doomed. They launched a direct competitor to the iPad with maybe 10% of the functionality. This article is just hubris on the CTO's part ("if only I had been around for the launch instead of my incompetent team, everything would have worked out").
One other thing to point out is that the entire tablet market only exists today due to re-use of the phone ecosystems. Just look at any popular app on a tablet - they all have massive borders/sidebars and within those it's just the phone app as-is. Not even Facebook makes a dedicated tablet app. It's all just the phone app ported across in a very crude way. The simple fact is that the tablet market isn't big enough to be independent of the phone ecosystem.
The CTO here proudly says he convinced the board to buy Palm and get into the tablet market but just thinking about this even lightly i'm not sure it was wrong for the CEO (and subsequently CTO) to be kicked out for this move. It's weird there's no hubris on this. A tablet market without re-use of a larger markets app ecosystem seems like poor strategic thinking to me.
> Just look at any popular app on a tablet - they all have massive borders/sidebars and within those it's just the phone app as-is.
What apps are you using? That's not the case for any of the iPad apps I use anymore, though early on it was fairly common since quick ports could be made by checking the "release for iPad" box or however it worked back then. That was 15 years ago, though, things have changed quite a bit since then.
Android has unfortunately trended the opposite direction - apps that once had tablet UIs dropped them in favour of big phone UIs as they did redesigns around 2016-2020. I dropped out of the Android tablet world in 2019 for a Windows tablet, and most recently went for an iPad this year, so maybe Android has recovered ground there, but judging by how few Android tablets are actually on the market, I wouldn't be hopeful.
There is a difference between iPad and iPhone apps. The former run full screen, and the latter letterboxed.
I don’t use iPhone apps on this iPad Mini, they are too painful. I use the Instagram and Blue Sky web sites instead.
I don't use either of those services so I was unaware. So I guess there are still some apps out there without a proper iPad interface. I haven't encountered any in at least a decade though and they seem to be in the minority. Apple has gone to great lengths to make it easy to at least make something that fits on the iPad even if you don't try to make it properly native and use the screen real estate effectively. So that strikes me as laziness on the part of the Instagram and Bluesky app developers to not even try.
One could make the case that nobody needs tablet apps because web apps work well on tablets -- without annoying notifications or annoying popups to access privacy violating features [1], without adding clutter to an already too cluttered "desktop" of icons that all look the same, etc.
[1] that nobody in their right mind would click on, but I guess somebody with dementia might...
I don't totally disagree, though I dislike most web apps because, well, they require an internet connection too often (if not always). And I don't trust their creators to be any better at not violating privacy (my data is typically stored on their servers, after all).
With that said, I'm not sure what you're replying to in my comment.
Your overall point might be correct, but some of your specifics are incorrect:
>Just look at any popular app on a tablet - they all have massive borders/sidebars and within those it's just the phone app as-is.
None of the apps I am using on my iPad have borders/sidebars.
Gmail and Youtube have long had dedicated iPad apps. DeepSeek has one (a well designed and implemented one) for interacting with its chat service. The last time I checked, Google Gemini had only an iPhone app, but I checked again today and found a full-fledged iPad app.
Even my credit union, which operates only in California and does not have any physical branches in Southern California, has a full-fledged iPad app.
Had the iPad not launched immediately opposite it, I can envision a world where HP goes through two or three revisions and has a solid device with it's own "personality" much like how Microsoft has their "Surface" line of glued-together tablets and "laptops" which sorta compete with the iPad and Macbook Air even if they hardly market them. The fact that Microsoft eventually succeeded in the space seems to indicate HP could have as well. I can see the business case where the new CEO isn't interested in rubber stamping a new product line that's going to lose money for him every quarter for the next three years against the glowing sun that is the iPad. There are better ways to burn political capital as a C level.
The thing with Windows tablets and Android tablets is in both cases the software development only has to justify its net increase in spend over just doing phone apps, but since HP didn't have a good market of phone apps to begin with, they'd basically need to justify the entire software development cost, on lower sales.
Taking the story at face value, the issue isn't necessarily delegation. If the C-suite is making a decision and one of their primary people (CTO in this case) is absent, it almost doesn't matter who he delegates to. The delegated individual is not their peer, so whatever they say will be discounted. I've been in that situation (as the delegated individual) several times. It's frustrating. Even if they respect you, you don't get a vote in the final decision.
In a company like HP at that moment...
* Might the same decisions have been made, even if the CTO were there?
* Would the CTO have one or more (SVP? VP?) people ramped up on the technical/product, and able to take a temporary acting-CTO role on that?
* Would there have been any sharp-elbow environment reason not to elevate subordinates temporarily into one's role and access? (For example, because you might return to find it's permanent.)
* What was the influence and involvement of the other execs? Surely it wasn't just CTO saying "buy this", CEO saying "OK", and then a product and marketing apparatus executing indifferently?