John, >>>I don't think this decision has implications beyond trying to generate maximum sales and profits. Thinking from a product managers perspective, my guess is when they put together the line, they felt that people go out to buy the Compaq brand.<<<
Do you really think this was a decision on a product managers level or even a Division level? What kind of impact could it possibly have on sales and profits (maximum $ - given AMD production capabilities)? This had to be a decision made at the highest levels (for reasons that would have strategic consequences) - between Jerry and Eckhard, don't you think?
>>>If all the computers under the $1200. level have AMD chips, their assumtion might have been that the consumer will value the Compaq brand enough to stay in the line, and value the Pentium brand enough to pay more than $1200. (rather than $799. or $999.)<<<
I don't understand what you are trying to say here at all. For myself, 5 years ago, I would have been willing to pay more for the Compaq brand name, but more recently I have been buying Dell (desktop) and Toshiba (notebook). Like a lot of other consumers of late, my perception is now that you get better value with Dell for the same quality if not better.
With this latest move, I would now view Packard Bell in a different light. Instead of viewing them as the low-end brand, I now would view them (in the sub 1k market) at par with Compaq, at least.
When looking for a server, even three years ago, I would not have considered anyone other than Compaq but now I would also look at Dell.
>>>Intel is still very important to Compaq, as Compaq is to Intel. They may not like each other, but they need each other. <<<
I would have thought that Compaq needed Intel a little more than Intel needed Compaq. Apparently Eckhard doesn't think so.
Mary |
