>David: I would be interested in your comments about why IBM is
>waiting to ramp up their partnership with DELL.
Sure. I wrote about this in a PM to Arthur this morning.
I work at IBM (writing software, not partnership agreements)
and know from a past job writing config. SW for AS/400 manufacturing
that IBM has a very complex ordering system. I have no idea
on what % of sales it is, but there are many very complicated
legacy "this is how we've always done it" details that add lots
of overhead. I've got no idea how this stuff ties to IBM's
PC overhead, I'm in AS/400 land. I suspect it also has lots
of overhead.
I agree IBM does a better job at licensing technology, providing
services, etc than providing HW. The annual report makes this
clear (from both a rev. growth and profit growth perspective).
No one will catch Dell in overall efficiency (ie, ROIC).
IBM and CPQ have way too much "other stuff" they do which dilutes
focus, among other things. I don't know much about HP and GTW.
I wish I knew about "why IBM is waiting to ramp up their partnership
w/ Dell". W/ the size of IBM, asking me that is like asking a
US Post Office employee what Clinton has for breakfast! :-)
I realize you probably didn't know I worked there when you asked...
My guess is that the key factor for future agreements is
"Mutual Benefit" which given large diff's between IBM/Dell, is tough.
I agree w/ the notion that the best thing for Dell is
what they are currently doing - organic growth via providing a
better product at a cheaper price w/ the most efficient internal
financial structure. From my IBM stockholder perspective, IBM will
do fine w/ or w/out PC profits. As Gerstner said...
From my Dell stockholder side, I don't want any more deals
between IBM and Dell, w/ the possible exception of IBM services
being provided for those who buy Dell PC's, if that could be
paid for by the buyer of the PC. |
