Dell going out of business

[Daeyin]

Ok, Dell isn't really going out of business.

But, people keeps telling me that Apple is going out of business soon.

http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.122001/213540085&ticker=NTRT


so, if that is true, and Apple is in a financial tailspin, why did Apple out-rank Dell, HP, and Compaq in e-tail sales this year?

Yes, out ranked Dell, as in the company that does so much of its sales via their website.

So, when are business week, pc world, and the rest going to start printing articles about the demies of Dell, compaq, and hp?

I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaaiting

 

[vanguard]

Apple didn't out rank Dell in e-tail sales. It's not even close. You need to get your facts straight before you spread nonsense like that.

I think I read the same thing you did. What Apple did do is get more visitors than Dell during the month of November (or was it for the quarter?). My bet is that was caused by the introduction of the iPod. Lot's of people (like me) went to the site to check it out. However, far fewer people actually bought it.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love Apple and with $5 billion in the bank (or something like that) they aren't going anywhere. However, let's not pretend that Apple is beating Dell. Dell is a great company that churns out quality business PCs. They don't come in Tangerine but they aren't all bad.

Actually, I just bought a Dell for my mother for Christmas. She needs Windows because her main use for the machine is to hook it up to her high end sewing machine. Apple machines are not supported.

Anyway, Apple is doing well and I love my iBook. However, Dell is doing well too.

On a final note, plenty of people have predicted the end of compaq. We'll see if it comes true in a few years.

 

[simX]

First of all, I would like to say that it's probably true that Dell outranked Apple in actual online sales. But let me point out one thing, vanguard:

The introduction of the iPod wouldn't cause people to go to http://store.apple.com/ . It would cause them to go to http://www.apple.com/ipod/ . If I understand correctly, only people who actually go to the ONLINE STORE are counted in the statistics. So I don't think the iPod introduction would have that much of an effect unless people were actually going to buy the iPod (which I'm sure a lot did).

Just a thought, although I don't know how the study was conducted, so the point is kinda moot.

Oh, and by the way -- if a company uses Windows as the main operating system on their computers, then that company, by default, makes really bad computers, and that's a fact.

 

[fryke]

As long as Mac fans say stupid things like 'If there's Windows on it, it's a bad machine' we can't really be counted as okay people.

Those machines might be quite alright. I have installed a few PCs that had Windows on them when they arrived. Good machines. They're running Linux alright and are great little workgroup and/or webservers. And dirt cheap, too compared to what Sun Microsystems or Apple have to offer.

It's Windows, that's not that good. And of course it's a pity that the people who ordered the machines also did have to buy a license for whatever MS system was installed, although the machines later never really run it.

 

[vanguard]

Here's the thing I read: http://www.appleturns.com/episode/?id=3465

It's the second article. I have to tell you, I went to store.apple.com to check out the iPod when it was released because it was big news. Apple even shut down their store during the press conference then brought it back up with the iPod for sale. I bet everybody checked out their store. However, like simX I don't know how they did the rankings.

As for windows sucking, yeah I'd say it stinks. Still, prior to OSX their NT -> 2000 -> XP line was better than Apple's OS. Apple's OS was crash prone, unstable, and it lacked pre-emptive multi-tasking. It has everything that was bad about the dos -> 3.1 -> 95/98/me line.

Anyway, only lately has Apple had an OS that can compete with the big boys. That's why I bought my first Apple and joined the community.

As for Dell's machines, I'm afraid we look at Apple with rose colored glasses. If Dell's power supplies smoked we would never forgive them. If Dell's processors were so dramtically underpowered we would laugh them out of here. (Don't bother arguing the mhtz myth with me. I'm educated on the topic.) And of course there is the whole price performance thing too.

Apple has a very cool OS that runs on expensive underpowered hardware. That hardware is also good looking.

Let's not pretend that Dell sucks. They have quality inexpensive hardware that runs an OS (XP) better than Apple's default OS (OS9).

 

[rfraley]

Look at the numbers: Compaq and Gateway are all bleeding red because of faulty business models. Hmm...let's see here...Apple made profit this quarter, Dell did not....


DOOM AND GLOOM FOR DELL! OH MY GOD!

Really, look at the long term performance of a company. Apple has solid financials a game plan that can weather downturns, and some of the most loyal supporters on the planet. With Mac OS X, they finally have an OS that can capture some of the discontents in the Wintel world.

 

[rfraley]

They will be around for a while....not unlike Apple Computer.

 

[vanguard]

I don't know why I'm defending Dell. I really have no love for them. I just feel like Apple guys need to get the facts straight if they really want to take on Wintel.

According to this, http://biz.yahoo.com/z/a/d/dell.html , Dell made a profit last quarter, the quarter before it, etc, etc. You can argue that they make uninspired machines but it's hard to say they don't make money.

As for Apple's solid financials, yeah they're not bad. They do have Billions in the banl. However, they still have no P/E because they didn't make money over the last four quarters. That should change after their next quarterly results come out.

 

[rfraley]

This one's more like it.

Dell's earnings according to the Motley Fool

Dell did lose according to these suckers.

But I could be wrong, and so could the fool.

 

[edX]

So, when are business week, pc world, and the rest going to start printing articles about the demies of Dell, compaq, and hp?

don't know about those mags, but the local paper in san francisco has been talking about compaq and hp as pontential bombs ever since the merger talks began. i don't think anybody is really immune from speculation these days.

just remember your $$$'s are like votes - and keep voting for those you want to stick around and stop voting for anyone you would rather live without. I haven't voted for M$ since excell 4.0 (1992).

 

[Carlo]

I wish dell churned out quality machines...

I have 4 poweredge 6400 & 6450 servers (quad xeons) and I wish i could replace them with ibm or compaq. 1 of them took 3 hours to boot last time i had to restart it. And dell have no idea whats going on.

 

[BlingBling 3k12]

lets keep it like this...

Dell makes lots of money and sells the most computers and won't be going bankrupt anytime soon.

HP/Compaq may fail if this merger shit isn't approved

Apple has a lot of reserve money, but you have to realize that they don't have alot of market share (only about 5%) and if they don't sell alot of products, they will falter.

the reasons most people don't buy Macs is that they're more educated with the Windows OS, and that Macs are a lot more expensive. even the low end versions are expensive! That is the main reasons why I bought a Dell last January (and now i hate myself for doing it!).

 

[tagliatelle]

My Dell in front of that PowerMac has no keyboard attached!

 

[DoctorDoom]

Gentlefolks all:

I registered here specifically for this thread, from a Windows-user perspective.

First, I have absolutely nothing against Macs. They're damned good machines. That having been said...

The issue is that Mac has allegedly outsold Dell, and the question that arises is, so what? It is entirely possible that Macs will outsell one brand of Windows boxes now and again.

When one wants to buy a Windows puter, one can buy an IBM, or a Dell, or a Hewlett-Packard, or a Gateway, or a Compaq, or a Sony, or a Toshiba, or a generic machine, or have one specially built, or build one's own.

When one wants to buy a Mac, one can buy a Mac, or... what?

There were two eras of Macintosh clones (or Maclones): the unauthorized period, when clones were reverse engineered or built around ROMs, or logic boards removed from existing Macs, and the authorized period, when Apple approved vendors and authorized hardware designs.

The Macintosh Clones

"Apple approved vendors and authorized hardware designs." Do it OUR way or NO way!

Q: how many members of this BB have built their own Macs from components available online or in the specialty stores? Are Mac mobos being made for the end-user market by Abit, AMI, AOpen, ASUS, BIOSTAR, Chaintech, DFI, ECS, Elpina, Epox, FIC, Gigabyte, Micro-Star, PC Chips, Shuttle, SiS, Soyo, Tyan, Via Technologies Inc, etcetera?

It's arguable that Jobs' insistence on Apple having the whole pie, and being the arbiter of what can and cannot be done, has hurt the effort to compete with the ubiquitous Windows boxes, which have no such restrictions. The only consideration with the latter is, will it run Windows more reliably and cost-effectively than our competitors can offer?

As for the tacky multi-colored Apple products, they might be "kewl" in a kid's room, but you won't find them in your average business environment.

Next, the use of a proprietary op system and a CPU that's fundamentally different from the Intel/AMD chips hurts software development. Given a choice of focusing on Windows-based apps or writing two versions of each app, one of which has limited sales potential by definition, what's the expected decision?

Check out Staples or Babbage's or Software Boutique and compare the volume of Windows SW vs Mac SW.

In short, as long as Apple insists on being the THE source for Macs, and allows no competition, the company will continue to be a source of niche machines that will not make a significant dent in the dominance of Windows-based computers.

 

[RacerX]

Welcome to the boards! Lets see if we can get to some of these issues, shall we.

Originally posted by DoctorDoom
Q: how many members of this BB have built their own Macs from components available online or in the specialty stores? Are Mac mobos being made for the end-user market by Abit, AMI, AOpen, ASUS, BIOSTAR, Chaintech, DFI, ECS, Elpina, Epox, FIC, Gigabyte, Micro-Star, PC Chips, Shuttle, SiS, Soyo, Tyan, Via Technologies Inc, etcetera?

Other than mother boards, everything else is available, and it does make a difference. Lets pull Apple and Microsoft out of this part and look at some of the other operating systems out there. Sun makes versions of Solaris that can be run on (some) PCs and there own hardware. Which do you think runs better? Or let compare Irix running on a system made by sgi verses any Linux or BSD distribution on a PC. Lets face it, there is no comparison. These examples are beyond the gamer-secretaries-hobbiest PC users, but they are valid just the same.

It's arguable that Jobs' insistence on Apple having the whole pie, and being the arbiter of what can and cannot be done, has hurt the effort to compete with the ubiquitous Windows boxes, which have no such restrictions. The only consideration with the latter is, will it run Windows more reliably and cost-effectively than our competitors can offer?

Which is the primary problem! A system running Windows better than any other system is still running Windows. Microsoft makes a fine office productivity and gaming platform, but when you need to take it to the next level... almost anything is better than Windows.

As for the tacky multi-colored Apple products, they might be "kewl" in a kid's room, but you won't find them in your average business environment.

Apple didn't start the idea, Silicon Graphics was making pretty boxes long before Apple saw the light.

Next, the use of a proprietary op system and a CPU that's fundamentally different from the Intel/AMD chips hurts software development. Given a choice of focusing on Windows-based apps or writing two versions of each app, one of which has limited sales potential by definition, what's the expected decision?

Actually what hurts development is one company having complete control over an OS and then using that advantage to sell software! In the last 15 years, Microsoft has killed off competition by leveraging it's control of the OS (rather than making better software). Lets face it, junk apps are junk apps! Only the best of the apps survive on both platforms, and many of the apps I use won't run on Windows (there are no Windows versions of them). Until you have spent some time working with other platforms outside of Wintel, you really have no idea what you are talking about here.

In short, as long as Apple insists on being the THE source for Macs, and allows no competition, the company will continue to be a source of niche machines that will not make a significant dent in the dominance of Windows-based computers.

Personally, I would hate to see ANY OS dominate the way Windows has. It has made Windows worse than it really is because every new feature is now a liability! And lets not forget that the dominance of Windows-based computers is based on the fact that Microsoft has bullied a license of Windows onto every PC made. If PC didn't come with an OS installed, and people had all the operating systems that could run on their systems lined up in front of them, I would bet that very few would spend 5x as much for Windows and Office when they could get Solaris and StarOffice and do just as much. Microsoft has made a business of using tactics that are illegal and turning their collective noses up at the system that won't stop them.

Every time someone who uses Windows sends me a virus that doesn't work on my system, I feel a little sadder about the state of the dominance of Windows-based computers.

 

[DoctorDoom]

My intention is not to debate the relative merits of Mac's OS Vs Windows. That's been done to death, and invariably leads to a them-vs-us faceoff, which is far too undignified for any attempt at intelligent discourse.

These examples are beyond the gamer-secretaries-hobbiest PC users, but they are valid just the same.

However, the "gamer-secretaries-hobbiest PC users" are the major market for PCs. And, of course, business, which buys or rents Windows boxes by the millions.

Platforms such as you mentioned may well be far more stable, but are they the point-and-click, user-friendly systems that Mr. and Ms. John Q. Appliance User expects out of their computers? Windows would be as stable as the Rock of Gibraltar if it didn't have to deal with people who only know how to turn the machine on and click a mouse. You cannot possibly design an OS that is all things to all people without making it subject to problems. The easier it is for the end user, the harder it is for the programmers.

And, who pays the bills? The end users.

Which is the primary problem! A system running Windows better than any other system is still running Windows. Microsoft makes a fine office productivity and gaming platform, but when you need to take it to the next level... almost anything is better than Windows.

The next level being? And the market for the next level being?

Computer manufacturers aren't in business to appeal to nerds who eat, sleep and breathe computers. They're out to sell a product, and they're not going to design their product so that it's beyond the technical competence of the majority of potential customers. It's the bottom line that drives business. If the bottom line requires compromises that destabilize a machine for the sake of being more accessible to users, that's the way it goes.

Apple didn't start the idea, Silicon Graphics was making pretty boxes long before Apple saw the light.

As every mom said at one time or another, "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?" Indigo and Ruby and Sage computers are not pretty. They're quite frankly ugly. It's a gimmick to appeal to the teens and the tasteless. And of course there's the transparent 17" Studio Display, as though anyone really wants to see what the guts of a monitor looks like (and spend $500 for the privilege).

And... from this page:

So what's wrong with this picture? Well, all current Apple displays use a proprietary connection scheme called Apple Display Connector (ADC), which combines digital video, USB, and AC power in a single cord that plugs into your Mac. The thing is, only Power Mac G4s from summer 2000 or later and the now-discontinued Cube have ADC connectors. In order to hook up an older Mac, you need a display card with DVI-out, in addition to a special adapter interface. Such a product can cost from $150 (for Dr. Bott's DVIator) to $200 (for Gefen's ExtendIt.

GOTCHA!

My Sony Trinitron 17" monitor works with ANY PC, and the addition of a power cord is not a serious drawback.

Until you have spent some time working with other platforms outside of Wintel, you really have no idea what you are talking about here.

I see. If I haven't used all these other op systems (an assumption on your part, BTW, since I never mentioned them either way), I'm to be totally silent on the issue. I believe they call that, "I don't have a good answer, so stop asking."

If the MacOS is so superior, Apple must surely be crushing that eee-vill Wintel conspiracy. Consumers must be deserting the Wintel machines in droves and scooping up the Ruby and Emerald and Sage iMacs as fast as Apple can crank them out. After all, consumers most certainly WANT these superior machines. There must be a line of marchers 12 miles long in Cupertino clamoring for 24/7 production of Macs to meet the overpowering demand.

Question: why in August of 97 did Microsoft invest $150 million in Apple at a time when the company was in the doldrums? Surely those dominating monsters in Redmond should have welcomed the opportunity to see the Jobs empire go under.


I began my first post by saying that I have nothing whatsoever against Macs, and that they're excellent computers. If I found something that I want to do that a Mac can do and my Windows box cannot, I'd buy one. I have not changed my opinions.

You, sir, have taken every opportunity to slam Microsoft and Windows and dismiss Windows-based machines as ten magnitudes lower than Gameboys. It's evident that you're not interested in discussion, but only in demeaning Apple's competition.

End of discourse. I think I'll go to the Dell site and buy a couple of boxes just because.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[edX]

As for the tacky multi-colored Apple products, they might be "kewl" in a kid's room, but you won't find them in your average business environment.

aside from the fact that my tastes differ from yours, i will ignore your slander upon my mac-chine and only reply that i hope i never see macs in any 'average' environment. apple has always been a step ahead and a head above the pc world. if you don't believe that then you are either young or naive. or a 'dozer' - asleep at the keyboard. pc's are by far the best machines for people who want to feel like they've accomplished alot just getting their computer to run. then they can email, shop, chat or run the same boring business programs over and over. m$ can dominate that world all they want. you can live there for as long as you please.
don't ever believe you are winning the debate against macs because they are not average enough for you. that's the point. macs will be found where people are creative, intelligent, leaders, and inventors. mac users have got better things to do with their time than average computer users.

if you felt you needed to join this discussion in order to justify your average, ordinary life or maybe the living you make by supplying more average people with average products, and to attack those who would 'live differently' then i declare you the winner. you are definitly the most well adjusted ordinary average person to join this site. have a happy holiday. maybe if you're real lucky, santa will bring you the same thing as all your friends.

 

[RacerX]

Originally posted by DoctorDoom
My intention is not to debate the relative merits of Mac's OS Vs Windows. That's been done to death, and invariably leads to a them-vs-us faceoff, which is far too undignified for any attempt at intelligent discourse.

Mine either. Maybe you should read my post again, you seem to be projecting things on to it that I didn't say or imply.

You, sir, have taken every opportunity to slam Microsoft and Windows and dismiss Windows-based machines as ten magnitudes lower than Gameboys. It's evident that you're not interested in discussion, but only in demeaning Apple's competition.

Wow... I take it that english is not you primary language. I, again, never said or implied anything of the sort. I don't even think anyone could get that from what I said. Still, others ARE reading this, so I may as well take a stab at some of you points (weak as they may be).

However, the "gamer-secretaries-hobbiest PC users" are the major market for PCs. And, of course, business, which buys or rents Windows boxes by the millions...

And, who pays the bills? The end users.

I'm sorry, but so what? A majority of the public is buying PC boxes, that is why they should be the only choice we get? As I said (but you missed), choice is the only thing I care about having. If you want a Wintel system... great, I'm happy for you. I personally don't. We all have different ideas about what we need in a system, and if end users were not paying for Macs, Apple wouldn't still be here.

Question: why in August of 97 did Microsoft invest $150 million in Apple at a time when the company was in the doldrums? Surely those dominating monsters in Redmond should have welcomed the opportunity to see the Jobs empire go under.

Answer: Apple had 7th consecutive losing quarters (ending in 1998), and Microsoft was not happy with what Mac Users thought of their products (Office 4.2 was universally panned by all). At the time Microsoft was in a battle with Netscape over browser dominance and needed an advantage on the second most used platform that equaled the advantage it had on Windows. Apple made a deal to insure that Office 98 would be made that included selling Microsoft shares of Apple and making IE the default browser on the MacOS (most of the documentation can be found at the DOJ website). I would point out that Apple paid $425 million for NeXT in Dec 1997 (which was when Jobs returned I might add), which shows that Apple can not only weather bad periods, they also keep a very large cash reserve for just those types of emergencies. To bad Gateway didn't do the same.

The next level being? And the market for the next level being?

Computer manufacturers aren't in business to appeal to nerds who eat, sleep and breathe computers. They're out to sell a product, and they're not going to design their product so that it's beyond the technical competence of the majority of potential customers. It's the bottom line that drives business. If the bottom line requires compromises that destabilize a machine for the sake of being more accessible to users, that's the way it goes.

You are under the assumption that all computer makers make systems for people who use their systems as typewriter and gamestations. Apple, Sun, SGI, and others make systems designed for their own target markets. The one-size-fits-all idea doesn't work for computers any more than it does with clothes.

As every mom said at one time or another, "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Ask the same question of PC users every day. And still they seem completely surprised when they get viruses. But some people need to follow the crowd (of course, you are a leader in that crowd, watch that first step!).

GOTCHA!

My Sony Trinitron 17" monitor works with ANY PC, and the addition of a power cord is not a serious drawback.

And I can't use that same monitor why? Just because Apple's monitors only work on (mainly) Macs doesn't mean that Macs can't use any other types of monitors. I believe that is a "gotcha!" to you, we have the best of both worlds.

Please, please read this very carefully, sir. I would hate for you to think we are all picking on you.

 

[AdmiralAK]

Dang I was actually going to reply but RacerX said most of what I wanted to say


OK...well.. first let me start off by saying this about the macclones site provided:
I dont know where this guy gets his info but the AtariST is NOT a mac clone, it was a platform on its own. Just because 2 systems have the same processor doesnt mean that they are clones. After all IBM uses PPCs on the RS/600 servers running AIX (I think) -- does that mean they are mac clones ? nope


Second, dang... no second..racer you said most of the things I wanted to comment on -- I will wait for more responces to write too lol



-- have a save and merry xmas all of you --


Admiral

 

[RacerX]

I completely missed that part! The nerve of that site not bring up the "other" Mac clone of the '80s, Silicon Graphics (which used Motorola's 68000 processors in their early systems before moving to MIPS based processors). And why isn't the BeBox in there also? If the Atarti qualifies, these should also!