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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (129666)	5/28/1999 1:36:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

<it was done with cash on hand and stock. Also CPQ spends more than 10 times as much on R&D as DELL. IBM and HP spend more on R&D than CPQ. R&D and future innovation are not a part of the DELL model and should not be - the whole goal is to use other people's R&D money. I would rather see CPQ cut R&D and move more to a "fast follower" mode - it has been one of DELL's great strengths. I don't understand why you think a shift to higher R&D by DELL is either likely or would be a good thing.> you know that stock issuance is a form of debt, and it was this form of debt to which i was referring. you're obviously quite up on the issues. As Dell has stated, their use of R&D has been to optimize customer relationships. Technological innovations are secondary to the customer relationship. For example, Dell's stack and the cooling system that drives it. Why was not CPQ and HWP johnny on the spot with this innovation which has helped drive Dell's server sales? Dell claims they asked their customer what they wanted - and it turns out that space was a premium, not necessarily performance since performance was equal variables at other box makers. Much of CPQ and HWP's R&D efforts have been technological wizardy as a means unto itself. Much of Dell's R&D efforts are spent on finding out where the customer is going and how Dell can be there with them. CPQ announced they were going to include xDSL modems in each box for a significant number of classed units. The xDSL modems are only functional, however, in those areas of the country that can support the xDSL hardware - VERY FEW areas of the world at that. The US/Europe wasn't ready for xDSL for 95% of those machines that went out the door. Why spend the addtl money for automatically inclusion of xDSL when your area of the world doesn't support it? Dell's approach was to add the xDSL as a option to anyone that asked for it. I don't understand CPQ's use of R&D if it amounts to addtl. expense. This is just one example, of course.