|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
01:47 EST/06:47 GMT | News Source:
Gartner |
Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum |
Following last Friday's announcement that Vista is on schedule, it appears that Microsoft has made much faster progress than many (including Gartner) had expected in getting its next Windows OS ready for release. Given the patchy nature of the Beta releases we saw earlier this year, this is a noteworthy achievement, and it says much about the company's determination to meet the deadline it set for itself in March.
However, we still question the wisdom of a general (consumer) release in January. The impact of staging such a significant product launch immediately after the holiday period can only be detrimental for the PC industry as a whole. Some PC buyers will inevitably delay buying new PCs to make sure they get the new OS preloaded, resulting in demand shifting from the months of November and December (the months of highest demand in the PC market calendar, when prices are generally higher) to January and February (when buyers expect prices to be discounted). The net effect for PC OEMs is likely to be a shortfall in revenue for the fourth quarter of this year that will not be entirely made up for by "Vista demand" in the first quarter of 2007. Even if Microsoft supports a coupon upgrade for holiday season buyers in an attempt to alleviate this, OEMs will bear much of the cost of distributing the new OS to consumers and handling the support calls that follow when they install Vista.
So, although we salute Microsoft’s dogged determination, we believe it is demonstrating scant regard for the PC ecosystem on which it depends. With OEM sales of Windows accounting for the majority of its $13 billion Client BU revenue and PC OEMs enduring tough market conditions, this is a decision that Microsoft may come to regret in the years ahead. The average operating margin for PC OEMs continues to be less than 2%, and any revenue shortfall risks triggering further market consolidation. These considerations may yet persuade Microsoft to push back the Vista launch.
|
|
#1 By
2459 (69.22.124.202)
at
10/24/2006 8:07:07 AM
|
Is Gartner trying to prod MS into further delaying Vista just so their previous predictions of such delays come true? And, how would delaying Vista to say, Fall or Summer, have any positive impact on sales vs. launching as planned?
Sure, there are sales on computers just as anything else, but I don't think buyers look at seasonal pricing trends before making a purchase. Instead, the buy based on the need for a new computer and go with the brand they know/like and/or try to get what they consider the best value among the current systems whatever the current pricing. Pricing probably changes more with the introduction of new hardware (e.g., dual core pushing down the price of single core systems) and component availability than with a seasonal change. Also, the majority of system purchases come from businesses that often negotiate their purchase price, and will purchase systems and OS licenses seperately.
This post was edited by n4cer on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 08:09.
|
#2 By
8556 (12.210.32.201)
at
10/24/2006 9:55:13 AM
|
Recall that Windows XP lacked significant driver support when it first came out. Also, wasn't XP security pretty much total crap until SP2 was released, after which it was less crappy? Vista will be okay in short order after release.
|
#3 By
1845 (24.2.84.12)
at
10/24/2006 10:34:59 AM
|
Sour grapes.
|
#4 By
7754 (216.160.8.41)
at
10/24/2006 12:06:37 PM
|
The average operating margin for PC OEMs continues to be less than 2%
I wonder if this is an assumption based on past trends, or actual current figures. I recall when it was nearly impossible for me to build my own machine (at the time, a workstation-class box with SCSI, etc.) using similar components than it was if I purchased it through Dell--not to mention the convenience of having a single vendor responsible for the warranty. Recently, though, I've been pricing out Dell desktops, and at least on the web (I know we could get cheaper pricing through our rep), they are significantly higher than what I expected. The markup on a processor upgrade is close to 40% over what I would pay even locally--and supposedly they get favored-status pricing through Intel. I realize they have overhead costs, but that's a far cry from "2% margin." They have some sweetheart "loss-leader" deals posted prominently on their site, but once you start to make any customizations, you pay for it.
|
#5 By
23275 (68.17.42.38)
at
10/24/2006 12:51:09 PM
|
operating margins are very different and may well be quite low for even Dell.
They differ from both mark-up and gross/net margins and factor in manufacturing, transportation, labor, sales and support and administration costs like accounting and tax.
Once all of that is carved out, there is precious little left for Dell and its shareholders that actually own the company.
Gartner has to justify its prediction - based upon technical considerations that it assessed would delay Vista's release - namely driver coverage and apps compatibility; however, they did not consider how differently Vista was being built and tested and that coverage would be forked back in, "after" Vista was ready. Such coverage would not be evident in RC1, or RC2, but would be more evident in interim builds being tested within TAP. Gartner, is now using a different perspective, again, based upon a lack of understanding, to question whether it is responsible to release vista - given what it perceives as a lack of coverage.
What Gartner appears to lack is the ability to stay inside how software is developed - in pieces, largely. Allchin, for example, has all but sent smoke signals - using different means to communicate how he is looking at this - that coverage is assured in greater percentages than at any time before - largely owing to how different and therefore how long devs have had to work up drivers and compatible applications code. I know we have and we've done that work and it was bloody tough to climb that hill. It cost me a lot more than I originally thought, and we are all hoping that people will take to Vista - if they don't, we're going to suffer for it.
In the SMB market it is even messier... where companies typically use many smaller pieces of software to cobble together an enterprise solution. Gartner is not even looking at such companies, but inadvertently does strike what I assess to be the only relevant portion of the article's message - namely, how well tested are all the small bits that these people use and how well tested is the integration model. This is relevant, because these small companies do tend to buy at least some newer machines more regularly and a very large percentage of the professional services economy is built on this.
If there is an irresponsible, or less responsible component to any of this, it is the really wide distribution of Vista - driving interest, but transferring the responsibility to small shops like my own. It's like, here... we'll toss in SCE, but you guys figure it out and in the customers' eyes, it should all be easy. In SMB there is little time for study, but a greater deal of less thoughtful demand - hence my initial, almost violent reaction to Vista. It was like Microsoft was and is saying, "here ya go... ya'll figure it out..." While true, that is not the market Gartner was speaking to at all - not me, or people like me and not to admins who have to "make it work."
I wish they would either become very granular in their analysis, or just hush up.
|
#6 By
9589 (66.56.128.242)
at
10/25/2006 2:58:04 AM
|
Hmmm . . . 2% margin, eh? I guess facts aren't part of the Gartner prognostications these days. Dell has maintainted consistently over the last five years a profit margin of just over 6%. HP, while not a pure play in the PC business, ran a 15%+ profit margin in '05. Gateway, well heck it's Gateway, hasn't had profit margins in years.
Nevertheless, if they can't get basic facts together, who is going to believe their goofy opinions. Even the posters that commented on the article on their own web site were incredulous.
|
|
|
|
|