Greetings CTC, and thanks for the formula...
Indeed, if current marketshare is given we should be able to approximate relative growth -- assuming a sustained predatory advantage. So, our challenge becomes proofing the marketshare figures. (The predatory argument belongs to those with vendor attachment.)
The "market leader" moniker [mentioned previously] is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, given all the talk of DELL's #2/#1 position. [I understand that the PR is not marketshare based, although undertones are there.] In earnest, I question that DELL's presence in the relavent PC market is 8-10%. It is my belief that DELL has a much stronger market position -- beyond business mix -- when evaluating current computing requirements. We can debate semantics of "marketshare" as a historical measure, but the fundamental issue is future consumption. And, future consumption has been approximated at 15%.
You may have read my analog of Lotus marketshare; that is, at some point Lotus had claim to ~70% of the DOS spreadsheet space. Conceptually, a similar paradigm shift may be at play with PC vendors. Herein is the conflict: we can assert that DELL has a commanding position in the market, but to do so implies that the market is/has shifted in such a way that 8-10% marketshare figure becomes meaningless -- by definition.
So, we are left with the question of whether 15% growth represents: a)an overall PC requirement, or b)net-new requirement excluding "technology refresh." To-date, I have not found a satisfactory answer to this question.
To summarize (since I ramble), we've been given 15% as a predicted PC consumption rate. IF this is related to overall requirements, then we can discount marketshare figures associated with now (presumably) inferior business models. That is, 15% = 15%.
The mention of these things is not of contempt, rather to explore the figures as real or non-real.
Curiously,
Alan |
