Give Us One Good Reason Why HP Shouldn't Fire Meg Whitman
Both Andreessen and Whitman served (both still do) on HP's board when it approved the failed Autonomy acquisition. It makes sense that they would stick together in the we're going on the offensive even though we're acting really defensive aftermath.
Setting Autonomy aside, where's the meat here?
Investors deserve more from a company that has lost 72% of its value over the last five years and 37% since it named Whitman CEO. HPQ not only takes retail slugs to the cleaners, it's fleecing insiders, particularly board members, as well.
All I can assume is that these insiders -- Whitman, Andreessen and the rest of the HP board -- know something we don't. If that's the case, investors should be livid.
Publicly, Meg Whitman does nothing to inspire the level of confidence Andreessen has in her.
HP maintains it will hit its fiscal year guidance. RIM did this in 2011, using the same line as Whitman -- we have some really interesting, great and exciting products set to come out later in the year. When they hit, they'll drive sales. Backloaded earnings. Trust us!
Whitman refuses to drop the dream of HP's printing business. She says she sees increased demand for enterprise printing. I would love for her to quantify it with some precision. Even RIM's former CEO Jim Balsillie was more precise when he claimed he received "extremely high interest" from "many corporate clients," who wanted "tens of thousands, several tens of thousands of