Alan,
The equation I presented was not intended to predict a trajectory, rather, it was intended to quantify the maximum time period under which hypergrowth could conceivably occur given certain explicitly stated assumptions. Thus, it was more conceptual than practical, and I did not think it useful to delve into the question of exact market share, or whether we ought to quantify it in terms of dollars expended or units sold.
But beyond those explicit assumptions there was an implicit assumption that we know to be false. That assumption was the Dell would would be constrained to engage in business only in the PC market. We know this to be false as evidenced by Dell's arrangement with HWP to act as a reseller of its peripherals, and Dell's decision to enter the mass storage niche. While the former decision by itself would not change the paradigm of the equation, it is an indication of management thinking at Dell. Of much more interest is the latter, because this represents a clear break from the strict PC market, and could open new vistas of potential hypergrowth.
You make another point which I find curious. You point to Lotus as an example of a paradigm shift, and then you posit that a similar paradigm shift may be under way with PC vendors. I find this argument puzzling if you are talking about the product, because the PC is by definition a paradigm. In other words, we would require a challenge to the PC itself, (which I use as a generic term for Intel/AMD/Cyric based processors) which is brand independent. What happened to Lotus was a brand dependent phenomenon. It was outmarketed by Excel, plain and simple. So I don't see the shift in market share as evidence of a paradigm shift.
The Dell paradigm (and indeed there is a real paradigm here) is not related to the product. It is the business model. Unfortunately for its competitors, this paradigm cannot be emulated incrementally. This lends credence to the argument that Dell will outcompete the others by virtue of its inherently more efficient business model.
Finally, you question the meaning of the 15% growth in markets. My understanding is that it represents total sales. But the logic of your conclusion escapes me. Perhaps you can rephrase this statement:
we can discount marketshare figures associated with now (presumably) inferior business models. That is, 15% = 15%.,
I haven't the vaguest idea of what you're driving at. The 15% has nothing to do with business models. It is a projected total consumption figure. If you mean to imply that Dell's PC sales growth will at some point equal the growth of the overall sales growth of the PC market, I agree -- but this, like any other tautology, is trivial. It is true of every growth company in every narrowly defined industry sector.
TTFN,
CTC |
