Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : CYRIX / NSM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (28356)	7/17/1998 9:53:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33344

You are assuming that if Compaq didn't get on the Sub 1k bandwagon, their PC business would have stayed stable. That is completely wrong. If Compaq did nothing, their market share would just evaporate, as other more nimble companies step in. Joe, as I indicated in my last post the Sub 1k was inevitable, but CPQ didn't have to initiate it in the manner they did. The real mess is the the "premium" high priced PCs, where most of the inventory problems happened. Just think about your "premium" PC from last year with $1,500 Pentium II 300. The same CPU is worth $250 now. Just think how much it costs you to have this PC sitting in your inventory for a month or 2. But that is my point. CPQ recklessly initiated the Sub 1k market while having a $hitload of high end inventory. Price wars are a slippery slope and tough to climb out of. You really have to be careful about entering into them. With IBM, HP, DELL and CPQ strengthening into an oligopoly, they had a good chance to reap some profit. Of those big four, it was CPQ that initiated the pricing pressure. The other three simply had to react. Dale