Here is a repost of the IDC data:
The IDC "By Segment" data is out. They now break out Medium and
Large separately. However, "Large" is defined as 500+ employees,
so do not get much more specific to LCA or Enterprise, but still
better than the previous "Medium/Large" 100+ cut.
10-Jun-98
U.S. Large Business Total PC Shipments
Vendor Shipments Q497 %share Q497 Shipments Q198 %share Q198
CPQ 348,726 21.30% 351,162 23.20%
DELL 286,344 17.50% 311,203 20.50%
IBM 214,097 13.10% 160,513 10.60%
HWP 186,436 11.40% 149,194 9.8%
Toshiba 99,079 6.00% 73,784 4.9%
GTW 116,781 7.10% 68,087 4.5%
Note that this data indicates overall market share and total units
shipped increase for CPQ and DELL. Others slipping.
U.S. Large Business Desktop PC Shipments
Vendor Shipments Q497 %share Q497 Shipments Q198 %share Q198
CPQ 247,832 21.80% 248,638 23.50%
DELL 215,742 18.90% 232,085 21.90%
HWP 169,901 14.90% 130,211 12.30%
IBM 129,384 11.40% 105,200 9.90%
GTW 103,857 9.10% 59,555 5.60%
In Large Business Desktop segment, CPQ and DELL increased; others
decreased.
U.S. Large Business Portable PC Shipments
Vendor Shipments Q497 %share Q497 Shipments Q198 %share Q198
CPQ 69.803 16.10% 73,125 18.80%
DELL 64,926 15.00% 70,840 18.20%
Toshiba 89,357 20.60% 67.894 17.40%
IBM 74,965 17.30% 45,745 11.80%
Packard-Bell 23,913 5.50% 25,145 6.50%
In Business Portables, CPQ, DELL and PB increased, with Toshiba and
IBM declining.
U.S. Large Business PC Server Shipments
Vendor Shipments Q497 %share Q497 Shipments Q198 %share Q198
CPQ 31,091 46.40% 29,400 43.50%
IBM 9,737 14.50% 9,568 14.20%
DELL 5,677 8.50% 8,278 12.20%
HWP 4,827 7.20% 6,990 10.30%
Digital 2,020 3.00% 3,564 5.30%
In Large Business PC Servers, CPQ and IBM declined somewhat, while
DELL, HWP and Digital posted nice gains.
This data only includes large business sales. Note that CPQ had
healthy gains (if one includes DEC) in all areas. If CPQ's large
business sales (which contain their high margin products) were
increasing, yet quarterly profits were nearly zero, then might one not
logically deduce that the profits in the non-large-business (personal
consumer) sector had to be negative in order to negate the very robust
growth and profit of the high end?
I'm not sure that it is fair to arbitrarily exclude the acquisition
costs, but neither is it reasonable to attribute all of the bad news
and lack of earnings solely to the acquisition. If, in fact, the low
end were also producing stellar earnings, then I find it hard
to believe that the acquisition costs could negate it all. This is all
the more true if, as I believe, the Tandem acquisition was supposedly
accretive. (May be wrong on that.)
Bottom line: I think that CPQ, HWP, and IBM were losing money on their
low end products. As someone else pointed out, once engaged in the
warfare, it becomes very difficult to disengage without serious
repercussions. Their established and potential customer base
might view such an act as weakness or an admission of inferior product
or inability to be competitive. The market surely would.
Regards, 3. |
