"Dell reported its third-quarter earnings results Thursday, showing a small improvement over the last quarter, but revenue was down 15 percent over the last year, and profits fell 54 percent. The company reported revenue of $12.9 billion, within analysts' expectations between $12.8 billion and $13.5 billion. Earnings were 17 cents per share, when excluding 6 cents of pretax expenses and amortization. That's 54 percent off the 37 cents Dell recorded a year ago. Besides its acquisition of Perot Systems last month, there weren't too many positive signs in the recently completed quarter. Shipments were also down 5 percent across its businesses."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-11
Member since:2006-01-26
Member since:2006-01-23
The problem is - they're losing marketshare... which is bad.
It's one thing if people stop buying computers - but if people stop buying computers, in favor of your competition, something is wrong.
It was their game to cost cut until their competition hurt. They just didn't realise that it would hurt them in the end.
It's a lot better than it could have been. If the company had continued its direction from two years ago, they'd have really been in trouble.
Member since:2006-01-18
Member since:2005-07-06
It's a lot better than it could have been. If the company had continued its direction from two years ago, they'd have really been in trouble.
When price is the only differentiator, what does one expect? why purchase a Dell? They're just another wintel vendor - nothing to differentiates their products over another apart from a superficial outer layer. Every time I see it happen it further re-enforces the fact that Dell need to allocate $2billion and develop a whole software ecosystem (operating system and middleware) around their hardware which allows them to maintain margins and differentiate the product outside simple price and superficial appearance.
It won't happen because Michael Dell have made it 100% clear they are a 0 R&D company, they're merely the OEM outlet store for Microsoft - which makes me wonder why they just don't stop the charade and merge with Microsoft - decisions being made by Michael Dell simply for the benefit of Microsoft and not for Dell's shareholders.
Edited 2009-11-22 09:06 UTC
Member since:2005-12-15
What exactly are you expecting from them? What could they possibly offer that isn't already available? If you mean, Linux, then they would have done this long ago if it was purposeful.
It's not as though they haven't had diversification disussions in the past.
Member since:2006-01-02
If I look at notebook and desktops, I tend to see more balanced configurations at decent prices from HP than from Dell. I build, but I have recommended specific HPs in the recent past, because they were far better for what someone wanted, for hundreds less than Dell. Recent HP's I've worked on have all been nice PCs (despite a lawsuit forming over HP corporate idiocy, right now *sigh*). I mean, if a poor CPU, or poor video card (or worse, a choice of crap or high-end, with no middle), or less RAM (as in way too expensive), etc., is needed to keep the price and profits good, screw 'em. It's a commodity.
HP has been eating into their market share because they have been getting those little things right, from end users walking into Sam's or Best Buy, to big companies doing their regular roll-outs. If Dell tries to go ever cheaper, they will get into Acer's home turf: the craptastic computer that is a few bucks cheaper than everyone else's, on average. Do they really want to go there?
Remember the days when they used Intel and Asus mobos, Delta PSUs, and Palo Alto ABS-covered will-survive-a-nuclear-blast cases? Ah, them was the days...
Edited 2009-11-22 11:03 UTC
Member since:2006-03-23
I agree their previous consumer level cases were better than their current "hip and modern" line up. I've always like their small/med business and enterprise equipment though; the precision series of workstations is quite nice.
They've cut costs on the motherboards though, and it shows. Their prices for upgrade equipment (RAM, hard drives, etc) are also simply insane. Why would I spent 150 to upgrade to a 1TB hard drive when I can keep the default and buy one off the shelf for under $100?
Member since:2006-01-23
...
It won't happen because Michael Dell have made it 100% clear they are a 0 R&D company, they're merely the OEM outlet store for Microsoft - which makes me wonder why they just don't stop the charade and merge with Microsoft - decisions being made by Michael Dell simply for the benefit of Microsoft and not for Dell's shareholders.
They had been doing some R&D to cheapen their motherboards but this backfired also and their reliability is horrible.
I remember an incident where the company where I was working replaced their Gateway 2000 (that old!) machines with Dell machines. For every 5 machines, we returned 3 as dead-on-arrival or dead within 2 weeks. Selling such machines to a company of 50,000 employees made a point about how much they cared.
Member since:
2009-11-22
ORLANDO, Florida--When it comes to the state of Apple Computer, everyone has an opinion. And at the Gartner Symposium and ITxpo97 here today, the CEO of competitor Dell Computer added his voice to the chorus when asked what could be done to fix the Mac maker. His solution was a drastic one.
"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders," Michael Dell said before a crowd of several thousand IT executives.
Bet you wished you would have put your money in Apple Stock instead of you crappy Dell stock! If I were you I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders! Yes Michael, follow your own advise!
Member since:2006-03-23
...except Dell's revenue greatly exceeds Apple's and it isn't on the verge of bankruptcy to the point that a large cash injection from it's primary competitor are the only thing that will save it. This isn't analogous to AAPL in 1997, not by a LONG shot. Grow up.
Apple's market capitalization (and stock price) are GROSSLY over exaggerated given their relatively minor presence in the market. Investors seem to purchase it on blind faith and fanboydom. The stock is almost as much of a fashion accessory as their products.
Member since:2005-11-19
Member since:2006-02-26
Greatly exceeds is a bit of an exaggeration. Dell's revenue for 3Q09 was $12.9 billion while Apple's was $8.34 billion. Of course, if we look at profit, Dell sits at $337 million while Apple pulled in $1.23 billion. In my world, profit trumps revenue.
True, but let's remember that it has been sustained in the past by large cash injections from Intel. This is no longer the case. Dell has effectively commoditized itself out of the market. Unless the company can pull an iPod style miracle out of a hat in the next few years, it probably won't be long before it's looking like Apple circa 1997.
Stock price has never been a function of the actual value of a company. It is always dependent on the predicted perceived value of the company in the future. The stock market is a shell game where all participants are both operators and players.
