DELL - Dell Inc.

[Guest valueInv]

It looks to me like corporate users will continue to upgrade to Win 7, as DELL has been saying all along.  Win 8 devices like Surface will be aimed at getting consumers on board the Windows ecosystem, and we might see Win 8 upgrades in business after the kinks have been worked out with the new UI, and after people have gotten to play around with it and get used to the changes. 

 

The reports of the OEMs' deaths are greatly exaggerated.

 

1, Surface RT may be targeted at consumers. But it is "consumer" devices like the iPad that people are taking to work and that are eating into PC marketshare. That's why its called BYOD.

2, The Intel version of Surface is clearly not targeted at consumers. It is a premium device with the ability to run existing Windows applications. It is clearly targeted at the workplace.

[Guest valueInv]

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/netapp/2012/10/11/windows-8-release-date-tablet-microsoft-cloud/2/

 

$1.5B marketing budget and all the ads I have seen are showing Surface devices.

 

http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/16/microsoft-surface-production-numbers-q4/

 

Up to 5M devices ordered. To put things in perspective, Apple is rumored to have ordered 10M iPad minis.

 

 

Anybody still think that these are "reference" devices?

[ERICOPOLY]

 

Anybody still think that these are "reference" devices?

 

I would have purchased my laptop directly from Microsoft if they would only offer it -- so much easier than wiping the machine and installing a clean OS on top.  (to eliminate the software loaded by HP/DELL).

 

I wonder if there are antitrust problems with their shipping their own PC, whereas the tablet market is perhaps considered to be (from a legal viewpoint) a new and totally different market from PCs.

[txlaw]

It looks to me like corporate users will continue to upgrade to Win 7, as DELL has been saying all along.  Win 8 devices like Surface will be aimed at getting consumers on board the Windows ecosystem, and we might see Win 8 upgrades in business after the kinks have been worked out with the new UI, and after people have gotten to play around with it and get used to the changes. 

 

The reports of the OEMs' deaths are greatly exaggerated.

 

1, Surface RT may be targeted at consumers. But it is "consumer" devices like the iPad that people are taking to work and that are eating into PC marketshare. That's why its called BYOD.

2, The Intel version of Surface is clearly not targeted at consumers. It is a premium device with the ability to run existing Windows applications. It is clearly targeted at the workplace.

 

1.  Duh.  This is just a dig at MSFT and a pumping of AAPL, as per usual.

2.  True.  But look at what the pricing will be for this.  Again, the death of the OEMs is exaggerated.

[txlaw]

Anybody still think that these are "reference" devices?

 

"Reference device" is the wrong term. 

 

Surface is intended to get anyone who wants a tablet solution (ideally, one could use the tablet for both work and play) into the Windows ecosystem.  Period.

[Guest valueInv]

There is a clear message here:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-surface-ad-2012-10

 

MSFT is going big with Surface RT. They probably will when they release Surface Windows Pro also.

[Guest valueInv]

1.  Duh.  This is just a dig at MSFT and a pumping of AAPL, as per usual.

It is a fact.

 

2.  True.  But look at what the pricing will be for this.  Again, the death of the OEMs is exaggerated.

 

Dell is welcome to undercut Surface with lower prices and margins. I'm sure that will be a great business for them  ;)

[txlaw]

1.  Duh.  This is just a dig at MSFT and a pumping of AAPL, as per usual.

It is a fact.

 

I agree, but it was almost a non sequitur given that we were talking about whether Surface meant that OEMs are being thrown under the bus. 

 

And I take back that comment about your pumping AAPL.  That was a bit overboard.

 

2.  True.  But look at what the pricing will be for this.  Again, the death of the OEMs is exaggerated.

 

Dell is welcome to undercut Surface with lower prices and margins. I'm sure that will be a great business for them  ;)

 

All OEMs will undercut Surface pricing.  After all, Surface is a high end device targeted at consumers.  Businesses don't typically go with the premium device.

 

In any case, the EUC biz is not the major focus for any DELL investors.

[Guest valueInv]

1.  Duh.  This is just a dig at MSFT and a pumping of AAPL, as per usual.

It is a fact.

 

I agree, but it was almost a non sequitur given that we were talking about whether Surface meant that OEMs are being thrown under the bus. 

 

And I take back that comment about your pumping AAPL.  That was a bit overboard.

 

This was in response to your comment saying that Surface RT is targeted only at consumers. Since consumers (and enterprises) are buying there devices for the work place (even though they are not targeted for it), it seems to be less relevant what they are targeted for. In other words, if Surface RT gets traction, expect people to be using it at the work place and expect it to cut into the sales of OEMs.

 

Why do you think RIM is introducing one phone with both "consumer" and "work" modes? 

[txlaw]

1.  Duh.  This is just a dig at MSFT and a pumping of AAPL, as per usual.

It is a fact.

 

I agree, but it was almost a non sequitur given that we were talking about whether Surface meant that OEMs are being thrown under the bus. 

 

And I take back that comment about your pumping AAPL.  That was a bit overboard.

 

This was in response to your comment saying that Surface RT is targeted only at consumers. Since consumers (and enterprises) are buying there devices for the work place (even though they are not targeted for it), it seems to be less relevant what they are targeted for. In other words, if Surface RT gets traction, expect people to be using it at the work place and expect it to cut into the sales of OEMs.

 

Why do you think RIM is introducing one phone with both "consumer" and "work" modes?

 

But you're talking about cutting into sales that are non-exist.  As everyone knows, it is an iPad market -- for now. 

 

My assumption is that Surface sales do not cannibalize OEM sales to business of non-tablet devices.  In other words, tablet sales for dual purposes (content consumption and actual productivity) will be in addition to sales of desktops and laptops.

[VAL9000]

But you're talking about cutting into sales that are non-exist.  As everyone knows, it is an iPad market -- for now. 

 

My assumption is that Surface sales do not cannibalize OEM sales to business of non-tablet devices.  In other words, tablet sales for dual purposes (content consumption and actual productivity) will be in addition to sales of desktops and laptops.

 

I disagree there..  A tablet that has dual purpose would probably displace traditional laptop sales.  It would start typically - smaller shops without established IT processes, but would grow steadily if the model proves out.

 

But really we should recenter the debate.  This isn't about Surface vs. OEMs.  It's about Surface vs. iPad and the Dell thread isn't really the place for this conversation.  If Surface is successful then it will be an excellent model for Dell et al. to implement.  If it's unsuccessful, then Dell isn't impacted.

 

[txlaw]

But you're talking about cutting into sales that are non-exist.  As everyone knows, it is an iPad market -- for now. 

 

My assumption is that Surface sales do not cannibalize OEM sales to business of non-tablet devices.  In other words, tablet sales for dual purposes (content consumption and actual productivity) will be in addition to sales of desktops and laptops.

 

I disagree there..  A tablet that has dual purpose would probably displace traditional laptop sales.  It would start typically - smaller shops without established IT processes, but would grow steadily if the model proves out.

 

But really we should recenter the debate.  This isn't about Surface vs. OEMs.  It's about Surface vs. iPad and the Dell thread isn't really the place for this conversation.  If Surface is successful then it will be an excellent model for Dell et al. to implement.  If it's unsuccessful, then Dell isn't impacted.

 

You're right.  That was an overstatement on my part. 

 

What I ought to have said is that Surface sales in particular -- not Win 8 tablet sales, generally, or other hybrid tablets sales -- won't cannibalize the sales of desktops and laptops.  In other words, I don't expect most businesses to replace their laptops and desktops with Surface, at least right now, especially since OEMs are coming out with their own versions of theses hybrid devices that use Win 8 and that are cheaper. 

 

And over time, I agree with you that a hybrid tablet device will essentially become the laptop -- and maybe even the desktop given a powerful enough processor and a nice docking station. 

 

However, I don't think we can re-center the debate because ValueInv is correct that BYOD policies instituted by business pose the threat that the big OEM's revenue associated with selling EUC devices to businesses will deteriorate over time. 

 

IMO, though, MSFT is not gonna be the one who tries to kill the big OEMs because that would be catastrophic for their ecosystem.  Business is their bread and butter right now, and if they throw their big channel partners under the bus, then they can kiss their market share goodbye.  And Surface, IMO, not a good example of MSFT trying to cut out the OEMs.

[txlaw]

Or to put it another way, there's two issues we have to talk about here:

 

1.  Will BYOD and the consumerization of IT affect the big OEM's sales of EUC devices to business?

 

2.  Is MSFT changing its strategy -- evidenced by the release of Surface -- such that it is trying to cut OEMs out as middlemen?

 

The answer to the first question, IMO, is yes.  I view this as inevitable over time, and that's one reason why you see DELL buying companies like Wyse and focusing on cloud computing and virtualization, in addition to their other businesses.

 

The answer to the second question, IMO, is yes and no.  Over time, I think MSFT and the HPQs, DELLs, and IBMs of the world part and go their separate ways, with MSFT solutions being less tied to those particular channel partners.  However, I don't think MSFT wants to cut those guys out anytime soon, or they will rapidly lose market share to rising competitors such as Apple and Google.  The OEMs that focus solely on devices could very well get thrown under the bus by MSFT (see possibly NOK). 

 

 

[VAL9000]

However, I don't think we can re-center the debate because ValueInv is correct that BYOD policies instituted by business pose the threat that the big OEM's revenue associated with selling EUC devices to businesses will deteriorate over time. 

 

Ok fair enough, the BYOD thing is important...  but I would see this as being business driven not consumer driven over time.  e.g. the business will give an employee a Surface to work off of and they will use it for surfing the web at home.  Versus the employee will show up with a Surface and expect the business' applications to work correctly.  The business has a lot more to lose taking on foreign/non-spec hardware than the consumer.  So I think the OEM channel will mostly remain unaffected by this.

 

 

IMO, though, MSFT is not gonna be the one who tries to kill the big OEMs because that would be catastrophic for their ecosystem.  Business is their bread and butter right now, and if they throw their big channel partners under the bus, then they can kiss their market share goodbye.  And Surface, IMO, not a good example of MSFT trying to cut out the OEMs.

 

Fully agree on this.  They're leaving all of the legacy channels completely untouched and they're giving their partners "market proof" that a Windows 8 tablet can work.  One way to look at it is that Apple has "split off" the Consumer PC market from the Business PC market..  now OEMs are losing lots of PC sales to Apple's Mac and iPad products.  Windows 8 + Surface are squarely aimed at these Apple products.  If successful, Dell and other OEMs could easily get behind this model and win back market share from Apple.  If unsuccessful, they will not lose anything more than what they were already losing.  The thing is, Dell should be rooting for Surface to be a success.  With Surface, there is a path to revenue.  Whereas without it, the iPad will continue to bleed their sales.

 

 

[Guest valueInv]

However, I don't think MSFT wants to cut those guys out anytime soon, or they will rapidly lose market share to rising competitors such as Apple and Google.  The OEMs that focus solely on devices could very well get thrown under the bus by MSFT (see possibly NOK).

 

Think again:

 

http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/16/microsoft-storsimple/

[txlaw]

However, I don't think MSFT wants to cut those guys out anytime soon, or they will rapidly lose market share to rising competitors such as Apple and Google.  The OEMs that focus solely on devices could very well get thrown under the bus by MSFT (see possibly NOK).

 

Think again:

 

http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/16/microsoft-storsimple/

 

As usual, you have left out key parts of what I've said to try to make a point that is unsupported.  The full statement I made was this:

 

Over time, I think MSFT and the HPQs, DELLs, and IBMs of the world part and go their separate ways, with MSFT solutions being less tied to those particular channel partners.  However, I don't think MSFT wants to cut those guys out anytime soon, or they will rapidly lose market share to rising competitors such as Apple and Google.

 

You know how DELL has been selling OpenStack-powered solutions?  Perfect example of how they are divorcing themselves from MSFT over the long run.  So it doesn't surprise me that MSFT bought StorSimple.

 

As for EUC devices, MSFT isn't going to totally cut the OEMs out anytime soon.

[Guest valueInv]

However, I don't think MSFT wants to cut those guys out anytime soon, or they will rapidly lose market share to rising competitors such as Apple and Google.  The OEMs that focus solely on devices could very well get thrown under the bus by MSFT (see possibly NOK).

 

Think again:

 

http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/16/microsoft-storsimple/

 

As usual, you have left out key parts of what I've said to try to make a point that is unsupported.  The full statement I made was this:

 

Over time, I think MSFT and the HPQs, DELLs, and IBMs of the world part and go their separate ways, with MSFT solutions being less tied to those particular channel partners.  However, I don't think MSFT wants to cut those guys out anytime soon, or they will rapidly lose market share to rising competitors such as Apple and Google.

 

You know how DELL has been selling OpenStack-powered solutions?  Perfect example of how they are divorcing themselves from MSFT over the long run.  So it doesn't surprise me that MSFT bought StorSimple.

 

As for EUC devices, MSFT isn't going to totally cut the OEMs out anytime soon.

"Anytime soon"?- Its already happening. MSFT will not cut OEMs out, it will compete with them. It will use the tools it has to make it hard for OEMs to compete - features, timing, etc. They hold the cards in many markets and they know it. They know they can release Surface and still ask Dell, Lenovo and Acer to release Windows 8 devices and support their ecosystem. Thats because the likes of Dell don't have a choice. They released Android devices and failed, very few people want Linux laptops or desktops, etc.

 

MSFT is not only competing EUC, they are also competing in ES&S. StorSimple is an example. MSFT will offer Office 365 hosting, Exchange hosting, etc. Businesses that Dell wants to get into but in which MSFT holds the cards.  You talked about Dell focusing on SMB. Guess where MSFT is strongest in?

[txlaw]

However, I don't think MSFT wants to cut those guys out anytime soon, or they will rapidly lose market share to rising competitors such as Apple and Google.  The OEMs that focus solely on devices could very well get thrown under the bus by MSFT (see possibly NOK).

 

Think again:

 

http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/16/microsoft-storsimple/

 

As usual, you have left out key parts of what I've said to try to make a point that is unsupported.  The full statement I made was this:

 

Over time, I think MSFT and the HPQs, DELLs, and IBMs of the world part and go their separate ways, with MSFT solutions being less tied to those particular channel partners.  However, I don't think MSFT wants to cut those guys out anytime soon, or they will rapidly lose market share to rising competitors such as Apple and Google.

 

You know how DELL has been selling OpenStack-powered solutions?  Perfect example of how they are divorcing themselves from MSFT over the long run.  So it doesn't surprise me that MSFT bought StorSimple.

 

As for EUC devices, MSFT isn't going to totally cut the OEMs out anytime soon.

"Anytime soon"?- Its already happening. MSFT will not cut OEMs out, it will compete with them. It will use the tools it has to make it hard for OEMs to compete - features, timing, etc. They hold the cards in many markets and they know it. They know they can release Surface and still ask Dell, Lenovo and Acer to release Windows 8 devices and support their ecosystem. Thats because the likes of Dell don't have a choice. They released Android devices and failed, very few people want Linux laptops or desktops, etc.

 

MSFT is not only competing EUC, they are also competing in ES&S. StorSimple is an example. MSFT will offer Office 365 hosting, Exchange hosting, etc. Businesses that Dell wants to get into but in which MSFT holds the cards.  You talked about Dell focusing on SMB. Guess where MSFT is strongest in?

 

My key words: "I don't think MSFT wants to cut those guys out anytime soon."

 

Yeah, I guess I'm just gonna have to get used to you continuing to misquote me. ;)

 

ValueInv: "MSFT will not cut OEMs out, it will compete with them." 

 

Compete with them for client devices?  Why?

 

Sorry but MSFT doesn't hold the cards.  That's a key point.  If MSFT decides to cut an IBM, DELL, or HPQ out of the picture anytime soon, they will face the prospect of declining market share because those guys will dump MSFT as soon as competing solutions are available.  You are quick to throw Android, Linux, and other alternatives out (but not Apple, of course), but just wait -- those guys may surprise you going forward.  And don't forget about the future prospects of thin client computing (don't just focus on the past) and DaaS, which may make the need for devices from a MSFT irrelevant.  Really, all MSFT cares about is selling the OS.  If the big OEMs can successfully get Windows to remain successful in biz, MSFT is not going to go out of its way to also be a hardware company.

 

We were talking about EUC, of course, but if you want to talk about ES&S, I agree that MSFT will try to compete there.  But, again, MSFT doesn't hold all the cards in this space.  Why do you think they bought StorSimple?  It's because they are worried that the tech solution providers will dump Azure and focus on solutions like OpenStack.

[Guest valueInv]

 

My key words: "I don't think MSFT wants to cut those guys out anytime soon."

 

Yeah, I guess I'm just gonna have to get used to you continuing to misquote me. ;)

 

Nobody is misquoting you. What you posted is being cut and pasted. I am simply showing which point of yours I am responding to. 

 

Compete with them for client devices?  Why?

Good question for Steve Ballmer. I think it is because he is going where the value is. They know they are probably not going to make much money trying to convince OEMs to pay them money for an OS while Google is offering it to them for free. Certainly Motorola is not going to take them up on it. HTC and Sony Ericsson are already losing money and they are going to lose more money if they have to pay for the OS. Samsung has bigger bargaining power than MSFT and pretty much dictates the Android market.  Nokia is not getting much traction. So MSFT is pretty much not going to see much money from mobile vendors. HP still is far away from a smartphone.

 

On the tablet side Acer is already working with Google and would rather have higher margins than pay for the OS. Lenovo is favorable. Dell is getting out of the EUC business. HP may go with its own OS Sure everyone is hedging their bets with Windows 8 but MSFT knows it can't dictate terms and pricing the way it used to.

 

Sorry but MSFT doesn't hold the cards.  That's a key point.  If MSFT decides to cut an IBM, DELL, or HPQ out of the picture anytime soon, they will face the prospect of declining market share because those guys will dump MSFT as soon as competing solutions are available.

They are already facing declining marketshare and some OEMs have already gone with Android. Others who have failed in Android (like Dell) have little choice but to stick with MSFT no matter what.

 

  You are quick to throw Android, Linux, and other alternatives out (but not Apple, of course), but just wait -- those guys may surprise you going forward.  And don't forget about the future prospects of thin client computing (don't just focus on the past) and DaaS, which may make the need for devices from a MSFT irrelevant.  Really, all MSFT cares about is selling the OS.  If the big OEMs can successfully get Windows to remain successful in biz, MSFT is not going to go out of its way to also be a hardware company.

 

I would be surprised, especially since I have worked with a major Linux vendor to bring Linux to the desktop. It failed miserably.

And in case you haven't figured it out - the tablet is a mobile thin client. For enterprises, they would be a step back now that tablets offer many of the advantages of thin clients and much more.  I am looking at the history of static thin clients that you mention and they have failed again and again. Now that tablet adoption is already underway, few enterprises will choose traditional thin clients. I am looking at the future prospects of thin client computing and the writing on the wall is very clear - tablets

 

 

[Palantir]

Assuming by thin clients you mean VDI, do you see a better future for app virtualization on the tablet?

[txlaw]

Compete with them for client devices?  Why?

Good question for Steve Ballmer. I think it is because he is going where the value is. They know they are probably not going to make much money trying to convince OEMs to pay them money for an OS while Google is offering it to them for free. Certainly Motorola is not going to take them up on it. HTC and Sony Ericsson are already losing money and they are going to lose more money if they have to pay for the OS. Samsung has bigger bargaining power than MSFT and pretty much dictates the Android market.  Nokia is not getting much traction. So MSFT is pretty much not going to see much money from mobile vendors. HP still is far away from a smartphone.

 

On the tablet side Acer is already working with Google and would rather have higher margins than pay for the OS. Lenovo is favorable. Dell is getting out of the EUC business. HP may go with its own OS Sure everyone is hedging their bets with Windows 8 but MSFT knows it can't dictate terms and pricing the way it used to.

 

Well, at least we can agree that MSFT doesn't hold all the cards.

 

I think that the up front payment model for the MSFT OS is going to change.  I think MSFT will have to switch to more of a subscription model that includes services in addition to software.  This could also affect AAPL's business model going forward.  Android is partly to blame for this.

 

Given that view, it doesn't necessarily make sense to have a huge focus on client hardware, especially in light of a thin client/desktop as a service (DaaS) model for the business place.  MSFT will be perfectly happy to see thin client computing, so long as the OS running on the servers is Windows and that's being paid for. 

 

In the tablet sphere, the focus is really to get people onto the Windows OS and ecosystem, and I see no reason why MSFT would want to cut OEMs out of the picture if they can simply have a multitude of hardware vendors to cover all the potential customers out there. 

 

The key point is that the value is in the OS, not the hardware.  Yes, bundling the OS with cutting edge hardware is very helpful to selling the OS, but as the innovation gap closes, hardware will become less and less important.

 

Sorry but MSFT doesn't hold the cards.  That's a key point.  If MSFT decides to cut an IBM, DELL, or HPQ out of the picture anytime soon, they will face the prospect of declining market share because those guys will dump MSFT as soon as competing solutions are available.

They are already facing declining marketshare and some OEMs have already gone with Android. Others who have failed in Android (like Dell) have little choice but to stick with MSFT no matter what.

 

Some OEMs have gone with Android, but most have stuck with MSFT because of the MSFT market position.  None of the big OEMs who focus on ES&S have seriously tried to bring an Android device to market

 

And in case you haven't figured out, MSFT and DELL have historically been joined at the hip.  Only now are they starting to separate.

 

  You are quick to throw Android, Linux, and other alternatives out (but not Apple, of course), but just wait -- those guys may surprise you going forward.  And don't forget about the future prospects of thin client computing (don't just focus on the past) and DaaS, which may make the need for devices from a MSFT irrelevant.  Really, all MSFT cares about is selling the OS.  If the big OEMs can successfully get Windows to remain successful in biz, MSFT is not going to go out of its way to also be a hardware company.

 

I would be surprised, especially since I have worked with a major Linux vendor to bring Linux to the desktop. It failed miserably.

And in case you haven't figured it out - the tablet is a mobile thin client. For enterprises, they would be a step back now that tablets offer many of the advantages of thin clients and much more.  I am looking at the history of static thin clients that you mention and they have failed again and again. Now that tablet adoption is already underway, few enterprises will choose traditional thin clients. I am looking at the future prospects of thin client computing and the writing on the wall is very clear - tablets

 

Your definition of thin clients is way off.  Current tablets in the market are NOT mobile thin clients.  I would never describe an iOS, Android, or Win 8 device as a thin client.  A B2G or ChromeOS device, perhaps.

 

The problem is you're looking in the rear view mirror.  Thin clients will primarily be used in the office environment at first.  They will be desktop/laptop replacements.  This will be successful because of desktop virtualization and DaaS offerings.  Tablets probably will be less "thin" for a while because of connectivity/latency issues.  But even that could change over time with the transition to the web as platform, which I concede will take a while.

 

Remember how when Surface first came out, VAL and I argued that MSFT wasn't successful in the past with tablets because there was no need for tablets in the past but that the time now was ripe for MSFT to join the fray?  The same holds true for thin clients.  The fundamental and rapid shift to cloud computing (public and private) means that there will finally be a reason to have thin clients in business.

 

As for Linux, I can't say that it will necessarily gain traction, especially if MSFT, GOOG, and AAPL can offer value propositions that make it worth paying for their OS's.

[racemize]

I think valueInv's point on mobile devices as thin clients isn't how they compare today, but where we will be in a while.  The mobile devices we are carrying around now are becoming very powerful and should continue to do so.  It seems quite plausible that we might not need desktops or computers at all--just dock your phone/tablet and sit down at home or at work. 

 

Now how they reconcile the mobile/desktop OS is interesting--this is probably why MS is trying to make them the same, but that seems like a poor idea to me. 

[txlaw]

I think valueInv's point on mobile devices as thin clients isn't how they compare today, but where we will be in a while.  The mobile devices we are carrying around now are becoming very powerful and should continue to do so.  It seems quite plausible that we might not need desktops or computers at all--just dock your phone/tablet and sit down at home or at work. 

 

Now how they reconcile the mobile/desktop OS is interesting--this is probably why MS is trying to make them the same, but that seems like a poor idea to me.

 

Increased power and more complicated OS's on mobile computing devices is the opposite of thin client computing.  You can't call current tablets thin clients -- that's what I'm telling you and ValueInv.

 

Furthermore, ValueInv specifically talked about mobile computing, without reference to docking or the replacement of desktop/laptop setups.  In fact, when I made the point on another thread that future Intel-based Surface devices could be docked at work, potentially replacing desktops or laptops, he ignored that possibility -- until now when it comes to talking about DELL.  I acknowledged above, in response to VAL's post, that this would be a threat.

 

What I'm really saying is that we can go even further in reducing the complexity of the OS layer that's running locally.  There won't necessarily be a need to run full-fledged Windows or OSX locally for most people.  And even iOS and Android may be more than what is needed.  That's what ChromeOS and B2G are all about.  That's what DaaS is all about. 

 

I can imagine a scenario where for the office, most of the computing power and the major functionality of the OS resides on servers.  And then where connectivity and latency is an issue, such as with mobile devices, you will have light OS's locally (e.g., iOS or Android) and maybe even ultralight OS's (e.g, ChromeOS and B2G), which will work in concert with the more complex functionality that exists in the cloud.  In a world with zero latency, truly thin clients become more of a reality. 

 

And if all the value is in OS functionality that exists in the cloud and the software and services that go along with that, you don't necessarily need to bundle your OS with hardware.  You just need to make sure that your OS and ecosystem is adopted by consumers and business.  DELL, HPQ, and IBM are preparing for these possibilities.  And so is MSFT.  These companies are not going to implement strategies that endanger their business in the future by completely destroying relationships all at once that could be mutually beneficial.  Remember, MSFT also sells office apps and communications apps (Skype and Lync).

 

Therefore, it's premature to say that OEMs are dead and MSFT will completely cut them out.  Only AAPL, who has less solid relationships and who is more than willing to throw hardware partners under the bus, is likely to take this strategy.

[alwaysinvert]

Would there be much point in making high-end laptops without detachable touchscreens in the future (providing it could be made cost-effective with varying screen sizes)? Those markets merging seems very probable to me and if people is going to own both a laptop and a tablet anyway, the pricing would have to be very high for it not to make sense to buy it combined.

 

If this is going to happen within the next few years, the Ipads lock on the tablet market is certainly up for grabs. Especially if the workplace is going to be the key driver like txlaw is speculating.

[racemize]

my apologies, I was not thinking of thin clients properly (e.g., was more thinking "simple" rather than the proper distributed computing definitions).  I like your thoughts on actually using them as thin clients, e.g., install a "work" app that let's you start using your work cloud and provide the interface to a docked display.  Seems like a much better solution than the full OS on mobile (e.g., windows 8) or dual OS mechanisms.

 

On the other hand, I'd like to think it would also work for home applications (e.g., say you want a to play a game or some other application).  In those cases, you are stuck with local processing, unless we go super cloud services for personal use.  Maybe the games/personal apps will just be executable on a lightweight OS with external devices though.  On the other hand, perhaps hi-end applications will always be stuck on a dedicated PC.

 

In any event, I'm just speculating and don't have particular thoughts on DELL other than the potential for personal/workstation PCs to decline based on the above.  I have enjoyed your posts and discussion here.