Talk:Hewlett-Packard

Discussion at Talk:HP Inc. § Requested move 13 May 2024

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:HP Inc. § Requested move 13 May 2024. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Logo years incorrect

Logopedia has the correct years of the logos:

1954-1964 -> 1954-1960

1964-1981 -> 1964-1979 2601:190:400:4A10:2D3B:5C8D:E9D8:6B9 (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Is HP still technically Hewlett-Packard? (Not to be confused with Hewlett-Packard Enterprise)

Good evening.

I am aware Hewlett-Packard split into two standalone companies; Hewlett-Packard Enterprise which focuses on servers and business solutions and HP Inc which focuses on laptops and printers.

The point of this question is HP Inc still technically Hewlett-Packard as their products carry the original HP logo and their printers still use the cartridges with the nozzles embedded into them like their old 1990s inkjet printers? Like my old 2015 inkjet printer that carried the Hewlett-Packard[sic] labelling on it, even though my 2022 replacement printer that uses the same ink cartridges except the machine itself just has the HP logo (no mention of 'Hewlett-Packard' on it?

Can someone please enlighten me on this? Thanks. The Frogman740 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it's HP Inc. is the legal successor to Hewlett-Packard.

If you want to say what "is" Hewlett-Packard now, the best answer is probably "Agilent and Keysight and Hewlett Packard Enterprise and HP Inc." - listing Agilent and Keysight first, as that's where their original instrumentation business is, and HP Inc. last, as the "PC and printers/scanners" business was a business they entered after the instrumentation business and the minicomputer/enterprise computing business. Given that HP Inc. apparently has the calculator business, maybe it could be moved earlier in the list, although it's probably only a small part of the business.

That answer could also be interpreted as "nothing", i.e. there is no one company that encompasses all the businesses that Hewlett-Packard has been in. Guy Harris (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Reopening merge proposal

Can we look at reopening the merge proposal of HP Inc. where the content of that article is merged into Hewlett-Packard and then moved to HP Inc. in order to preserve long history etc? We have had multiple merge proposal and comments from users in support and opposing, but no consensus was reached, but wondering if we can reopen this? I found an article on Reuters that says "Hewlett-Packard, which will be renamed HP and comprise the computers and printers business, will continue to trade under its current ticker symbol." Pinging BrandonXLF and Chiffonr, Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

By "long history" do you mean "edit history" or "corporate history"? If the latter, maybe merge Agilent and Keysight and Hewlett Packard Enterprise back in while you're at it; there really isn't any company that "is" Hewlett-Packard any more. Guy Harris (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The three-way split is correct. The late, lamented Hewlett-Packard should not have its incredible history folded into any subsequent company page. Hewlett-Packard died somewhere between the Agilent spinoff of 1999, the suicidal Compaq merge of 2002, and the final death throes split in 2015. HP Inc can't hold a candle to the old company. It does not deserve stewardship of the old history. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree I agree with the merger. HP Inc. is simply the new name assumed by Hewlett-Packard Company after the split of the enterprise branch into Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company. Paranoid25 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. Agilent, HP Inc. and HPE are all named as successors to HP in a lawsuit by Stanford.[1] Agilent has been described by others as the successor to HP.[2]"Indeed, some observers noted with past splits that some of the better parts of HP’s DNA have traveled with the test group. Parent company HP continues to struggle..." Ex-HP engineer Bob Steward wrote, "So I felt a great sadness at losing that association when we were spun off as Agilent. The new Agilent CEO, Ned Barnholt, tried to recreate that company culture and that old instrumentation spirit. At the time we felt that we were getting the best part of the HP products, and certainly the best culture because we could see the culture already being sacrificed at HP for the sake of the IBM-like computer business and the consumer marketplace of PCs and printers. We were the ones holding on to the values..." Ex-HP engineer Roy Verley wrote about HP spinning off Agilent, saying "The larger piece, essentially the computer business, would retain the HP name while the smaller piece, the original test and measurement business, would be spun off and renamed. For many long-time HP employees, this seemed backward. T&M was HP’s original business, the one most closely associated with the founders and the one most likely to carry on HP’s core values." This "backward" sentiment is expressed by many other authors. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how others describe it, what matters is how it actually is, as reported by official company sources and government websites. Paranoid25 (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Haha! Nice one. This is an encyclopedia based on WP:SECONDARY sources. Your suggested sources are primary, which are interesting to the narrative but not defining to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but in any case you cited sources that speak of people's opinions, not facts. And in any case the government sources are secondary. Paranoid25 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure. See my comment in § Is HP still technically Hewlett-Packard? (Not to be confused with Hewlett-Packard Enterprise). HP Inc. is the legal successor to Hewlett-Packard, but it contains none of the businesses that HP entered between 1939 and the early 1980s - those were spun off as other companies such as Agilent and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Guy Harris (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The PC and HPC home products business remained in the hands of HP Inc. after the spin-off, a business it has been running since the 1980s. It's normal for the company's business to have changed since its founding in 1939. Any company operating in the technology sector adapts to the times. Agilent was born in 1999, so if you were to create a Wikipedia page for each historical period of HP based on its business and its spin-offs, you'd end up with at least four separate pages (one for the 1939-1980s period, one for the 1980s-1999 period, one for the post-Agilent spin-off period 1999-2015, and one for the post-HPE spin-off period 2015-present), and honestly, that doesn't seem very sensible to me.

Considering that the company gained its greatest fame with its PC, printer, etc. business, since the 80s/90s, when it was called HPC, and now it keeps it as HP Inc., I think it's best to merge these two pages. Paranoid25 (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

HP's "greatest fame" is likely the the HP Way from the 1950s through the 1990s.[3][4] Many other products from the 1960s and 1970s have been listed among HP's "greatest" achievements.[5] There's the 1964 spectrum analyzer, the 1967 microwave vector network analyzer, the HP-35 handheld calculator, and the 1977 GHz synthesized generator.[6] Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yet the company's record turnover dates back to 2011. In any case, the issue remains that you can't have 4 separate pages for each historical period of HP. Paranoid25 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree per nom. ~2026-11157-15 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Unsure - I don't see an issue with having many pages for the different eras of HP or its spin-offs. Just look at News Corporation vs News Corp and 21st Century Fox vs Fox Corporation. Would merging HP Inc. with Hewlett-Packard create a WP:TOOBIG problem? Limmidy (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

In fact, I'm also against those pages being separate. In any case, I'm not very well informed about the two you mentioned, so I'll avoid putting too much stock in them. Paranoid25 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Limmidy is saying that separate HP pages are okay. No need to merge. Just to be clear. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Binksternet is correct - I'm leaning more towards oppose merge. To expand on my example with Fox, 21st Century Fox appears to be the legal successor of News Corporation, yet News Corp is the second incarnation of the company, created on the same day. So is merging still a good idea here? As for HP, even though Hewlett-Packard made it clear in a press release from 2014 that it would be separating into two new companies, and then later backtracking a bit by saying "HP will be renamed to HP Inc." in a 2015 press release, I still think the current clear-cut separation between the two is adequate. In my opinion, I see Hewlett-Packard as the original company (pre-separation) that "birthed" HP Inc., HPE and its other spin-offs. Limmidy (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The point is that you've applied your reasoning to all HP eras from 1939 to the present. That is, following your reasoning, there should also be a page for HP spanning from 1999 (the date of the spin-off into Agilent) to the present. It doesn't make much sense to me.

To support my point, I'd add that after the spin-off and name change, HP has kept its logo (until last year), its website, its registered office, its social media profiles, and its stock exchange ticker symbol unchanged. Paranoid25 (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

...And lost its reputation for solid business dealing. The media don't agree that HP is the same after all the splits. And the media define the topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

And what does reputation have to do with it? Paranoid25 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

My main reasoning is that HP Inc. is a new incarnation (or a spin-off) of the original company, but the larger Hewlett-Packard remained intact following its spin-off of Agilent, like any typical corporate spin-off. Binksternet is right again, the media and secondary sources define the topic, although I did try using a primary source for you with the 2014 press release.

Similarly, Kraft Foods Inc. in 2012 spun-off into two new companies: Kraft Foods and Mondelez International, so is the new Kraft Foods the original combined Kraft Foods Inc? Limmidy (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

So should we distinguish between "minor" and "major" spinoffs? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your logic (no offense intended, I'm here to argue). I think Wikipedia should be as easy to understand as possible, and creating multiple pages for the same entity only for different historical periods makes it difficult to read (in fact, it took me a while to understand the Fox/News case you mentioned). I reiterate that it would have made sense if HP had been completely remodeled after the spinoff, but in this case was simply spun off the enterprise division, while everything else (logo, HQ, social media profiles, website, ISIN, stock ticker, etc.) remained unchanged. Paranoid25 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It is more difficult for the reader if we combine the different business entities. It is much less confusing to write separate pages about separate business groups. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Let me ignore whatever HP has going on for a second: a combined article would probably be WP:TOOLONG. The 2015 corporate split of Hewlett-Packard and its subsequent renaming to HP Inc. seems like an adequate time to split the article. I haven't heard of any strong rationale to merge. Looks like Binksternet is right again! WP:NOTMERGE and WP:SPINOUT should apply. Limmidy (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a very long page, considering that some sections of the two pages are practically identical, and once joined the length would be almost the same (maybe a little more). Paranoid25 (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I just created a rough draft of what the two pages should look like, and as you can see, it's even shorter than other pages on Wikipedia. Obviously, this is a rough draft that needs some work, and I encourage you to correct any errors I may have made in the transcription (especially the verb tenses, changing from "was" to "is," etc.). Paranoid25 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. It seems a rational reason to me.--~2026-11625-93 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree This situation can be viewed as the partition of a large brand, in which one portion of it — Hewlett-Packard — was separated and became Hewlett Packard Enterprise, while the remaining portion was renamed and succeeded by HP Inc. A merger would make things simpler and easier to understand, while also maintaining continuity, since the company is not defunct. Both entities still observe 2 July 1939 as their founding date.

Niral Bhatt (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

References