Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink
-
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@dafyre said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
Excluding the board, how much of the top brass is shared across HP and HPE? If they're 99% different, then my concerns are not valid. If they're 99% the same, then my issue remains.
None, I would assume, that would be very, very problematic. Both companies likely have policy about how you can't do that. While it isn't technically illegal, it is essentially impossible. And do you look for this in other separate companies, like IBM and Lenovo? It would be weird to suppose that they were doing that, right? Why think it about HP and HPE but not about IBM and Lenovo? Or Apple and Foxconn? Or Microsoft and Dell? Or Amazon and FedEx?
We know that their CEOs are different people. Most top brass is not listed anywhere. But I've never heard of a single person being shared between the companies. Maybe janitors in spaces where they've not fully separated offices yet.
Think about Symantec and Veritas when they split last year. It's two unique companies, nothing is shared.
Brant and I'm guessing millions of others think that because the didn't change their name enough to provide a clear delineation between the companies. Obviously it isn't required, but when your general public doesn't understand the different or roles of a BOD, etc, not making things significantly obvious just allows them to have assumptions that aren't true which causes the new companies tons of issues.
-
@Dashrender said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
Don't confuse a board with a non-representative democracy like the US government where the elected officials can do whatever they want once elected, a board is not like that. Investors can remove board members for not representing them literally overnight. The board actively reflects the investors and how a person acts on the board of one company suggests little about how they will act on the board of another. Different investors, different goals, different mandates, different job to do.
How does that work in mega corporations with millions of shares of stock? Is that so much of the stock is held by so few that they are still able to put forth a vote in a timely manner? Otherwise you'd have to call for a vote everything the board needed to make a decision on behalf of the shareholders, but votes like that typically only happen once a year.
You are thinking of a direct democracy, not a representative one. The shareholders can vote, but it is not fast enough for business. That's the purpose of the board. Plus to be business experts as many investors are not. This way idiots can still invest safely because they hire experts to represent their interests (in theory.)
The board can act instantly... sit in a room and make decisions. If there is one shareholder or a million doesn't change anything.
-
@Dashrender said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@dafyre said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
Excluding the board, how much of the top brass is shared across HP and HPE? If they're 99% different, then my concerns are not valid. If they're 99% the same, then my issue remains.
None, I would assume, that would be very, very problematic. Both companies likely have policy about how you can't do that. While it isn't technically illegal, it is essentially impossible. And do you look for this in other separate companies, like IBM and Lenovo? It would be weird to suppose that they were doing that, right? Why think it about HP and HPE but not about IBM and Lenovo? Or Apple and Foxconn? Or Microsoft and Dell? Or Amazon and FedEx?
We know that their CEOs are different people. Most top brass is not listed anywhere. But I've never heard of a single person being shared between the companies. Maybe janitors in spaces where they've not fully separated offices yet.
Think about Symantec and Veritas when they split last year. It's two unique companies, nothing is shared.
Brant and I'm guessing millions of others think that because the didn't change their name enough to provide a clear delineation between the companies. Obviously it isn't required, but when your general public doesn't understand the different or roles of a BOD, etc, not making things significantly obvious just allows them to have assumptions that aren't true which causes the new companies tons of issues.
Hence why I mentioned a few times if HPE might sue HP for defamation in this case. But as HP backed off, not likely. They have a certain shared identity that HP just dragged through the mud. Just like how Lenovo wasn't allowed to spy on people as long as IBM's badge on was on the Lenovo gear.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@Dashrender said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
Don't confuse a board with a non-representative democracy like the US government where the elected officials can do whatever they want once elected, a board is not like that. Investors can remove board members for not representing them literally overnight. The board actively reflects the investors and how a person acts on the board of one company suggests little about how they will act on the board of another. Different investors, different goals, different mandates, different job to do.
How does that work in mega corporations with millions of shares of stock? Is that so much of the stock is held by so few that they are still able to put forth a vote in a timely manner? Otherwise you'd have to call for a vote everything the board needed to make a decision on behalf of the shareholders, but votes like that typically only happen once a year.
You are thinking of a direct democracy, not a representative one. The shareholders can vote, but it is not fast enough for business. That's the purpose of the board. Plus to be business experts as many investors are not. This way idiots can still invest safely because they hire experts to represent their interests (in theory.)
The board can act instantly... sit in a room and make decisions. If there is one shareholder or a million doesn't change anything.
Except for getting rid of the board members which you say (and I agree) can be there one day and gone the next - that's pretty impractical when you have millions of shares and tens of thousands of investors - but if you have a smaller pool of investors, the likeliness to out a board member because they aren't following the investors desires is much higher in a short period of time.
-
@Dashrender said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@Dashrender said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
Don't confuse a board with a non-representative democracy like the US government where the elected officials can do whatever they want once elected, a board is not like that. Investors can remove board members for not representing them literally overnight. The board actively reflects the investors and how a person acts on the board of one company suggests little about how they will act on the board of another. Different investors, different goals, different mandates, different job to do.
How does that work in mega corporations with millions of shares of stock? Is that so much of the stock is held by so few that they are still able to put forth a vote in a timely manner? Otherwise you'd have to call for a vote everything the board needed to make a decision on behalf of the shareholders, but votes like that typically only happen once a year.
You are thinking of a direct democracy, not a representative one. The shareholders can vote, but it is not fast enough for business. That's the purpose of the board. Plus to be business experts as many investors are not. This way idiots can still invest safely because they hire experts to represent their interests (in theory.)
The board can act instantly... sit in a room and make decisions. If there is one shareholder or a million doesn't change anything.
Except for getting rid of the board members which you say (and I agree) can be there one day and gone the next - that's pretty impractical when you have millions of shares and tens of thousands of investors - but if you have a smaller pool of investors, the likeliness to out a board member because they aren't following the investors desires is much higher in a short period of time.
Not everyone has to vote, the investors make the rules as to how the voting happens. And almost all companies have a few very influential investors. It's a very, very rare situation where removing a board member takes any time. And there is a board process for removing members too. Lots of levels of protection and representation. It works pretty well. And investors that choose not to vote don't hold things up.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
And investors that choose not to vote don't hold things up.
Right, I understand that - but just calling for a vote is not a fast process - I would guess it would take at least a week, unless some other process kicks in allowing it to be shortened, or if there are a few majority shareholders, once their votes are in, the rest don't matter.
-
@Dashrender said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
And investors that choose not to vote don't hold things up.
Right, I understand that - but just calling for a vote is not a fast process - I would guess it would take at least a week, unless some other process kicks in allowing it to be shortened, or if there are a few majority shareholders, once their votes are in, the rest don't matter.
Why? If the investors want an immediate vote, they get one. It's that simple. You are hoisting assumptions onto them that don't exist. Investors alone decide the time frame.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@Dashrender said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
@scottalanmiller said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
And investors that choose not to vote don't hold things up.
Right, I understand that - but just calling for a vote is not a fast process - I would guess it would take at least a week, unless some other process kicks in allowing it to be shortened, or if there are a few majority shareholders, once their votes are in, the rest don't matter.
Why? If the investors want an immediate vote, they get one. It's that simple. You are hoisting assumptions onto them that don't exist. Investors alone decide the time frame.
Investors alone - There is of course a list somewhere of all of the investors - so Scott decides he wants a vote right now - so he calls whoever demands the list, then calls everyone on that list for a vote - and what? it just happens? Town hall meeting style?
Again, getting less than 20 people quickly to make a vote is one thing, getting 1000's is another. Perhaps the number of companies that have 1000's that matter (i.e. it takes thousands of shareholders to make up a majority, it can't be done with less) is so small that it's not relevant to the conversation?
-
@Dashrender said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
Investors alone - There is of course a list somewhere of all of the investors - so Scott decides he wants a vote right now - so he calls whoever demands the list, then calls everyone on that list for a vote - and what? it just happens? Town hall meeting style?
This is super simple. The investors decide how this works up front. It all works as the investors decide. Nothing more complex than that.
-
@Dashrender said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink:
Again, getting less than 20 people quickly to make a vote is one thing, getting 1000's is another. Perhaps the number of companies that have 1000's that matter (i.e. it takes thousands of shareholders to make up a majority, it can't be done with less) is so small that it's not relevant to the conversation?
That's likely only a handful of companies. If any, it's only a theory that any like that exist. Normally there are either super large individual investors or funds that hold the majority of shares in just four or five representatives. They normally talk directly.
But if there was even need for an exception to this, investors can do whatever they want. They can have email voting and require responses in five minutes if they want.
