You can't properly describe it as something that Apple can't touch, when Apple has no interest in doing it at all. Saying that they can't touch it implies that they've been working hard at it, but are not doing well. Apples servers were for small businesses and apple oriented media firms. They decided it wasn't worth their interest, so they got out of it.
People I know at large companies have said that Apple could have done well if they stopped insisting that the only servers they would make were one space models, and refusing to make blades.
Servers aren't the only thing Dell provides to its enterprise customers.
And dismissing that as irrelevant because Apple chooses not to compete there is a circular argument. Apple made that decision after seeing they couldn't get a foothold. Apple clearly wanted to compete in the enterprise market with their XServe and OS X Server, but obviously didn't have their heart in it or understand their customers' needs.
Dell does understand that market and they serve it every bit as well as Apple serves the home user. That fact doesn't make for attention-grabbing headlines however so most people wouldn't be aware of it.
We could argue this endlessly, but the point is, you can't pigeonhole Dell solely a maker of cheap PCs as was previously done. They are much, much more than that.
Many of the posters here seem to react more emotionally to this than logically. Nice or not, webOS was not selling in huge volumes. Consumer products have razor thin margins and volume is key!
HP correctly dumped a part of its business that was going nowhere, including PCs etc.
They are re-focusing their business on low volume, high margin items like datacenter and services. If Cisco had done that earlier they'd not be in the mess they are today.
Yup! Cisco made several mistakes trying to break into the consumer marketplace. Sometimes very successful companies get Hubris, and think they can be successful everywhere. Occasionally, they are right, more often, they are wrong.
if Cisco kept to their roots, other networking companies might not be overtaking them now, and their stock wouldn't have fallen so much. They may see a new CEO before too long.
I think the problem is that webOS wasn't even selling in SMALL volumes...
Some of the coverage in The Register for the Best Buy fiasco reports July sales figures in the UK for the TouchPad in the region of 12000.... and for the first week of August - 100.
I was always a big fan of Palm - I've owned several of their PDAs in the past - but they blew it with the original Pre, and when they went belly up HP was never the right company to try and pick up the pieces and carry on with webOS.
As sad as it is to see what is generally a pretty decent OS (albeit still incomplete and on fairly crappy hardware regards the TouchPad!), HP are right to stop throwing money at something that is never going to work and cut their losses before it's too late.
I sure hope the people who bought one kept the receipt....
Heh, even worse, when the Pre first came to the UK, it sold 300 units in the first month.
this is way too extreme a viewpoint. the same problems apply to any possible mobile OS other than iOS and Android right now. even Windows Phone, certainly Bada and QNX. and Symbian was abandoned because it was just too technically limited to be used for next generation products.
No it's not. It the truth. It's dead and gone. It was dead and gone before Palm was acquired by HP. WP7 has MS behind it, which means that they will be pouring money after it for a long time. It might catch on after a while to be the third most popular OS.
Quote:
and no, WebOS was not "despised" by anyone, that is way over the top. actually, people who tried it liked it. but the complete package just wasn't there to support buying it.
Ok, despised was too strong a word. I meant that they avoided it in droves. It never had a chance. It has even less than no chance now.
Quote:
HP is giving up because WebOS was Hurd's big initiative, and he's gone. the new guy has a very different strategic direction and no commitment to mobile or even hardware, let alone his predecessor's bright ideas. so whack! that's how corporations work.
I think that is too strong a statement. I doubt that Hurd being the one who bought it has anything to do with it. If it did, it would have been discontinued before. It's very simple. It's costing HP vast amounts of money. It is money they will never see again. Better cut and run than throw more money away.
I did mention that their moving away from consumer products had something to do with this, but if it were selling well, they would have kept it, and moved the focus towards business, where the iPad is having a boisterous success.
[quote
yes, WebOS certainly needs to be filled out with the range of popular apps at least. but several big OEM's could take that on. and some will bring much more established global smartphone market presence to the effort than HP and Palm could, another reason they both flopped.
and the reason i think one or more will is because they HAVE to. not because they want to. but because depending on Google from now on is potential market suicide for all of them. even if just to retain some leverage in dealing with Google, they need to have some alternative in the works. and also just in case the whole Android edifice falls apart or is badly damaged next year as an outcome of all the litigation.
let's see who picks up WebOS from here before we jump to conclusions that it's "doomed."
now your writing like an analyst. They look at what companies should, could and would do, and come up with some expectation of success based on that. But they don't take the preferences of the customer into account. That why they, and many companies fail so often.
It doesn't matter what a company may do to, or for WebOS, the consumer has given an answer to it already, and that answer is that they don't want this.
Now your making too many assumptions about Android. We don't yet know if any of that will come true. Android has a vastly better chance of surviving than WebOS does.
Servers aren't the only thing Dell provides to its enterprise customers.
And dismissing that as irrelevant because Apple chooses not to compete there is a circular argument. Apple made that decision after seeing they couldn't get a foothold. Apple clearly wanted to compete in the enterprise market with their XServe and OS X Server, but obviously didn't have their heart in it or understand their customers' needs.
Dell does understand that market and they serve it every bit as well as Apple serves the home user. That fact doesn't make for attention-grabbing headlines however so most people wouldn't be aware of it.
We could argue this endlessly, but the point is, you can't pigeonhole Dell solely a maker of cheap PCs as was previously done. They are much, much more than that.
It's not a circular argument. You're making the circular argument. If a company isn't competing in a space, you can't say that they can't do as well there as some other who is.
When Jobs returned in 1997, one of the first questions he was asked in the press conference was whether they would return to the enterprise. His response?
"The enterprise is not our customer."
Interestingly, despite that, enterprise adoption of Apple hardware was up almost. 600% last year.
They want to go into the software business? If that's the case then why did they keep Microsoft around so long? They just bought Palm. That was a software business. Why sell Palm with Web OS and hope that their new acquisition can become profitable? With some good work on the Web OS and hardware, HP could have and would have been a strong number two in the tablet business.
I was counting on HP to become a tablet giant. Instead they've thrown in the towel early. This is a sign of poor leadership. The CEO should be thrown out, not the hardware business.
I'll miss HP hardware. Though it wasn't the best, they did have excellent customer service regarding repairing defective units. It happened to me three times. So I suppose with such a high occurrence of defects they were loosing some big money. One printer was bad and one computer was bad with defective hardware twice. HP quickly replaced each one.
It would be great if Google could buy HP and turn it into a homogeneous product using the Chrome OS for computers and tablets.
This is an opportunity for Microsoft to get into the computer hardware business. If they bought the HP PC division they could do as Apple does and create dedicated hardware for Windows in the hope that the OS would actually work better. Would that make Microsoft a stronger company? Of course they would also need to buy telephone support staff which would prove to them just how frustrating it is to use Windows.
Is there a way to run Ubuntu on the Touchpad? I know some people are running custom versions of Linux on phones. Perhaps in a few weeks we'll be able to purchase Touchpads for $99 and put a Linux distribution on them just for fun. Spending $399 to do it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
They want to go into the software business? If that's the case then why did they keep Microsoft around so long? They just bought Palm. That was a software business. Why sell Palm with Web OS and hope that their new acquisition can become profitable? With some good work on the Web OS and hardware, HP could have and would have been a strong number two in the tablet business.
I was counting on HP to become a tablet giant. Instead they've thrown in the towel early. This is a sign of poor leadership. The CEO should be thrown out, not the hardware business.
I'll miss HP hardware. Though it wasn't the best, they did have excellent customer service regarding repairing defective units. It happened to me three times. So I suppose with such a high occurrence of defects they were loosing some big money. One printer was bad and one computer was bad with defective hardware twice. HP quickly replaced each one.
It would be great if Google could buy HP and turn it into a homogeneous product using the Chrome OS for computers and tablets.
This is an opportunity for Microsoft to get into the computer hardware business. If they bought the HP PC division they could do as Apple does and create dedicated hardware for Windows in the hope that the OS would actually work better. Would that make Microsoft a stronger company? Of course they would also need to buy telephone support staff which would prove to them just how frustrating it is to use Windows.
Is there a way to run Ubuntu on the Touchpad? I know some people are running custom versions of Linux on phones. Perhaps in a few weeks we'll be able to purchase Touchpads for $99 and put a Linux distribution on them just for fun. Spending $399 to do it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Palm, like Apple was a hardware business that relied on proprietary software to differentiate their products.
Yup! Cisco made several mistakes trying to break into the consumer marketplace. Sometimes very successful companies get Hubris, and think they can be successful everywhere. Occasionally, they are right, more often, they are wrong.
if Cisco kept to their roots, other networking companies might not be overtaking them now, and their stock wouldn't have fallen so much. They may see a new CEO before too long.
Put the Flip and Pre IP together beneath a consumer products company that knows what it's doing and you might have had some interesting devices.
Put the Flip and Pre IP together beneath a consumer products company that knows what it's doing and you might have had some interesting devices.
I certainly agree about the Flip, because it showed that for a while it was pretty popular. But the Pre was never popular. I really don't think it ever had a chance.
The first week, both Palm and Sprint were bragging that it was sold out everywhere, everywhere, and that people shouldn't worry, because they would make more, and everyone who wanted on would be able to get it, and wasn't it just amazing that it was sold out everywhere?
But we found out not too much later that they had only sold 50,000 that first week. And sales went down from that dismal level. By the time that HP bought them, the company was just a shell of what it was. It's a sad situation, but I doubt that anyone could have made a difference.
Sometimes, when the people have spoken, it's time to move on. They rarely give something that they've rejected a second look.
Yup! Cisco made several mistakes trying to break into the consumer marketplace. Sometimes very successful companies get Hubris, and think they can be successful everywhere. Occasionally, they are right, more often, they are wrong.
if Cisco kept to their roots, other networking companies might not be overtaking them now, and their stock wouldn't have fallen so much. They may see a new CEO before too long.
I'm pissed with Cisco. Linksys had some great products up to just a few years ago and captured the wireless DSL and router market. It was renowned as enterprise-quality gear for the consumer. Remember this was when D-link was absolute garbage where you'd have to constantly restart the modem/router a few times a day.
Then ZTE and D-link gradually improved their quality while more and more telcos gave away OEM (eg ZTE) modem/wifi routers with their plans and "training" customers to learn to continually power cycle their routers as a "normal" activity. Couple this with Linksys missing the boat on mobile broadband devices, again bundled with telco plans, and no Cisco gear in smartphones, and... you get the picture. They never even made a 64bit driver for Vista and Wndows7 for one of their most popular PCI WiFi cards.
Game over for Cisco in the consumer space.
And can somebody remind me again why they bought Flip?
I'm pissed with Cisco. Linksys had some great products up to just a few years ago and captured the wireless DSL and router market. It was renowned as enterprise-quality gear for the consumer. Remember this was when D-link was absolute garbage where you'd have to constantly restart the modem/router a few times a day.
Then ZTE and D-link gradually improved their quality while more and more telcos gave away OEM (eg ZTE) modem/wifi routers with their plans and "training" customers to learn to continually power cycle their routers as a "normal" activity. Couple this with Linksys missing the boat on mobile broadband devices, again bundled with telco plans, and no Cisco gear in smartphones, and... you get the picture. They never even made a 64bit driver for Vista and Wndows7 for one of their most popular PCI WiFi cards.
Game over for Cisco in the consumer space.
And can somebody remind me again why they bought Flip?
I had nothing but problems with Linksys products over the years. Every one blew out in some way, including some of their commercial products.
Linksys by Cisco is heaven compared to Cisco's entry in the SoHo market with the RV220W and such. While my linksys was a good product (robust, good functionality), when I had to move to another and tried Cisco I had it returned quickly. The software was so bad it was unusable. E.g. NAT was implemented to function in 2 directions, not 1, as a result all WAN IP addresses were mapped to the same internal (router) IP. Plays havoc with a lot of stuff, e.g. DNS blacklisting measures against SPAM. That was April this year and afaik they haven't fixed it yet in Bulgaria or wherever they build that software these days.
I use DrayTek now (uptime >100 days, but software is known to be not extremely robust).
It seems not many companies in the IT space these days are full throttle on quality. Apple's iOS is decent, but OS X Server for instance is only reasonable.
Servers aren't the only thing Dell provides to its enterprise customers.
And dismissing that as irrelevant because Apple chooses not to compete there is a circular argument. Apple made that decision after seeing they couldn't get a foothold. Apple clearly wanted to compete in the enterprise market with their XServe and OS X Server, but obviously didn't have their heart in it or understand their customers' needs.
Dell does understand that market and they serve it every bit as well as Apple serves the home user. That fact doesn't make for attention-grabbing headlines however so most people wouldn't be aware of it.
We could argue this endlessly, but the point is, you can't pigeonhole Dell solely a maker of cheap PCs as was previously done. They are much, much more than that.
Dell years ago had a great reputation in the computer field.It was made I remember than in the United States and used quality parts inside.
Comments
You can't properly describe it as something that Apple can't touch, when Apple has no interest in doing it at all. Saying that they can't touch it implies that they've been working hard at it, but are not doing well. Apples servers were for small businesses and apple oriented media firms. They decided it wasn't worth their interest, so they got out of it.
People I know at large companies have said that Apple could have done well if they stopped insisting that the only servers they would make were one space models, and refusing to make blades.
Servers aren't the only thing Dell provides to its enterprise customers.
And dismissing that as irrelevant because Apple chooses not to compete there is a circular argument. Apple made that decision after seeing they couldn't get a foothold. Apple clearly wanted to compete in the enterprise market with their XServe and OS X Server, but obviously didn't have their heart in it or understand their customers' needs.
Dell does understand that market and they serve it every bit as well as Apple serves the home user. That fact doesn't make for attention-grabbing headlines however so most people wouldn't be aware of it.
We could argue this endlessly, but the point is, you can't pigeonhole Dell solely a maker of cheap PCs as was previously done. They are much, much more than that.
Many of the posters here seem to react more emotionally to this than logically. Nice or not, webOS was not selling in huge volumes. Consumer products have razor thin margins and volume is key!
HP correctly dumped a part of its business that was going nowhere, including PCs etc.
They are re-focusing their business on low volume, high margin items like datacenter and services. If Cisco had done that earlier they'd not be in the mess they are today.
Yup! Cisco made several mistakes trying to break into the consumer marketplace. Sometimes very successful companies get Hubris, and think they can be successful everywhere. Occasionally, they are right, more often, they are wrong.
if Cisco kept to their roots, other networking companies might not be overtaking them now, and their stock wouldn't have fallen so much. They may see a new CEO before too long.
I think the problem is that webOS wasn't even selling in SMALL volumes...
Some of the coverage in The Register for the Best Buy fiasco reports July sales figures in the UK for the TouchPad in the region of 12000.... and for the first week of August - 100.
I was always a big fan of Palm - I've owned several of their PDAs in the past - but they blew it with the original Pre, and when they went belly up HP was never the right company to try and pick up the pieces and carry on with webOS.
As sad as it is to see what is generally a pretty decent OS (albeit still incomplete and on fairly crappy hardware regards the TouchPad!), HP are right to stop throwing money at something that is never going to work and cut their losses before it's too late.
I sure hope the people who bought one kept the receipt....
Heh, even worse, when the Pre first came to the UK, it sold 300 units in the first month.
this is way too extreme a viewpoint. the same problems apply to any possible mobile OS other than iOS and Android right now. even Windows Phone, certainly Bada and QNX. and Symbian was abandoned because it was just too technically limited to be used for next generation products.
No it's not. It the truth. It's dead and gone. It was dead and gone before Palm was acquired by HP. WP7 has MS behind it, which means that they will be pouring money after it for a long time. It might catch on after a while to be the third most popular OS.
and no, WebOS was not "despised" by anyone, that is way over the top. actually, people who tried it liked it. but the complete package just wasn't there to support buying it.
Ok, despised was too strong a word. I meant that they avoided it in droves. It never had a chance. It has even less than no chance now.
HP is giving up because WebOS was Hurd's big initiative, and he's gone. the new guy has a very different strategic direction and no commitment to mobile or even hardware, let alone his predecessor's bright ideas. so whack! that's how corporations work.
I think that is too strong a statement. I doubt that Hurd being the one who bought it has anything to do with it. If it did, it would have been discontinued before. It's very simple. It's costing HP vast amounts of money. It is money they will never see again. Better cut and run than throw more money away.
I did mention that their moving away from consumer products had something to do with this, but if it were selling well, they would have kept it, and moved the focus towards business, where the iPad is having a boisterous success.
[quote
yes, WebOS certainly needs to be filled out with the range of popular apps at least. but several big OEM's could take that on. and some will bring much more established global smartphone market presence to the effort than HP and Palm could, another reason they both flopped.
and the reason i think one or more will is because they HAVE to. not because they want to. but because depending on Google from now on is potential market suicide for all of them. even if just to retain some leverage in dealing with Google, they need to have some alternative in the works. and also just in case the whole Android edifice falls apart or is badly damaged next year as an outcome of all the litigation.
let's see who picks up WebOS from here before we jump to conclusions that it's "doomed."
now your writing like an analyst. They look at what companies should, could and would do, and come up with some expectation of success based on that. But they don't take the preferences of the customer into account. That why they, and many companies fail so often.
It doesn't matter what a company may do to, or for WebOS, the consumer has given an answer to it already, and that answer is that they don't want this.
Now your making too many assumptions about Android. We don't yet know if any of that will come true. Android has a vastly better chance of surviving than WebOS does.
Servers aren't the only thing Dell provides to its enterprise customers.
And dismissing that as irrelevant because Apple chooses not to compete there is a circular argument. Apple made that decision after seeing they couldn't get a foothold. Apple clearly wanted to compete in the enterprise market with their XServe and OS X Server, but obviously didn't have their heart in it or understand their customers' needs.
Dell does understand that market and they serve it every bit as well as Apple serves the home user. That fact doesn't make for attention-grabbing headlines however so most people wouldn't be aware of it.
We could argue this endlessly, but the point is, you can't pigeonhole Dell solely a maker of cheap PCs as was previously done. They are much, much more than that.
It's not a circular argument. You're making the circular argument. If a company isn't competing in a space, you can't say that they can't do as well there as some other who is.
When Jobs returned in 1997, one of the first questions he was asked in the press conference was whether they would return to the enterprise. His response?
"The enterprise is not our customer."
Interestingly, despite that, enterprise adoption of Apple hardware was up almost. 600% last year.
I was counting on HP to become a tablet giant. Instead they've thrown in the towel early. This is a sign of poor leadership. The CEO should be thrown out, not the hardware business.
I'll miss HP hardware. Though it wasn't the best, they did have excellent customer service regarding repairing defective units. It happened to me three times. So I suppose with such a high occurrence of defects they were loosing some big money. One printer was bad and one computer was bad with defective hardware twice. HP quickly replaced each one.
It would be great if Google could buy HP and turn it into a homogeneous product using the Chrome OS for computers and tablets.
This is an opportunity for Microsoft to get into the computer hardware business. If they bought the HP PC division they could do as Apple does and create dedicated hardware for Windows in the hope that the OS would actually work better. Would that make Microsoft a stronger company? Of course they would also need to buy telephone support staff which would prove to them just how frustrating it is to use Windows.
Is there a way to run Ubuntu on the Touchpad? I know some people are running custom versions of Linux on phones. Perhaps in a few weeks we'll be able to purchase Touchpads for $99 and put a Linux distribution on them just for fun. Spending $399 to do it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
They want to go into the software business? If that's the case then why did they keep Microsoft around so long? They just bought Palm. That was a software business. Why sell Palm with Web OS and hope that their new acquisition can become profitable? With some good work on the Web OS and hardware, HP could have and would have been a strong number two in the tablet business.
I was counting on HP to become a tablet giant. Instead they've thrown in the towel early. This is a sign of poor leadership. The CEO should be thrown out, not the hardware business.
I'll miss HP hardware. Though it wasn't the best, they did have excellent customer service regarding repairing defective units. It happened to me three times. So I suppose with such a high occurrence of defects they were loosing some big money. One printer was bad and one computer was bad with defective hardware twice. HP quickly replaced each one.
It would be great if Google could buy HP and turn it into a homogeneous product using the Chrome OS for computers and tablets.
This is an opportunity for Microsoft to get into the computer hardware business. If they bought the HP PC division they could do as Apple does and create dedicated hardware for Windows in the hope that the OS would actually work better. Would that make Microsoft a stronger company? Of course they would also need to buy telephone support staff which would prove to them just how frustrating it is to use Windows.
Is there a way to run Ubuntu on the Touchpad? I know some people are running custom versions of Linux on phones. Perhaps in a few weeks we'll be able to purchase Touchpads for $99 and put a Linux distribution on them just for fun. Spending $399 to do it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Palm, like Apple was a hardware business that relied on proprietary software to differentiate their products.
Yup! Cisco made several mistakes trying to break into the consumer marketplace. Sometimes very successful companies get Hubris, and think they can be successful everywhere. Occasionally, they are right, more often, they are wrong.
if Cisco kept to their roots, other networking companies might not be overtaking them now, and their stock wouldn't have fallen so much. They may see a new CEO before too long.
Put the Flip and Pre IP together beneath a consumer products company that knows what it's doing and you might have had some interesting devices.
Put the Flip and Pre IP together beneath a consumer products company that knows what it's doing and you might have had some interesting devices.
I certainly agree about the Flip, because it showed that for a while it was pretty popular. But the Pre was never popular. I really don't think it ever had a chance.
The first week, both Palm and Sprint were bragging that it was sold out everywhere, everywhere, and that people shouldn't worry, because they would make more, and everyone who wanted on would be able to get it, and wasn't it just amazing that it was sold out everywhere?
But we found out not too much later that they had only sold 50,000 that first week. And sales went down from that dismal level. By the time that HP bought them, the company was just a shell of what it was. It's a sad situation, but I doubt that anyone could have made a difference.
Sometimes, when the people have spoken, it's time to move on. They rarely give something that they've rejected a second look.
Yup! Cisco made several mistakes trying to break into the consumer marketplace. Sometimes very successful companies get Hubris, and think they can be successful everywhere. Occasionally, they are right, more often, they are wrong.
if Cisco kept to their roots, other networking companies might not be overtaking them now, and their stock wouldn't have fallen so much. They may see a new CEO before too long.
I'm pissed with Cisco. Linksys had some great products up to just a few years ago and captured the wireless DSL and router market. It was renowned as enterprise-quality gear for the consumer. Remember this was when D-link was absolute garbage where you'd have to constantly restart the modem/router a few times a day.
Then ZTE and D-link gradually improved their quality while more and more telcos gave away OEM (eg ZTE) modem/wifi routers with their plans and "training" customers to learn to continually power cycle their routers as a "normal" activity. Couple this with Linksys missing the boat on mobile broadband devices, again bundled with telco plans, and no Cisco gear in smartphones, and... you get the picture. They never even made a 64bit driver for Vista and Wndows7 for one of their most popular PCI WiFi cards.
Game over for Cisco in the consumer space.
And can somebody remind me again why they bought Flip?
I'm pissed with Cisco. Linksys had some great products up to just a few years ago and captured the wireless DSL and router market. It was renowned as enterprise-quality gear for the consumer. Remember this was when D-link was absolute garbage where you'd have to constantly restart the modem/router a few times a day.
Then ZTE and D-link gradually improved their quality while more and more telcos gave away OEM (eg ZTE) modem/wifi routers with their plans and "training" customers to learn to continually power cycle their routers as a "normal" activity. Couple this with Linksys missing the boat on mobile broadband devices, again bundled with telco plans, and no Cisco gear in smartphones, and... you get the picture. They never even made a 64bit driver for Vista and Wndows7 for one of their most popular PCI WiFi cards.
Game over for Cisco in the consumer space.
And can somebody remind me again why they bought Flip?
I had nothing but problems with Linksys products over the years. Every one blew out in some way, including some of their commercial products.
Game over for Cisco in the consumer space.
Linksys by Cisco is heaven compared to Cisco's entry in the SoHo market with the RV220W and such. While my linksys was a good product (robust, good functionality), when I had to move to another and tried Cisco I had it returned quickly. The software was so bad it was unusable. E.g. NAT was implemented to function in 2 directions, not 1, as a result all WAN IP addresses were mapped to the same internal (router) IP. Plays havoc with a lot of stuff, e.g. DNS blacklisting measures against SPAM. That was April this year and afaik they haven't fixed it yet in Bulgaria or wherever they build that software these days.
I use DrayTek now (uptime >100 days, but software is known to be not extremely robust).
It seems not many companies in the IT space these days are full throttle on quality. Apple's iOS is decent, but OS X Server for instance is only reasonable.
Servers aren't the only thing Dell provides to its enterprise customers.
And dismissing that as irrelevant because Apple chooses not to compete there is a circular argument. Apple made that decision after seeing they couldn't get a foothold. Apple clearly wanted to compete in the enterprise market with their XServe and OS X Server, but obviously didn't have their heart in it or understand their customers' needs.
Dell does understand that market and they serve it every bit as well as Apple serves the home user. That fact doesn't make for attention-grabbing headlines however so most people wouldn't be aware of it.
We could argue this endlessly, but the point is, you can't pigeonhole Dell solely a maker of cheap PCs as was previously done. They are much, much more than that.
Dell years ago had a great reputation in the computer field.It was made I remember than in the United States and used quality parts inside.