Hewlett-Packard breakup means the death of the hardware superstore

Hewlett-Packard will split into two companies, worth about $55 billion apiece. The breakup is meant to give the two HP companies the agility to better respond to market demands, but there could be trouble ahead. 

Paul Sakuma/AP/File
The company logo on a Hewlett-Packard keyboard at the Micro Center computer store in Santa Clara, Calif. Hewlett-Packard on Monday, Oct. 6, 2014 said it is splitting itself into two companies, one focused on its personal computer and printing business and another on technology services, such as data storage, servers and software, as it aims to drive profits higher.

Hewlett-Packard is breaking up.

It will split in half. One half will be PCs and printers, a business with just more than $55 billion in revenue. The other half will be servers, networking, storage, software, services and other enterprise offerings, also just over $55 billion. The inescapable conclusion? It didn't work.

HP has been structured as a scale play on the PC ecosystem ever since ex-CEO Carly Fiorina shed Agilent and bought Compaq 15 years ago. During his tenure there, former HP CEO Mark Hurd described it to me as an enterprise share-of-wallet play, leveraging the size of the consumer market along the way.

It's like big-box retail, the idea went: The bigger you are, the more you can pressure suppliers for cheap prices. And once you have a customer in the door, you can sell a bit of everything. HP was supposed to be the irresistible hardware superstore.

The problem with mere scale

The difficulty is that when you try to be all things to all people, which a scale play must necessarily do, it can prevent you from hitting key trends and executing the special thing really well (as we've seen in fashion, healthy food or customer service).

So when something major changes—like mobile (ARM, iOS, Android) rocks the PC ecosystem and cloud (IaaS, SaaS) rocks the enterprise channel, scale plays based on a previous era can be caught flat-footed.

This breakup doesn't necessarily correct that.

Here's the problem with a broken-up HP: The company's Printing and Personal Systems Group is uniquely good at printing, and that's about it. The group is a player in a bunch of interesting, mostly commodity businesses, but nothing that's growing particularly fast.

The enterprise group has a lot of also-ran businesses, including servers, storage, networking and software. There are some decent assets in storage, but nothing that you'd think will provide the kind of long-term advantage that's going to inspire faith.

Storms ahead

On the consumer side, there's the threat of a continuing secular collapse. If PC business growth doesn't continue (because, in a situation I view as likely, consumers are going to continue waiting far longer than the traditional three years to replace the PCs they're buying now), and people instead adopt targeted hardware that works better, that hurts both ends of the consumer business.

On the enterprise side, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (the other half of the split) has a server business that will be threatened by contract manufacturers and by Lenovo, once it gets rolling with its server business newly acquired from IBM.

In its other businesses, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise will have neither obvious intellectual property advantages nor scale: Networking is Cisco's game.

Storage is getting slammed by cloud trends, and it's not clear that a risky combination with EMC (which would have to spin off VMware to manage it) would help much. The software business is stagnant despite the Hail Mary acquisition of Autonomy years ago. And the services business continues to be stuck in the mud.

The breakup could end up being a good thing, but it doesn't fix much. Instead of one huge troubled business, we'll have two big troubled businesses.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.