Dell doesn't compete against the 2nd and 3rd tier manufacturer's?
If you categorize, as does this article, CPQ, HP, Dell and IBM as being "1st tier", then these 1st tier manufacturers comprise about 50% of the worldwide market.
That means that the other "50%" of the world wide market is comprised of multiple 2nd and 3rd tier manufacturers.
Seems to me that Dell is competing as much, if not more, to gain share of the "2nd and 3rd tier" manufacturers as it is "1st tier."
Which is more important to go after, the first 50% or the second 50%? Sounds equally impressive to me.
The article states it's not important for Dell to go after the 2nd and 3rd tier manufacturers. Isn't it just as important to go after the other 50%?
The "analysts" ask "why attack Cpq, IBM, and HP price structures, as they'll ALWAYS be around (paraphrased)"? Why do they always automatically assume these three are the main targets?
Whatever. The price war worked for Standard Oil. John Rockefeller's comments about why he tried to "corner the market" was that he was attempting to make "oil based product use" more ubiquitious. WallStreet said he was cornering the market, Rockefeller said he was making oil use more ubiquitous. I think in the end Rockefeller's notion won the day.
Over 80% of the world still does not own or use a PC. Maybe MDell is trying to make the use of PC based products "more ubiquitous"? |
