Slashdot Mirror
Dell Abandons Its Customization Roots
LiveFreeOrDieInTheGo writes "Dell intends to scale back its build-to-order service model, while increasing sales of prepackaged systems. The goal: $3B USD savings by 2011. The downside: customers expect Dell to build-to-order. The deeper downside: Dell will outsource more production and assembly."
> But I remember all the old Dell commercials - the main thing they had going for them was customization.
I think the point is that those were the old Dell commercials. If you look at ones today, they're all about price. Features and price, admittedly, but price is the biggest thing.
This is a reflection of the market for PCs. When they represented a substantial capital investment, you wanted to tailor them to your particular needs, and avoid paying for anything you didn't absolutely need. That made customization and U.S.-based assembly locations worthwhile. Now, people don't want that as much. The PC, as a unit, has become increasingly commoditized. I bet a lot of buyers today don't even look at specs; they just buy "a computer" and make a lot of assumptions about what they'll be able to do with it. (Assumptions that are actually pretty safe if you don't plan on doing much beyond typical consumerish tasks with it.)
As a result, the goal is no longer "build me a PC to my exact specifications," it's "build me as much PC as possible for $500". Or $300, or $250. I suspect before too long it'll be $99.
That doesn't favor having a lot of assembly points close to consumers; it favors doing all your assembly in a quasi-slave-labor camp somewhere, to better keep costs down, and then shipping tons and tons of identical boxes in bulk to wherever the consumers are. 'Who cares if it's not exactly what you want? It's $500 and it's more power/features/speed than you'll probably need, so just buy it,' is the message.
It's easy to blame Dell here, but it's buyers of technology that are driving it. Not enough people want essentially bespoke computers (or the ones that do aren't buying them from Dell), and Dell is going to eliminate the facilities that provide that service.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Not a chance; not with the population they have. Maybe in a century, but fifteen years? That's ridiculous. There are millions upon millions of people in China (and India, and quite a few other places) who have grown up and are used to far cheaper standards of living than the average person in the U.S. That translates into dramatically lower labor costs for the foreseeable future, since they're going to be willing to work for less. Someone who remembers life in a mud-and-thatch hut on a rice paddy is probably going to have a markedly different bar for 'success' than someone who grew up in the U.S.'s heyday and expects to be able to do better than that.Well, if you want to talk about 15 years down the road you might as well mention that in 15 years all the demand from our outsourcing will make the Chinese as well off as us, forcing them to charge as much, canceling out any benefit of outsourcing there.
That's a great thought but it's a little lacking in substance. What do you propose the U.S. ought to specialize in? I'm quite honestly interested, and I've asked this question over and over to a lot of fairly intelligent people and have yet to get a satisfactory answer back. I'm not sure there is one. Do we try to go the Neal Stephenson route? Music, movies, microcode, and pizza? Other parts of the world are chipping into 'software' already, and there's no reason to think that we have some kind of automatic, natural, competitive advantage in any of those.You're a little capitalist, and you don't even realize it. Want all the jobs to stay in our country? That's greed; the same thing driving those shareholders to make more money. Unfortunately, whining doesn't get much done, so we'll all have to work really hard and offer some kind of advantage to keep the jobs. It's called "competing".
About the only thing we do have here in the U.S., at least at the moment, is a hell of a consumer market. Until we figure out exactly how we're going to keep ourselves going, I don't think it's necessarily illogical to want to carefully manage access to the one thing of value we have left. I'm not proposing or advocating for complete isolationism, just a careful analysis of exactly who we're allowing access, and to which markets, and what the effects are.
More bluntly, I don't see any reason why the U.S. ought to open any market to foreign competition unless there's a clear indication that opening it results in a net benefit to the United States. Now, it may be that fully-open markets are the best (or least-worst) policy for Americans in general, but I haven't seen any of the politicians pushing for open markets really going out of their way to demonstrate this. And from where I'm sitting, it looks a lot like we're just letting ourselves go bankrupt on imports without much of a thought towards the long-term sustainability of this situation.
Even if by restricting imports it increased the cost of non-essential goods to consumers, but in doing so bought us a few more years or decades of solvency in which to work on our comparative advantage (or for the Chinese and other developing markets to bring their labor force's standards of living, and thus costs, closer to par), I can't see why that would necessarily be bad.
National governments have a mandate to serve the best interests of the people they represent. If free trade and open borders are demonstrably the best path, I'd be more supportive, but right now they look suspiciously like a path that leads off a cliff.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It seems you're advocating deunionization without knowing what it actually means.
Deunionization as an economic measure means that you plan to solve fundamental problems in the economy by worsening the bargaining power of the lower and middle class, in effect worsening their conditions. Instead of outsourcing, this is bringing conditions from China to the developed world. Newsflash: if an industry fails because it cannot survive unless it has unacceptable working conditions, then that is a good thing.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Oh, and all our companies are close to bankruptcy, and no executives and shareholders ever manage to take out huge bonuses and dividends..
Seriously, unions are why you don't still have 12+ hour working days in the US and most of the rest of the world. It took decades of campaigning, strikes that often were illegal and bloodshed when police struck down on strikers for the US unions to get employers to accept the 8 hour working day.
It's a paradox that the rest of the world can thank US unions for the 8 hour day, when your unions have been reduced to festering corpses, and that May Day was established as an international day for the working class to demonstrate directly in response and support of the US unions, while the US working class was quickly subverted into accepting the watered down Labor day.
A huge part of the improvements in working conditions in the latter half of the 1800's and well into the 1900's were a direct result of strong unions in the US.