>>current demand is weak in that it IS UNABLE TO SUPPORT GROWING REVENUES<<
there is a context to what i said. demand, for the first time in all of pc history, did not support revenue growth. in that sense it is weak relative to every other year that has ever occurred. the fact you dwell on semantics indicates that you are throwing up a red herring...
>>To repeat my point, while it is true that lots of Y2K dollars were spent on s/w in 1998, falling ASPs (independent of Y2K) had way more influence on YOY h/w revenue growth than Y2K dollar allocation.<<
the strength of falling asps had to do with eaker demand relative to supply. supply grew yoy. demand didn't keep up. why? you state that demand didn't keep up due to perceived this and that and few other things. ok, maybe some. i'll show you billions if it dollars spent to resolve y2k problems that could not, therefore, be spent on hardware. the latter is the obvious reason demand didn't keep up with supply. believe what you will. some vague perception about network computers - that even you admit is pretty hokey - causing revs to dive or real dollars being spent elsewhere. oh, this is called opportunity cost - another cool microecon 101 concept.
>>If they
resulted in lowering of revenues, they will no longer be a factor in 1999 as the Y2K
s/w problem has been taken care of and h/w budgets should increase; therefore the
market being forward looking should be strong<<
garbage in / garbage out. your assumption is wrong. many y2k dollars will be spent this year. why do you think ibm is near all time highs? services. check the want ads and see how much programmers are pulling in right now - those that work on y2k. are you saying they are all unemployed and their wages aren't still through the roof?
if your premise were right, then i'd agree with your result, all else being equal. it isn't, so i don't. well, ok. i will admit this. i don't know first hand that all companies aren't y2k compliant.
i've seen some anecdotal evidence (the same type of evidence you've seen) that says it hasn't been resolved. i heard on the radio in january that 5/6 companies had a y2k plan but only 2/5 had a budget. yes, that poll was done in 1999. not 1998. odd, 5/6 have a plan for something that they solved last year and 2/5 have a budget for something they won't spend more than a nickel on. very odd given your scenario.
another company sued somebody b/c they had to spend money to upgrade the software system they bought a couple years ago. uh, that money hasn't been spent yet... my understanding from the news article is that other suits were expected to follow en masse in 1999.
it also doesn't pass my human nature test. rarely does the majority plan this well.
however, i will try and garner better evidence and post as i get it.
btw, don't phrase things as though i'm walking both sides of a mutually exclusive fence. i'm not. i'm very clear. i don't want it both ways.
just remember, your anecdotal evidence is, what... .00000000000001% of the world economy, maybe? i'd appreciate anything you could post that shows y2k money won't be spent in 1999. |
