HP Turns Back On $1 Billion In Annual Sales By Quitting Russia, Belarus (theregister.com) 110
"Considering the COVID environment and long-term outlook for Russia, we have decided to stop our Russia activity and have begun the process of fully winding down our operations," said CEO Enrique Lores on a Q2 earnings call with analysts. Lores says "business there accounted for approximately $1 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2021." The Register reports: HP was among the first wave of tech companies to suspend shipments to the countries soon after Russia invaded its neighbor on February 24, but now the company's president and CEO Enrique Lores is making the move more permanent. [...] HP's Lores revealed the exit of Russia and Belarus as HP reported financial results for Q2 of its fiscal 2022 ended 30 April: revenue grew 4 percent to $16.5 billion including a 9 percent hike in the Personal Systems Group to $11.532 billion, and a 7 percent drop in Printing to $4.963 billion.
In the PC unit, notebooks were up 3 percent to $7.734 billion, and desktops were up 28 percent to $2.855 billion as corporate customers refreshed their estates. [...] HP recorded a net profit of $1 billion for the period, lower than the $1.228 billion reported in the same quarter of last year.
In the PC unit, notebooks were up 3 percent to $7.734 billion, and desktops were up 28 percent to $2.855 billion as corporate customers refreshed their estates. [...] HP recorded a net profit of $1 billion for the period, lower than the $1.228 billion reported in the same quarter of last year.
womp womp (Score:2, Interesting)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
However, I'm actually a bit surprised that capitalism has been bowing out to world politics like this. It's uncharacteristic, to say the least. There must be money to be made that we're not universally exposing. I'd guess from the oil barrel price hikes, but I haven't done that level of bird-dogging yet.
Re:womp womp (Score:5, Informative)
Russia's behavior is a threat to to everyone in the Western nations and maybe the world. Assisting that in any way is contrary to survival if nothing else. Plus there's a distinct likelihood that Western assets in those countries will be seized outright under the current circumstances. Wind it all down ASAP and mark it off to experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this, the idea is probably "let's get out with all our assets while we still can [theguardian.com]".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The same could be said about the threat the US and China pose. But I doubt companies will be pulling up stumps in either of those. The reality is this is almost certainly just smart business at the moment, virtue signaling for a country that is currently making them no money anyway and is unlikely to for many years to come.
The US and China do not pose an existential threat to civilization. Where did you get this notion? Pravda?
Not even Trump in his wildest dreams could start a nuclear war without excellent cause, nor could Xi Jinping. Perhaps of even greater note is that neither Trump nor Xi Jinping ever *would* start a nuclear war because they have at least 1 brain cell worth of empathy and/or self-preservation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Russia, China, and North Korea are all in a fight for their existence at the moment. That makes them very dangerous. They are facing shortages of food and fuel. Putin invading Ukraine is a sing of just how desperate they are for food and fuel. Ukraine has plenty of both food and fuel, but also controls access to warm waters. A warm water port is necessary for a navy to be effective all through the year. Russia needs a warm water port in order to make any more gains on getting food and fuel.
We see Chin
Re: (Score:2)
Your solution is to be like Kissinger and allow Russia to whatever it wants? Sure, just give up your territory, at least Russia will be appeased for a couple of years until the next Russian-caused crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
According to snopes, we may or may not have considered bombing hurricanes for the lol's https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
But yes, we really don't want anything to do with stuff that doesn't generate or reappropriate money -- such things are a waste of time.
Wars, however, do generate and reappropriate money, not least by way or our egregious military industrial complex spending -- so perhaps we just needed a new money funnel since we recently and magically exfiltrated Afghanistan.
Dunno. Sorry bros -- we have
Re: womp womp (Score:3)
Successful wars generrte some money when the soldeiers come home with pockets full of cash.
Otherwise wars generate debt. You have to pay for all the bullets and missiles planes etc. That costs money.
Yhe usa lost something like $10 trillion dollars or 2+3 times our annual budget in iraq and Afghanistan. You cant fix that. And they didn't boost our econony.
Re: (Score:1)
I recall a "brainstorming" tactic of bringing up any stupid idea to just get people talking. It might be obvious to everyone that dropping nuclear bombs on a hurricane is a bad idea but explaining why it is a bad idea could get people talking, sharing bits of important information, and someone putting the bits together to get an idea that works. Donald Trump is the kind of person that will have picked up on this idea naturally from running so many brainstorming sessions, or from hearing about it from some
Re: (Score:3)
Not even Trump in his wildest dreams could start a nuclear war without excellent cause...
I'm pretty sure that when the time comes Trump will conjure the most bigly excellent, beautiful and most amazing cause you have ever seen in your life out of thin air.
Re: (Score:1)
It will no doubt be the bestest war in the history of wars, and no one has ever done it better. What I meant was that Trump cannot start a war on his own. The congress can vote him down, the military can refuse him like they did when he attempted to throw the national guard at protesters, and his cabinet can probably do something as well. Those safeguards do not exist in Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
The next time Trump, or one of his kind, gets elected, they will be working to eliminate those safeguards in the US, also.
Re: (Score:1)
Those safeguards do not exist in Russia.
I'm not so sure.
There's stories of military officers in the days of the old USSR refusing orders to launch nuclear weapons because they didn't want to be the cause of the end of the world as we know it. In the old USSR, and Russia today is largely a contemporary interpretation of the old USSR, even military officers were given little latitude on decision making. They had rules on what to do like some computer programming, if this then that. If they saw indications of military action out of NATO then they
Re: (Score:2)
The president can start military actions, because congress has apparently relinquished its power to declare war. But the president cannot use nukes on a whim. There is no red button that can be pushed.
Re: (Score:2)
The president can start military actions, because congress has apparently relinquished its power to declare war. But the president cannot use nukes on a whim. There is no red button that can be pushed.
Re:womp womp (Score:4, Informative)
Nonsense, the U.S. is/was interested in cleaning up Ukraine from the filth left over from the Soviet Union and later, Russia. Well, the U.S. was interested until that asshole go into office and threatened to withhold military aid if he didn't get an "investigation" of his rival's son. Now that asshole is gone and the U.S. is trying to counter that nice Mr. Putin screwing what was an independent country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: womp womp (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, the U.S. is/was interested in cleaning up Ukraine from the filth left over from the Soviet Union and later, Russia. Well, the U.S. was interested until that asshole go into office and threatened to withhold military aid if he didn't get an "investigation" of his rival's son. Now that asshole is gone and the U.S. is trying to counter that nice Mr. Putin screwing what was an independent country.
Yeah. In actual real reality however, after Russia invaded Crimea, Obama's military aid to Ukraine consisted mostly of "thoughts and prayers", and oh, an immediate embargo on exports of lethal weapons. Trump reinstated those exports, then Bidet immediately stopped them again after coming into power.
Re: (Score:1)
It didn't help that when Ukraine asked for military aid they got helmets and first aid kits from other countries. It's not just the USA that left them hanging in the wind.
It's only when "shit got real" that Ukraine finally got anti-tank missiles, and other weapons to defend themselves. As effective as these weapons are they need ammunition, batteries, and other consumables to be effective long term.
It just tickled me to death to see a Ukrainian soldier on YouTube thanking the Queen of England for some ant
Re: (Score:1)
You are going to have to name names or people could be very confused about who you are ranting about. Which "asshole" was threatening whom about which investigation into which son?
I can rule out Barack Obama because he had no son. It's just that if he had a son he might look a lot like Trayvon Martin.
Even by ruling out Obama you could be talking about one of at least a half dozen people. You could be talking about a lot of people that could have been POTUS, VPOTUS, secretary of State or Defense, some amb
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine was much less corrupt once the pro-Russian stooge was out. And it has been steadily less corrupt every year since with free and fair elections. All the corruption here is on the Russian side.
The problem is that Putin is a whiny bully, and is loses his temper if his neighbors don't kiss his ass.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Russia has 100% culpability here. They invaded first, back in 2014 and again in 2022 with NO logical reason.. You cannot put one bit of blame on the US for helping a country defend against a brutal bully. Is not an existential threat to Russia, but Russia is an existential threat to Ukraine, to Moldova, to the Baltic states, to Poland, to Romania, etc.
Remember, Russia signed an agreement with Ukraine and US that they would protect Ukraine in exchange for it dismantling its nukes. The US did not viola
Re: womp womp (Score:1)
They bombed twice? My iraqi friend has a lot to say about cuntries doing just that. Well as european citizen I have quite some friends that are refugee. They come from different countries. But they all have one thing to share : a nuclear country attaking them for no reasons. Can't quite remember the country name but I am sure it is not Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying US is perfect, but that is no excuse for Putin to become a butcher.
Re: womp womp (Score:1)
USA is the butcher of the world. Nazi were not as horrible as US
Re: (Score:2)
"opposed to direct occupation and ethnic cleansing" Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and soon, Taiwan.
Re: (Score:2)
China considers, incorrectly, that those are its own territories. There's no evidence that it wants to do ethnic cleanses outside of its borders. Russia on the other had has shown that it is perfectly willing to bomb the shit out of towns in Syria.
Re:sure, but under what "threat"? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, when someone tells you exactly who they are, and demonstrates it continuously by bombing civilian targets, leveling towns, attacking maternity hospitals, engaging in numerous war crimes, etc, you should probably believe them.
I'm skeptical whether Putin has the wherewithal to pull off a nuclear attack of any significant scale. But I don't doubt for a second that he would gladly do so if he was able.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't doubt for a second that he would gladly do so if he was able.
I don't think Putin is all there, as they say, mentally speaking. I hope they have checks and balances like we ostensibly do for such situations.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt for a second that he would gladly do so if he was able.
I don't think Putin is all there, as they say, mentally speaking. I hope they have checks and balances like we ostensibly do for such situations.
If Russia has checks and balances on Putin's behaviour they'll take the form of Polonium 210 or nerve gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the Sting song says, "I hope the Russians love their children too."
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever works. Like the Sting song says, "I hope the Russians love their children too."
I have on occasion wondered if Putin's thyroid cancer is natural or whether he has actually already been poisoned.
Re: (Score:2)
Russian "checks and balances" in such a case usually amount to state sources announcing that the glorious leader went for an extended vacation on his Summer residence while General Whatevovich took control for the time being...
Re: (Score:2)
Putin has arranged to remove the checks and balances. He keeps the military and security apparatus divided into uncooperative segments, so that they can't easily cause a coup. Putin controls the Duma absolutely, and he controls the judges, and he controls all the media. Putin even controls most of the "opposition" parties which were manufactured to provide a Potemkin facade of democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some other scale to nuclear attacks? Such as "minor" or "insignificant" or "negligible"?
Re: (Score:2)
Russia does have tactical nukes, whereas the US sticks with mostly strategic nukes. Ie, small yield nukes. Not nice of course, but not world-ending nukes, if he wanted to make a US base disappear.
Re: (Score:3)
Putin isn't Hitler and Russia ain't Nazi Germany.
Which is both boon and bane, because Hitler was at least dumb as a doorknob and a fanatic, Putin is very intelligent and coldly analytical. In other words, he is very likely not interested in leaving behind scorched earth, even if he is, as has been said, deathly sick. He wants to leave a legacy of returning Russia to its former, soviet, power. A global player to be taken serious.
He also doesn't have a group of fanatics that would jump onto the idea of MAD wi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Putin is most definitely following Hitler's playbook. Putin is very much a fanatic, even if he's coldly logical about it. His fanaticism is to recreate the Russian empire and sphere of influence.
The Russian army is very much leaving a scorched earth behind! Mariupol essentially no longer exists. When they occupy a city they are torturing the citizens there, even the native Russian speakers whom they claim to be protecting. This is the only style of warfare that the Russian military knows
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was a fatalist and wanted revenge for the lost world war. Putin isn't exactly interested in war itself, unlike Hitler, war is a tool to Putin. Yes, he wants to retake what was lost with the fall of the Soviet Union, but not for the price of destroying Russia.
Hitler was a reckless risk taker. He was the kind of person who would just put all his eggs in one basket and if it works, great, if not, Götterdämmerung. Both equally ok with him. Putin is far more calculating. He's reckless with his a
Re: (Score:1)
"Would he? Would he not?" is not what worries me.
The simple fact that this question is on the table, AND that -in this case- a single (1) person holds the power to decide it, indicates a sad state of affairs for humankind. Not to mention that this is history repeated, iirc.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no real nuclear threat here.
Russia state TV disagrees with you [youtube.com].
Some Russian military experts feel that Russia currently has the upper hand in nuclear weaponry [youtube.com].
I hope this is not the most likely outcome, but the threat is not imaginary.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, all of this sort of Russian state media was considered while forming my prior statement. I still stand by it, in whole.
You've linked clips to television actors/personalities that are toeing the Russian state media line. I would suggest to you that their statements are most likely due to being effectively forced to comply by nature of their stature and jobs -- if they refused to participate, they would be financially ruined at best, jailed at worst. If you were given such a choice, which would you make?
Re:sure, but under what "threat"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they are echoing Putin's opinion, that nuclear war is a real possibility.
Your opinion is based on the idea that nuclear war is not logical. Well, Putin's invasion of Ukraine was not logical either, but that happened. So "not logical" won't prevent nuclear war.
Re:sure, but under what "threat"? (Score:5, Insightful)
That goes to show that if you start with incorrect premises, logic will only lead you to incorrect conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
From a certain logical (if psychotic point of view) that made invading a win-win. Puddin wins with the russian people and he and his buddies bank accounts win from the influx of looting Ukraine. Bonus points for helping 'get back' part of the USSR and helping to destabilize the USD.
I would argue that if he really cared about people, for starters, going to war has killed far more russians in far more horrific circumstances than anything else that could have taken place or has been alleged. In my opinion, this is all just part of the pretext to help sell the "special military operation" to the Russian public. Couple this in the context of the Russian/Soviet "Great Patriotic War", the idea of conquering nazi's is seen as a very noble one, and Ukraine, to some extent not renouncing and re
Re: (Score:1)
Actually it was very logical.
Ukraine was seen as weak while at the same time poking russia, killing russians (the azmov regiment did rape and kill russians in Ukraine - or what they called 'cockroaches') and wanting to join NATO - putting nato within 450KM of Moscow.
On the other side of the coin Ukraine had part of the 2nd largest oil reserve, part of 6th largest coal reserve, huge amounts of wheat and other grains.
From a certain logical (if psychotic point of view) that made invading a win-win. Puddin wins with the russian people and he and his buddies bank accounts win from the influx of looting Ukraine. Bonus points for helping 'get back' part of the USSR and helping to destabilize the USD.
Its fucked up, but from a game of kings point of view is no more fucked up than anything else that has happened in Europe over the past millennia (or more).
You forgot one more "win".
Ukraine has food, which you point out.
Ukraine has fuel, which you also mentioned.
Ukraine has warm water ports, which you did not mention.
Russia does have a warm water port in Kaliningrad but it is cut off from the bulk of Russia by land held by foreign nations, and it is the only one in all of Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Russia wants access to the sea all year long, and in places where they can better launch warships against any adversaries. Russia has a fleet of icebr
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever told you this stuff, ignore them. Russia has Novorossiysk, and it's a perfectly acceptable port. Also, look at a map.
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever the case Putin wants Odessa really really bad.
I did look at a map. Ukraine lies between Russia and NATO, therefore Putin wants that land.
Re: (Score:3)
So Russian state TV says that Russia is really, really powerful in the Nuke department?
That's good enough reason to assume that they won't want to test it. If they feel the need to rattle the chains so loudly, it usually means that they need to bark because they don't want to try whether they can bite...
When Russia starts to downplay something and try to lull you into a sense of security, THAT is when you should start to get wary. Not when they're boasting.
Re: (Score:3)
I think claiming Russia's actions as a threat to the world is a bit alarmist.
And you would be wrong because they are still on the verge of starting a world war. It was more tense before but it's still a possibility.
There is no real nuclear threat here. We all know what mutually assured destruction is, and every known player agreed a long time ago that there are no winners to that game.
Given that there is a fair chance that Putin is in poor enough health that he may not last another year, he may just get frustrated enough to start a nuclear war. Why be the only loser when you can make everyone lose, right?
Re:sure, but under what "threat"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Russia gobbled up Crimea and got only minor push-back from the West. Sensible people have been waiting ever since for the other shoe to drop. If they manage to take and hold Ukraine, they'll have a cadre of battle-hardened troops available for other adventures. They won't go after NATO, but anybody else living in the neighbourhood has every right to be nervous. Putin has imperial ambitions.
Re: (Score:2)
cadre of battle-hardened troops available for other adventures
For honest fucks sake man, of what cadre of battle-hardened troops are you actually speaking about?! Have you really missed the past narrative that they were to take Ukraine as a 'special military operation' within just a couple of weeks, only to subsequently get their assholes painfully inverted in response? The Russian army has reportedly lost significantly at every turn in terms of hardware, personnel and morale. As far as conventional warfare goes, according to existing doctrine, it's not going well for
Re: (Score:2)
About 9 out of 10 rookie soldiers are killed within the first few weeks of a war. The survivors get smart and dangerous. Russia's main problem has been that for years every army commander who could get away with it has been quietly selling off equipment and consumables and putting the money in their pockets. For example, Russian military night scopes have been for sale on-line for years. Where do you think they came from? So Russian units' paper strength was a lot different than their actual strength.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean they don't still have a whole lot of equipment, compared to Ukraine's army. And if you think having the newest and best equipment determines who wins, why don't you think back to Vietnam, when the most powerful army in the world got its ass thoroughly kicked by a bunch of little guys in black pajamas with sticks, stones and second-rate knock-off firearms.
Making comparisons to Vietnam is relatively apt. Americans got bogged down in the jungle. Russians got bogged down bogs. Whoops, not the lesson you were trying to teach there, huh?
Now why don't you cast your mind back over the last couple of weeks or so and see if you can recall news of any major Russian defeats. If I recall correctly, the latest news is a Russian victory...they finally took Mariupol. It's turning into a war of attrition, and the Ukrainian army has already knocked off most of the easy human targets. The surviving Russians might not be well equipped, but they're getting a lot harder to kill.
Russia has plenty of humans, but they don't have plenty of mobile materiel, both because they didn't maintain it and because of all the ATGMs which have been donated to Ukraine for the purpose of kicking Putin's ass.
Re: (Score:2)
As you know, the lesson I taught was perfectly apt for the remarks above mine. If you want to set up a straw man and demolish him, have yourself a party. Huh?
If you think I'm pulling for Russia, you're sadly mistaken, but my point is valid: the surviving Russian troops are getting used to doing more with less, and they're getting harder to kill. They're also getting really comfortable with committing atrocities. Putin is also calling up 30 and 40 year old veterans, so reinforcements will probably be sm
Re: (Score:2)
the surviving Russian troops are getting used to doing more with less, and they're getting harder to kill.
Getting used to being underequipped is no substitute for being equipped. There's no rifle that fires hopes, and there's no rocket launcher that fires prayes.
They're also getting really comfortable with committing atrocities.
Historically that hasn't really been a problem for Russia anyway.
Russia can probably take Ukraine, even if they probably won't be able to hold it.
That's not great for them though, if they can't hold it then the whole thing is just an expensive way to galvanize their opposition and damage Ukraine. But if they don't get to sit on it for some years and profit from it then they come out worse than they went in.
Re: (Score:3)
Way too much of a rant there buddy. The article is about HP quitting Russia and one of its satellites permanently. A good move on their part for many reasons.
Meanwhile Russia has made several veiled threats of nuclear retaliation or escalation. You are welcome to question their ability to do it, but they do definitely have the weapons. And they are the ones who are raising the possibility. So no company based in the West should be on the side of that in any way, or even just be a neutral party with a presen
Re: (Score:2)
Way too much of a rant there buddy. The article is about HP quitting Russia and one of its satellites permanently. A good move on their part for many reasons.
Meanwhile Russia has made several veiled threats of nuclear retaliation or escalation. You are welcome to question their ability to do it, but they do definitely have the weapons. And they are the ones who are raising the possibility. So no company based in the West should be on the side of that in any way, or even just be a neutral party with a presence in Russia.
Yea, fair points. I responded a bit strongly to the original argument -- the scotch is strong this evening. They do, indeed, have the munitions, by count, to attempt a meaningful strike, if that is their desire.
However, I do still stand by my statements around their military proficiency, nuclear first-strike proclivity, the moral disparity of such an act, and the world's general defensibility against.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd be right, if we're talking about what a rational person would be doing.
But the problem is Putin is not rational. He believes something and is basically burning Russia down in order to see it done. Nothing of what Putin has done so far makes any sense - if you're invading and you're not making much progress, the general strategy is not just throw more limited resources at it and expect a di
Re: (Score:2)
Your timeline is not correct because of a few geopolitical issues that are taking place. Putin invaded now, because it was becoming obvious that he wouldn't be able to in the future. Russian demography won't allow it, as the population is seriously contracting. There are significant oil and gas reserves, unironically around the donbas and crimea, which would mean that Ukraine could isolate itself more from Russia, trade less, and compete against Russia in its most significant export market.
The last thing is
Re:womp womp (Score:4, Insightful)
They probably are finding it unprofitable, which is a good time to take a stand. Russia is taking all kinds of draconian measures to prop up the ruble, so it's not a good place to do business right now if you want to get your money out of the country.
Re: (Score:3)
Imo, this seems sane, and tracks with recent history. If the ruble isn't readily tradable to other currencies, then it is effectively worthless outside of Russian markets. In the current world of global trade, that just makes it a useless currency -- might as well be monopoly money off the 2nd floor office printer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's currently a cost associated with doing business with Russia. This very much calls in line with Capitalism. Also, the lost $1B in annual revenue, while not peanuts, is a small fraction of their total annual revenue (the summary stated Q2 was $16B). The title is clickbait at best.
And, since you're so eager to attack Capitalism from a point if ignorance, the price of oil is very much supply and demand. If the price did not go up, there would be mass shortages. People would be waiting in lines circ
Re: (Score:2)
People would be waiting in lines circa the 1970's and rather than complaining about how much they need to spend,
How it works in the real world is people alter their behavior when they cannot purchase the things they want or need. They make compromises that is more than just mere complaints. Long term changes in spending habits will trigger a major economic shift, and sadly most people are too ignorant to understand how easily we can slip into a completely avoidable recession or depression.
There are consequences to rabid environmental zealotry.
A centrist doing the bare minimum gestures to appease international bodies without taking an active world leadership role in envir
Re: (Score:2)
Demand for oil products like gasoline is largely inelastic, in the short to medium term, anyway. So rising prices do not reduce demand all that much. In the 70s the lines of people waiting to
Re: (Score:2)
However, I'm actually a bit surprised that capitalism has been bowing out to world politics like this. It's uncharacteristic, to say the least. There must be money to be made that we're not universally exposing. I'd guess from the oil barrel price hikes, but I haven't done that level of bird-dogging yet.
I'm sure they've done the math.
Russian sales predictions are probably way down right now and Putin is expected to fail within a month or two at which point they can go back in and pick up where they left off (sorry, I meant "start rebuilding").
This lets them cover their asses in front of the shareholders and get some good publicity at the same time!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With the west seizing Russian property right and left with sanctions, any western companies operating in Russia are at obvious extreme risk of retaliatory seizure.
Re: (Score:1)
Capitalism outside of Russia = "You keep the money"
Capitalism inside of Russia = "The money keeps you"
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the concern comes from losing money if customers don't like that one is still doing business with the evil empire. Not sure why this doesn't work for business in China, but maybe China is so vastly more lucrative than Russia.
Kind of hard... (Score:2)
... to shut down your manufacturing business to "fix" having China being part of HP. Might be interesting, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Show other companies that you're willing to do the right thing. Show that you can't be bought.
The funny thing is, many people in China are looking forward for companies like Starbucks and HP to also pull out of China. Why? Because it means more marketshare for local Chinese companies and hence more jobs and more profits for locals. Oh, how joyful to have your competitors give up marketshare without a fight!
In many cases, western companies took over a large portion of Chinese market share in the past few decades because local companies cannot compete against western brands in the past. But now th
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is, many people in China are looking forward for companies like Starbucks and HP to also pull out of China. Why? Because it means more marketshare for local Chinese companies and hence more jobs and more profits for locals. Oh, how joyful to have your competitors give up marketshare without a fight!
The more Chinese we give up the better. Should start with imports before exports though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost impossible to quit China because almost everything depends on goods from China. However, unless the West wants to self-destruct, we'd better be working very urgently to replace China in our supply chains. It is never good policy to become dependent on autocratic countries. We need to manufacture our own parts and start drastically reducing our dependency on Chinese imports.
They lost business in Russia (Score:1)
but they gained enormous lobbying power in the US, having diligently obeyed orders like good corporate lapdogs.
I'm sure they'll come out on the winning side - as they should: corporations never do anything for idealistic motives, only to increase profits.
Re: (Score:2)
> but they gained enormous lobbying power in the US, having diligently obeyed orders like good corporate lapdogs.
> I'm sure they'll come out on the winning side
Hmm.... are you sure? I heard on the internet that dogs are always on the wrong side :D
Re: (Score:2)
corporations never do anything for idealistic motives, only to increase profits.
Blindly focusing on profit is also an idealistic move. You don't get a free pass on ideals just because they're (a) yours and (b) shitty.
Value? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is a huge company choosing to forego an annual billion in (I suspect) a slow-growth market.
Maybe, but a billion dollars is still a billion dollars and corporatioons hate nothing worse than losing profits. This market share will be irrecoverable because it will be filled instantly by Chinese manufacturers. This is why Google, for example, will never go home to the US and sulk when they've been slapped with record fines by the EU or some nation state. The market share they abandon will be instantly filled by budding competitors and for the most part irrevocably lost.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a huge company choosing to forego an annual billion in (I suspect) a slow-growth market.
Maybe, but a billion dollars is still a billion dollars and corporatioons hate nothing worse than losing profits. This market share will be irrecoverable because it will be filled instantly by Chinese manufacturers. This is why Google, for example, will never go home to the US and sulk when they've been slapped with record fines by the EU or some nation state. The market share they abandon will be instantly filled by budding competitors and for the most part irrevocably lost.
Google learned their lesson after pulling out of China, and were never invited to come back, all the while watching Baidu took over and then grew strong from profits that could have been Google's.
The last thing Google wanted is to let another competitor grow up in the EU market because they left. A EU competitor is not one that Google can so easily tell Biden to sanction.
Re: (Score:2)
If they did continue, the authoritarian governments would have asserted control of their China operations as much as they want on a whim. So if Google had continued, then it probably would have just been a 'rogue' breakoff of Google directed by China standing in for Baidu, the only difference is they got to lift a ready-to-go company and brand rather than having to build a bit from scratch.
Same here, Russia announced they were seizing western companies, so HP is going to be out of the market no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what basically happened with the ARM in China?
Re: (Score:2)
If they did continue, the authoritarian governments would have asserted control of their China operations as much as they want on a whim. So if Google had continued, then it probably would have just been a 'rogue' breakoff of Google directed by China standing in for Baidu, the only difference is they got to lift a ready-to-go company and brand rather than having to build a bit from scratch.
Same here, Russia announced they were seizing western companies, so HP is going to be out of the market no matter what.
And they still won't like it.
Not turning their back. (Score:2)
Trust me, if HP could continue getting that revenue by any means, they would. What this means is that the situation has become financially untenable. HP isn't leaving a single red cent on the table.
Rubbish (Score:2)
HP aren't turning their back on sales, they're turning their back on profit. Which will be a lot less than $1b.
I wonder if these businesses leaving russia (Score:2)
Missed opportunity... (Score:2)
Typical corporate BS (Score:1)
In an effort to look noble, they quote revenue. What about profit, and projected profit? It strikes me that very few large companies have the moral fortitude to forgo significant profits. I'll give them props when they release the profit foregone, and projected impact on share price.
HP share is undervalued at $39 (Score:2)
https://www.wsj.com/market-dat... [wsj.com]
"It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price"--Warren Buffett (b. 1930)