Slashdot Mirror
Michael Dell Returns to CEO Role at Dell
head_dunce writes "It looks like Michael Dell is jumping back into the big chair at Dell because his company is slipping under the direction of Kevin Rollins. I wonder if they should be looking outside the company for new ideas, or if going back to basics is what needs to be done?"
Let me preface my reply by saying I've never bought Dell and don't like Dells (but nor particularly dislike them).
But the business model you describe of butchering your suppliers sounds like wal-mart. And they're not going anywhere.
Dell's problem is not their business model, but others copying their business model. (apple?)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I worked for Dell briefly, an experience I'll be happy not to repeat. The entire company is very shareholder-centric. I really doubt we're going to see a terribly different Dell from what we saw about 5 years ago. They are still going to build dirt-cheap machines for the 'lowest common denominator' people and they are still going to operate with the previously mentioned 'scorched earth' policy towards their hardware suppliers.
I'm pretty certain that Michael Dell is being brought back to keep the stockholders happy and to attempt to restore the image. Few people will remember that he made the company the way it is, and I feel that Kevin Rollins is taking the scapegoat role.
Long gone are the days when Dell computers were the reliable ones that you spent a couple extra hundred on because they really were that good. This is the reason Dell bought Alienware, to try to regain the image of quality machines.
Also, IMHO, I have to agree with another poster as well, most Dell-branded products were pretty horrible. Axim line was alright and the LCD's were pretty good, everything else (including the computers) was pretty poor. Again, just my feelings on 'em...
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
The register has an interesting analysis on what this actually means. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/01/dell_brain _one/
In summary, nothing, as Michael Dell has been actively involved in all decisions anyway, and is at least equally responsible for Dell's downfall.
I think one of the reasons Dell has been slipping (and I believe it has a lot to do with many corporate failures) is that the executives forget what made the company successful in the first place. The company has become so wrapped up in acquisitions, promotions, and partnerships that they forgot all about building computers. They no longer ask themselves "Which components would make this PC powerful and affordable?" Instead they ask "Which components can we build a computer from, using only our partners' components, that will not compete with any of our other divisions, and is consistent with this month's slogan?" It's a lot like Microsoft. At a certain point they got so wrapped up in their ISP (MSN), web sites, content portals, partnerships, search engines, the whole idea of building an actual Operating System was completely beyond them. For all the jokes people made about Windows back with Win 3.1 and Windows 95, all of it would have been forgotten if they had kept their eye on the prize. Instead, they get distracted by every trend, buzzword, and internet start-up that happens by. Dell has the money, reputation, and manpower to build great computers. Unfortunately they lack the all-consuming vision that makes a company succeed to start with.
This is the Dell model. Hollow out your suppliers and when one dies, move to another.
That may be the Dell model, but there's one supplier they can't do that to, and that's Microsoft. The bulk of the profit on any PC these days goes to Redmond, and there just isn't enough margin available for the hardware makers to afford quality.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."