[ssl-3]

Many moons ago, we used to buy Dell Dimension desktops at work. They were fine. They were very quiet, robustly-built, and were expandable to fit individual users' requirements as things changed. They were usually easy to work on when that was necessary.

Dell also had the Precision line, which was very posh. These cost a lot more.

The Vostro line eventually showed up. They were noisier, and lighter/flimsier, less-expandable, and harder to work on. But they did cost less to buy.

---

I would never buy a Vostro computer for myself. I think that buying cheapness as a primary feature is dumb. Given a choice between good/better/best, I tend to pick "better." I like being able to get what I think is a better design, even though it generally costs somewhat more. I don't want the cheapest car tires, the cheapest hand tools, or the cheapest PC.

But the company chose to operate as cheap-at-every-expense. The Vostro line was a perfect fit for their buying proclivities, so that's what they started buying. (I didn't like that, but those decisions were above of my paygrade.)

---

Was Dell wrong for offering several different classes of computer back then?

Are they wrong for doing so today?

Why? Why not?

(Remember: In the insatiable quest for the bottom dollar, the company kept buying Dell computers. We could have began giving those dollars to one of their competitors instead, but we did not do so. This suggests that the model is not bullshit at all: After all, they are in the business of selling computers, and we kept buying them.)

[JohnBooty]

     Given a choice between good/better/best

We're not on the same page at all. I don't think anybody is doubting the tried-and-true good/better/best split.

What I and others have always questioned is how far beyond that Dell goes. It's not good/better/best; it's Vostro/Alienware/Precision/Inspiron/Latitude/XPS/etc... which all have their own array of models and internal good/better/best subdivisions.

     We could have began giving those dollars to one 
     of their competitors instead, but we did not do so. 
     This suggests that the model is not bullshit at all: 
     After all, they are in the business of selling computers, 
     and we kept buying them.

There are a lot of variables at play there. Pricing, branding, perhaps even your CIO's solid golfing relationship with the Dell sales rep... or their not-so-nice relationship with the HP sales rep.

Which variables helped? Which hurt? Was the dizzying model lineup a pro, con, or neither? The only thing we can conclude from the facts you presented is that the proliferation of Dell's models was not a dealbreaker for your particular company.

Dell has a lot of other things going for them. Namely, their name. They have been around for ages and their products are... fine. Nobody ever got fired for buying Dell. PCs are commodities; by definition one PC can't really outshine or outprice another too much on any technical level because they're all using the same core components. So name really matters. I think that is the overwhelming reason why people buy them, not "I love that they sell 100 different laptop models at any given time."

[ssl-3]

> There are a lot of variables at play there. Pricing, branding, perhaps even your CIO's solid golfing relationship with the Dell sales rep... or their not-so-nice relationship with the HP sales rep.

No, there's really not. I've already explained the main variable here: Price.

The other driving variable, which I left to implication, was inertia.

We didn't have a CIO. Nobody from Dell or HP was taking anyone from this company out for golf outings, dinners, strip clubs, or nose beers. We merely bought and used computers, with perhaps 50 desktop systems at peak that slowly rotated over time as needs ebbed and flowed.

We could have switched to HP or Acer even some box-builder with a non-English name instead, and maybe we would have done so if Dell hadn't introduced cheaper products. Who knows. That version of reality never happened.

It sure seems like the introduction of the lower-cost Vostro line strengthened our inertia. I don't know if that was good or bad for us, but it was almost certainly better for Dell this way than in some alternate reality where it went in some other direction.

---

Anyway, I looked at Dell's laptop lineup after I read your previous comment. It's a damned mess. But I'm not sure that this mess qualifies as 70 or 100 (or whatever) base models: It's plainly evident that there's a lot of overlap within this list. :)

[JohnBooty]

    The other driving variable, which I left to implication, was inertia.

Right. That's pretty orthogonal to "how many laptop models is enough laptop models?" though.

    No, there's really not. I've already explained the main variable here: Price.

So, I would like to be very clear: I understand that price is an important factor. Vostros are cheap and though you disagreed, your company viewed price as the most important thing. Many people and companies feel that way. I do understand that.

That does not even remotely explain why Dell has so many lines and models.

Most companies manage to have budget lines/models without such a brain-melting array of choices. You keep writing, essentially, "well we kept buying dell so I guess it worked!!!!"

But I could just as easily say "a lot of companies don't buy Dell, and Apple has like 100x the market value with like 1/10 of the models so obviously Dell is stupid" but that would not be accurate either because there are a looooooot of other variables.

Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere, and you don't have anything insightful to say, so thank you and good bye.