now, to address the rest of your points...
1. with very powerful boxes at about $700, this threat really isn't there. sure, it will be a small dent. but, it is also a ways off. i've never even seen the network computer that is supposed to replace the computer and it already sent demand in a tail spin? i don't think so. some effect, but very, very little.
2. good point on amd (all low cost mpu producers) why are they successful? if demand was so strong then people would pay up for intel. they still do, but not like in the past. this is an effect and not a cause.
3. disagree. only one direct seller has had consistent success. we are on their thread now ;-) gtw is hot and cold - mostly cold, but currently hot. muei sucks wind - badly. dell is great. the direct model, including all direct players, hasn't shown that much. dell may be competing aggressively, however, they have mostly been high end. this may cause some pricing pressure, but not that much. they are just stealing high end biz from everyone else - and not by competing on solely on price.
4. yes, progress allows for cost reductions. again, basic economics, though. progress, in and of itself, doesn't mean prices go down. micron was lowering costs and raising prices back in the dram boom. supply and demand ultimately dictate pricing. true, supply tends to increase as costs go down... however, the past balance has been broken and revenues are going down much faster than units are going up...
5. true. however, all this additional demand is being soaked up and STILL revenues are down. again, bad news... unit sales should make up for lower margins, but they didn't. why? weakness in demand.
y2k - more dough spent on software solutions, less on hardware (psssst, money doesn't grow on trees) - plays a VERY IMPORTANT ROLE for the reduced demand. that, in turn, has led to the first ever down revenue year.
basic cause and effect.
don't know about your grey hair, though ;-) |
