backtop


Print 28 comment(s) - last by phaxmohdem.. on May 15 at 3:14 AM

HP claims that it is nabbing Dell's large business customers

Hewlett-Packard contends that is doing some damage to Dell's dominance in the direct PC sales business. It was recently reported by DailyTech that Dell's US market share dipped from 32% to 29.8% in the first quarter while HP saw its share rise to 18.5% (possibly due to the removal of one CEO).

HP Vice President of Personal Systems Alberto Bozzo states that his company is providing a higher quality of service to its large business customers and that's the reasoning behind its recent sales surge. From CNET:

"We are displacing Dell in most of the bigger and strategic accounts. Most of our large customers are dissatisfied customers from Dell. They were dissatisfied with the services that haven't been delivered, delivery times and with the quality of the product. Customers are asking to buy directly from us because of the quality of service of the direct relationship," Bozzo said.

Not surprisingly, Dell takes issue with any claims that HP is encroaching into its portfolio of large business customers. "According to IDC results for the fourth quarter in 2005, Dell held a 44.4 percent share of PCs shipped to large business customers (those with greater than 500 employees) in the U.S., compared to HP's 21.9 percent," stated Dean Cline, a senior Manager at Dell.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By das mod on 5/12/2006 1:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
HP should be more specific on this issue by saying that these are "returning" customers, which were, at the beginning dissatisfied with HP service, and moved on to DELL which now lacks the same quality and HP once did.




RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By AllYourBaseAreBelong2Us on 5/12/2006 2:03:56 PM , Rating: 3
Not only returning customers. It is also that HP sells systems with AMD processors and that gives HP a price/profit advantage over DELL.


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By RocketChild on 5/12/2006 2:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we were a Dell shop, but none of their servers were engineered the same. They all had completely different rail configuration, their HDD skids were always changing with each model (when HPs has been the same for many, many years), and last but not least...they were not offering DualCore Opterons. When it came down it, with 64bit SQL and just pure power, an HP AMD solution just ran circles around Dell.

The Dell guys keep trying to win our company over, since we told them that over the last 1.5 years, we have bought several million dollars in server solutions from HP. We tell them in meeting, you need to make us feel stupid for ever going with HP in the first place.

Dell has an uphill battle now, because why would we buy any new Intel chip servers from Dell, when we can get them from HP, along with any AMD procs we might need to-boot!


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Phynaz on 5/12/2006 3:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
HP sells systems with AMD processors and that gives HP a price/profit advantage over DELL


HP dx5150
Athlon 64 3200+
40GB
512MB
$795.00

Dell Optiplex 170
P4 3.2Ghz
40GB
512MB
$772.00

Where's that AMD price advantage again?


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By bamacre on 5/12/2006 3:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
If this were all about Intel/AMD, and not service, then Dell would be looking in GREAT shape. Think about it, they have been exclusively selling inferior cpu's ever since the birth of 64bit Opteron and Athlon, and have only lost out market share in a minimal manner. What's going to happen when Intel has the advantage over AMD with their new desktop and server cpu's? Dell will gain back all that it lost, and then some.

If you guys think those Conroe prices looked good, you aught to see what Dell is paying for them.


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By phaxmohdem on 5/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Phynaz on 5/12/2006 4:18:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Umm after a year or so of use w/ power consumption


Not in a business environment.

quote:
not to mention I'd take an A64 3200+ any day of the week over a 3.2gHz P4 for business taksks.


Which explains why you don't run a business.


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Griswold on 5/12/2006 4:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
Gee, come down from your high horse and stop pretending you know a thing or two about running a business or even have an idea what it takes to run one.

The electricity argument may seem a bit off and worn out, but it will strike you as breaking news that your average company - that does not need the power for massive machinery - wont see any discounts on their electricity bills. So yes, it is valid, to some extend, with the two boxes you provided in your example.


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Phynaz on 5/12/2006 4:56:24 PM , Rating: 1
Hey, the village idiot decided to chime in!

Here's a clue for you: Business machines sit idle 95% of the time. So what's the power advantage of the HP over the Dell?

That's right, absolutly nothing.

Time for you to go now, I think you're mommy is calling you to dinner. Be sure to leave you're usuall F-Bomb before you leave.



By Missing Ghost on 5/12/2006 5:49:19 PM , Rating: 1
I have seen many AMD computers that took less electricity to run at full load than what an Intel computer takes just to idle.


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By phaxmohdem on 5/15/2006 3:14:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Business machines sit idle 95% of the time


Kinda makes you wonder what the employee is doing :P


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Samus on 5/13/2006 5:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I do run a business, and all of my equipment is Athlon-based (all of the retail equipment is Compaq- based on ATI R200 chipsets) and I am successful because the equipment works quickly, flawlessly, and WAS significantly less expensive than Dell's. Dell charges $150 just to upgrade to Windows XP Professional, making your Dell/HP comparison flawed, because through CDW, I picked up 4 simularly equiped systems (80GB drives and 1GB memory) about 6 months ago for $800 with 17" LCD's and XP Pro.

Also don't forget a 3 year factory warranty, something Dell charges $150-200 for also. And forget about Dell Gold Support...


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By rrsurfer1 on 5/12/2006 4:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
We're talking servers genius, not desktop PCs. If you compare HP's AMD Opterons to the Intel Xeon you'll see HP beating out Dell. Not only that, but as someone who works around over 200 of the things, I MUCH prefer the quiet AlphaServer we have with Opterons to the jet-engine like sound (and energy usage) of the BladeServer with Xeons.


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Phynaz on 5/12/2006 4:16:20 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe you're talking servers, but the article isn't.

Now who's the genius?


By AllYourBaseAreBelong2Us on 5/12/2006 4:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about Price/Profit advantage. Got it?


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Griswold on 5/12/2006 4:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
We knew you would conveniently drop the profit part of his statement.


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Phynaz on 5/12/2006 4:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
Your ignorance is staggering.

Dell makes more profit on PCs than HP does.



By AllYourBaseAreBelong2Us on 5/12/2006 5:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not for long.


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By condensed1 on 5/12/2006 5:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
The HP savings comes in the form of HP Big Deal Pricing

i get that for 500 bucks

PZ587UA
HP Compaq Business Desktop dx5150 - SFF - 1 x Athlon 64 3500+ / 2.2 GHz - RAM 512 MB - HD 1 x 80 GB - CD-RW - Gigabit Ethernet - Win XP Pro - Monitor : none


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Viditor on 5/13/2006 9:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where's that AMD price advantage again?


1. Those are very low volume business machines, most are Semprons and Celerons.

2. As most large companies buy business machines in the 10's of thousands, if you do the math (as I guarantee you any competent businessman would do) you will see the price difference. 10k machines x 8 hours x 50w/hour x $.10/kwhr = $20,000 savings/year. The savings for their servers will be much greater.

3. Energy prices are doing nothing but escalating, so planning forward the cost differential becomes even greater (not to mention that lower power parts tend to last longer)

4. The question for anyone with business sense is "why would you the chip that uses more power?"...brand loyalty in the face of practicality is a concept of the distant past.

5. What most are saying (and this is the REAL reason) is that Dell service has become atrocious and HP has gotten better. This represnts a HUGE savings to companies!

So let's compare apples to apples...an HP AMD system to an HP Intel system...

HP dx5150
Athlon 64 3000+
256 MB DDR 400
CDRom
Windows XP Pro
3 year parts/labour on-site warranty
$499

HP dx5100
P4 2.8 GHz
Same specs as the dx5150
$649


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Questar on 5/13/2006 1:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
"why would you the chip that uses more power?"...brand loyalty in the face of practicality is a concept of the distant past.

You should tell that HP. They use their Intel systems internaly, not their AMD systems.

Not exactly a ringing endorsment for AMD.


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Viditor on 5/13/2006 9:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They use their Intel systems internaly, not their AMD systems

And you know this how?


RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Questar on 5/14/2006 11:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you know this how?


Because the company I work for is such a large customer of HP. Magazine articles have been written about our relationship. We have recieved industry awards.

Because HP opened a facility that serves just my company. That facility has only Intel based systems in it.

Because I make annual trips to HP Houston and Colorado, and those facilities only have Intel based systems installed (except for labs, of course).



RE: PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
By Viditor on 5/14/2006 12:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because I make annual trips to HP Houston and Colorado, and those facilities only have Intel based systems installed (except for labs, of course).

Interesting...and the HP center in Fort Collins (at least the one my friends work in) has at least a few AMD systems (which I know because that's what they are working on...).
But of course you are presenting an anecdotal guess here...
I do know for a fact that HP is not exclusively Intel (CSU at Fort Collins is my Alma Mater and many of my friends are there), but I don't know what percentage is Intel and what is AMD. As AMD is a relatively recent acquisition for HP, I would guess that the buld of their systems are indeed Intel...but I still fail to see your point.


Intel power consuption and the future...
By irev210 on 5/12/2006 4:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
While performance on a basic business Dell P4 3.0Ghz system is about 130 watts full load and 70 watts idle, the power usage isnt a huge deal.

On price, intel just owns.

On performance, amd just owns.

However, that is just right now. Though Intel has a tough battle on their hands in the server market. I'd look a little more to the future, not so much in the past.




By fic2 on 5/12/2006 5:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, for 1 pc it doesn't really matter, but if your company has 1000 pcs the energy savings can be pretty huge. I believe Anandtech ran a power article - AMD PCs at full load used about as much energy as Intel PCs at idle.


Spelling error
By mosesa5050 on 5/12/2006 4:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

HP claims that is is nabbing Dell's large business customers


don't u mean claims that it is nabbing?




too much focus on AMD
By raildogg on 5/12/2006 9:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest, this is not about AMD but rather about peoples perception of Dell's outsourcing and other factors. It was only time that Dell cooled off a bit and only time before HP/Compaq bounced back a bit. Dell still has major advantages over them and their reliability, according to statistics is superior to HP/Compaq.

The majority of people out there don't care about AMD and are perfectly happy with the value priced Intel dual core systems or Intel single core systems. Dell possibly has a cost advantage over HP by sticking with only one chip manufacturer rather than two. Of course, this may also be a disadvantage when Intel charges more.




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki