Conference 7.286::digital

    
    Great! At last, some place to go to find out about our strategy!
    
    Thanks for the pointer.
    
    jc 

    I got to skim it, and I thought the article missed the (imho) most
    interesting part :-) -- the connectivity SW business group.  PS, there
    is a good deal of info about the strategy available off our Corporate
    Web Page.  References are given elsewhere.
    

 [INFORMATION WEEK]

 Digital Equipment Corp.: Can Open Systems Save Digital? 

 
 The computer maker has bounced back from layoffs and cutbacks. Now, under CEO
 Robert Palmer's direction, it's betting future growth and profits on a risky
 open systems strategy. 

 By Caryn Gillooly and Brian Gillooly
 Issue date: Sept. 25, 1995 

 Robert Palmer, head of Digital Equipment, is a happy man these days. With some
 of the most drastic layoffs and severe spending cuts the computer industry has
 ever seen now behind him, Palmer has brought this riches-to-rags vendor back
 into the black. "I'm having fun now," says Palmer, CEO, president, and
 chairman of the Maynard, Mass., company. 

 Things have been going Palmer's way. In April, Oracle Corp. announced plans to
 port its flagship database product to Digital's Alpha platform based on RISC
 (reduced instruction-set computing) technology. In August, Digital reported
 its first profitable year since 1990. Also, after five quarters of consecutive
 losses, the computer maker closed its third straight profitable quarter. "That
 felt good," Palmer says. 

 Much of Digital's gains are due to aggressive reductions in staff, real
 estate, and spending. To wit, Palmer passed out plastic beverage coasters at a
 recent meeting and quipped: "We're using these to save money." 

 The Next Challenge

 Now, with little fat left to trim, Palmer faces his next challenge. Digital
 has focused on open systems products and services, and the company will rise
 or fall on its ability to make that strategy work. "Everything we are
 investing in, everything we are looking to for the future, centers around
 multivendor protocols, different operating systems, and different applications
 and platforms working efficiently in an open, networked, distributed computing
 environment," Palmer says. 

 But betting the entire business on open systems is risky. The strategy has
 worked for Hewlett-Packard and, to a lesser extent, IBM. But among Digital's
 neighbors on the Route 128 high-tech corridor are former
 high-flyers--including Wang Laboratories and Data General--that shifted to
 open systems in the late '80s and early '90s but failed to recapture their
 former magic. 

 Bill Milton, deputy partner of brokerage Brown Brothers Harriman in New York,
 says Digital's relatively flat 1995 revenue was "very unimpressive,"
 especially in a booming market for computer equipment. "The question isn't
 just whether they can remain profitable," he says. "It's also whether they can
 keep their revenue growing." 

 Milton questions the long-term prospects for Digital's Alpha chip. "That's
 where their growth potential is; it's nowhere else. The company has done a
 superb job of developing great technology, and it's a shame so few customers
 and licensees have expressed any great interest in it." 

 Adds Doug Van Dorsten, an analyst with brokerage Hambrecht & Quist in San
 Francisco: "The open question about Digital is: Can they give customers
 options and get them to stick with the company, and not just a product? I
 don't think they've answered that." 

 Today, three of Digital's five major product lines are troubled. The Alpha
 chip, though a growing business, has failed to attract a significant number of
 large accounts. The PC business slowed dramatically in the last quarter,
 growing by only 20% after doubling in each of the previous three quarters--and
 the proprietary VMS operating system, the software heart of Digital's VAX
 computers, is dying. Two main areas, networking and services, remain healthy,
 but neither is likely to bring in enough profit and revenue to make Digital
 the big-time player it once was. 

 All this complicates matters for technology managers evaluating Digital as a
 potential supplier. Yes, Digital is coming back. But with industry analysts
 disappointed by Digital's fourth-quarter results and worried about its ability
 to grow, the company's future is anything but certain. 

 What's clearer is how far Digital, at one time the No. 2 computer vendor, had
 fallen. In late 1992, when Palmer took over from Ken Olsen, Digital's founder
 and then-president and CEO, the company was spiraling downward. In its core
 market--midrange systems selling for $25,000 to $750,000--Digital's market
 share plummeted to 8% in 1994 from 14.5% just one year earlier, according to
 Dataquest Inc., a research firm in San Jose, Calif. HP, which in 1993 sat
 behind Digital with 12.5% of the market, zoomed past in '94 with an 18% share. 

 Meanwhile, the downturn in Digital's financial results reached frightening
 proportions. For its fiscal years 1991 through 1994, Digital lost nearly $6
 billion. Even the profits reported for fiscal 1995, which ended July 1, were
 less than overwhelming: $121.8 million, or less than 1% of Digital's $13.8
 billion in revenue. 

 Palmer wants to differentiate Digital from the pack and restore its status as
 one of the industry's most influential companies. Though Digital could
 continue to survive as a middle-of-the-pack player, that's not what Palmer
 wants. "We can make this company big again," he says. 

 The Agenda

 Palmer has an agenda for Digital. Phase one, now complete, consisted mostly of
 cutting the work force, expenses, and even real estate. Along with that came
 the start of a cultural shift within the company. One of the most dramatic
 changes: 140 business units were consolidated into just eight. 

 Phase two involves taking that internal focus and directing it toward open
 systems. The first part of the open systems strategy has involved finally
 coming to terms with the fact that customers work in multivendor environments.
 Next, Digital hopes to provide the connectivity tools and services to support
 those environments. It will do this by offering a variety of hardware
 platforms--powered by both Intel and RISC chips--and by forming partnerships
 with third-party software providers to offer customers a choice of
 applications to run on those platforms. Digital also will open up previously
 proprietary products and make them comply with industry standards. 

 The brightest star in Digital's open systems galaxy is its services business.
 It's highly praised by customers because, unlike competitors' services units,
 the focus is on providing systems integration, service, and support for
 multiple vendors' products--all without pushing Digital's own gear. 

 The business unit, known as Digital's Multivendor Customer Services, was
 launched in 1993. It independently provides complete life-cycle support
 services, including help with analysis, planning and design, installation and
 startup, management and networking, education, and client-server outsourcing.
 The business unit is now the company's largest, generating more than 40% of
 Digital's overall sales, or more than $5 billion a year. "When we became our
 own business unit, it threw off what seemed like 100 years of shackles," says
 John Rando, the unit's VP in Stow, Mass. 

 More important, much of the services unit's success actually stems from
 supporting multivendor environments. Nearly a third of its business comes from
 multivendor accounts. For example, the group provides on-site support for Dell
 Computer and is a solutions provider for Microsoft and Novell. It services
 more non-Digital PCs than Digital PCs by a 2-to-1 ratio, according to Rando.
 He expects the unit to get more than half its business from multivendor
 accounts by 1997. 

 Rando has resorted to some unconventional measures to ensure that the unit's
 22,000 employees keep their multivendor focus. "We've played the game
 'Scruples' to teach people how Digital should act, to make sure they stick to
 our multivendor focus on service and support," he says. 

 It seems to be working. U.S. Corporate Bank, a Chicago unit of Bank of
 Montreal, awarded a contract to Digital three years ago and still likes the
 vendor's unbiased approach, says Michael Frow, VP and chief credit officer.
 "We put out an RFP and received proposals from a number of very well-known
 names," he says. "IBM was one of them, but Digital stood out." 

 Frow says Digital was the only vendor that listened to U.S. Corporate Bank's
 needs. "Everyone else, without exception, tried to transform what we wanted to
 do to meet their own product lines," he says. 

 Industry analysts predict that Digital's services organization may turn out to
 be one of its most competitive assets. "Although IBM, HP, and Sun all offer
 professional services, those companies seem to wrap their services around
 their own products more tightly than Digital," says Jonathan Eunice, president
 of Illuminata, a research firm in Nashua, N.H. "Digital doesn't even use its
 Digital name in its services business." 

 Networking is another business helping Palmer. Digital's networking unit
 offersproducts ranging from stackable hubs to routers to a high-end
 intelligent hub that supports cutting-edge technologies like ATM (asynchronous
 transfer mode). Hardly visible on the industry's radar screen, Digital's
 networking unit holds the No. 2 and No. 3 market positions in two vital
 areas--routers and hubs. "People don't realize how significant we are in the
 networking business," says Charles Christ, VP and general manager of Digital's
 components division. "Networking is a key part of our future thrust." 

 That success has come with little or no marketing--a situation that's
 changing, says Richard Lush, marketing manager in Digital's network business.
 In the past, networking products were marketed by other company divisions, he
 says, but "now we have 200-plus salespeople commissioned to sell these
 products." 

 The networking division will soon deliver a key product: the EnVISN
 architecture, announced earlier this year. EnVISN will use existing hardware
 and new software to help customers migrate to open virtual networking. Digital
 also is working to ensure that its networking products operate with those of
 competing vendors. 

 On the desktop and server side of Digital's house, the cornerstone is Alpha,
 its 64-bit RISC workstation architecture. Alpha product sales grew by 32% in
 Digital's fiscal 1995. "There's no reason to expect that to slow down," says
 Palmer. 

 Palmer believes that Digital's head start in the 64-bit market will pay
 off--especially with deals like the one with Oracle. "We're at least two years
 ahead of our competition," Palmer says. "Oracle is the first application to
 support 64-bit, and that took three years to accomplish. My competitors have
 yet to ship one." 

 In fact, several vendors--including IBM and HP--announced on Aug. 15 that they
 intend to support a standard 64-bit Unix API (applications programming
 interface). But that technology isn't expected to surface until at least
 mid-1996. By then, Palmer says, "we'll have shipped $4 billion or $5 billion
 worth of 64-bit systems and services before they ship one." 

 So far, the Alpha machines have found homes mainly in small accounts. While
 Digital desperately needs to sell the workstations to large customers,
 customer satisfaction has been high. "The Alpha will carry the load we place
 on it very, very well," says Bill Graves, an independent consultant with the
 Michigan Livestock Exchange in East Lansing, which acquired one of the first
 Alphas running Microsoft Windows NT. 

 Digital's partnerships, key to Palmer's overall strategy, should help the
 Alpha cause. On Aug. 2, Digital announced a biggie: an alliance with Microsoft
 to co-develop and co-market their respective Alpha hardware and NT Server
 operating systems. Digital will support NT running on Alpha as well as Intel
 platforms, in both enterprise environments and large systems-integration
 deals. Microsoft promises to help build applications support for the Alpha
 platform by releasing Alpha-based versions of its products at the same time it
 releases NT-based versions. 

 Although the two companies refuse to discuss the financial terms, Bill Gates,
 Microsoft's chairman and CEO, says his company made a "substantial" investment
 to help Digital train 1,500 additional NT-certified professionals. In
 exchange, Digital will, over the next two years, beef up its NT support staff
 to more than 2,300 employees. That will make Digital the single largest NT
 support organization, with more NT-certified professionals than Microsoft
 itself. 

 Digital expects NT to become increasingly important. While NT accounted for
 only 10% of Digital's Alpha sales in the fourth quarter of fiscal '95, it's
 the fastest-growing segment of Alpha sales, with 100% annual growth. (Digital
 Unix and OpenVMS hold equal shares of the remaining 90% of Alpha sales.) 

 Today, about a third of low-end AlphaServer 100 systems and more than 10% of
 the midrange AlphaServer 2100 are bundled with NT, says Pauline Nist,
 Digital's VP of Alpha systems. She estimates that by the year 2000, 40% of
 servers sold industrywide will include NT, another 40% will be Unix-based, and
 20% will use proprietary software. She expects Digital's sales to track
 similarly. 

 Digital's relationship with database giant Oracle also should encourage
 developers to build applications for the Alpha platform. "All of a sudden,
 other companies want to talk to us about partnerships, competency centers, and
 joint marketing," Palmer says. "We were trying to get in the door before, and
 now the phone's ringing. It's a very different dynamic." 

 Alpha, Or Omega? 

 Despite ringing endorsements from Microsoft and Oracle, however, few customers
 perceive the Alpha platform as strategic. They also suspect that most
 applications will run on Intel platforms first. "Microsoft says it will
 develop applications for Alpha, but other vendors aren't going to be as
 supportive," says an information technology employee in Shell Oil Co.'s
 corporate division who requested anonymity. The division uses more than 100
 VAX systems. 

 Also, Digital is flying solo in its effort to expand the chip side of its
 Alpha RISC platform. Among its competitors, HP signed with Intel to produce a
 next-generation x86 chip, while IBM and Motorola busily push the PowerPC. "Our
 competitors," Palmer says, "tout the chip that's going to come out next year
 that will be as good as what Digital shipped last year. Very impressive." 

 But Digital's Alpha-Intel strategy won't mean much unless the company gets its
 PC business, which represents a quarter of company sales, back on course.
 Digital rose to No. 11 in worldwide PC sales last year, but its PCs suffer
 from manufacturing delays and slowed growth. Bernhard Auer, president of the
 $3 billion PC business, left in August and was replaced by Enrico Pesatori, VP
 of the systems business unit. Pesatori must placate customers who are unhappy
 about more than just manufacturing delays. 

 According to some customers and even resellers, Digital's PCs suffer from poor
 quality control. "It's not uncommon to have Digital PCs arrive DOA or
 near-DOA," says Benjamin Joyce, director of applications integration at
 Business Equipment Center Ltd., a Digital value-added reseller in Washington.
 He says the machines' motherboards fail unusually often. "It's not
 predominant," he adds, "but it happens often enough that [Digital] needs to
 address it." 

 Mike Spohnholtz, PC network administrator at Virginia Mason Hospital in
 Seattle, had such a bad experience with his 40 Digital PCs that he ditched
 them altogether. "We refuse to buy any more Digital PCs," he says. "They're
 behind the market in both price and technology. The last of them were just
 sold through a garage sale last month." 

 Even customers who like Digital's PCs complain. "Since [Digital] made
 resellers responsible for service and support, they've been pretty poor about
 getting us information," says Steve Williams, a department systems specialist
 with Santa Clara Valley Medical, a hospital in San Jose, Calif. 

 The support problem is a common complaint among customers. In fact, lax
 responsiveness to customers cost Digital the business of Shell Oil. Digital
 neglected to supply a promised 32-bit token-ring driver for a major product
 evaluation at Shell's corporate division, say sources there. As a result,
 Shell chose Compaq instead. "We had a strong relationship with Digital, but
 [the token-ring incident] cost them a major contract," says an IT staffer at
 Shell. 

 Beyond Open Systems 

 But the biggest stumbling block ahead could be Digital's overall open-systems
 strategy. For one, Digital is hardly the first computer company to claim
 openness. "For Digital to say that [an open systems strategy] is their
 distinguishing characteristic is very naive," says Jeff Mason, VP of worldwide
 marketing for IBM's RS/6000 division in Somers, N.Y. "We both grew up in the
 proprietary model and are both moving toward open systems. They are not moving
 there faster than us." 

 That's especially clear in the vendors' proprietary operating systems. Next
 year, IBM's MVS will gain X/Open and Spec. 1170 compliance, which lets users
 run Unix applications on it. Meanwhile, with Digital VAX sales on a steady
 decline--they now represent just 10% of the company's total business--and
 Digital's relationship with Microsoft growing, the days are clearly numbered
 for the VMS operating system, now called OpenVMS. Palmer says a new,
 large-structured file system will make it possible for Digital to create a
 seamless environment between VMS and Windows NT for customers that choose to
 stay on the VAX. But that still won't let VMS users run the wealth of
 applications for Intel or other RISC platforms. 

 If every vendor moves to an open systems architecture, how can Digital stand
 out? Palmer says Digital will be "more open" than the others. But will
 customers really be able to tell? More important, will they care? 

 --with additional reporting by Marianne Kolbasuk McGee 

 Comments on this story?

 InformationWeek http://techweb.cmp.com/iwk



                                                 

    
    
    overall, NOT a flattering article; more problematic is the fact
    that the reported, Caryn and Brian Gillooly are not current with
    Digital (product, strategies, you anme it). Whether this is because
    they are simply not briefed properly (assuming that Digital PR has
    an oppty to brief them), or their research is poor.
    
    For example, in the "AT a glance box", this is printed as Digital's
    major product lines (data provided by Digital!!):
    	VAX computers, Alpha 64-bit microprocessors and workstations,
    	VMS operating system, Digital Unix operating system.
    
    So how come enterprise servers like the 8200/8400 not mentioned; we 
    are limited to workstations only.
    Afterall there was a mention of the BP-LE show in Apr in the
    article.
    
    It really bothered me if indeed Digital has provided the data, at least
    we should have made sure that it is CURRENT! 
                                                

    Information Week appears to have plagiarized the Business Week article
    from about a month ago with the quote that the "PC business doubled
    revenues for each of the preceeding three quarters", which was false.
    It would be nice if Information Week did their own writing; or at least
    did a better job of stealing others' work.
     

    I am amazed that a publication of the supposed impact of Info Week
    would publish an article that simply has so many factual errors. I for
    one would LOVE to have a small piece of our failing vms business. Look
    at the numbers! Obviously the authors did not. 

re Note 4138.2 by DRDAN::KALIKOW:

"the connectivity SW business"

        Exactly what is "connectivity software"?

        Bob

    >"the connectivity SW business"
    >
    >        Exactly what is "connectivity software"?
    
    Check out 4133.0, Dan's recent test-drive offer.
    
    DougO

    
    	I find it interesting that the first several replies to .3 (which
    was much appreciated, BTW) are almost knee-jerk responses to a
    "threatning" article.
    
    	This writer happens to cover one of our largest, and most
    profitable, ABU accounts with 1000s of VAXes, and PCs, installed all
    over the world. And with the exception of MCS (which is GREAT in my
    eyes), everyday is a struggle to convince decision-makers at the
    account to remain DEC loyal. The authors did not miss a reason I get
    from the CIO, Sr. VPs, etc.
    
    	This company *still* needs to get its act together; just look at
    how people in notes react when PC Complete is late with their shipment.
    Now imagine a buyer who has 500 of them on order, and we are already
    a week late getting them to the DISTRIBUTOR. And we don't know when we
    will be shipping the 4GB disks, or low-end monitors, or terminal
    servers, etc.
    
    	And you want to do business with these guys?
    
    	I suggest everybody at DEC/Digital grow up tonight, and realize
    that unless you are *DELIGHTING* the customer , you are putting this
    company at risk...
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

>    	I suggest everybody at DEC/Digital grow up tonight, and realize
>    that unless you are *DELIGHTING* the customer , you are putting this
>    company at risk...

				   Bingo.	

    Re: -.8 GreyHawk

    Well said. The usual malady is that a company has tons of stuff but
    they can not sell. Here it is the other way around. The computer market
    is booming, but DEC's revenues have remained static because of internal
    woes.

    One could shed tears for DEC if her problems were external.
    Unfortunately, as one can see most of the problems are internal and
    therefore solvable. If DEC is loosing market share and customers
    because it can not supply, it's a big crying shame. It makes one sick.
    
    Some people are satisfied that revenues are not detoriating and the
    ship is not sinking. They cry not that opportunities for increaed
    revenues pass them by. Well, the market is booming and DEC is static.
    I  wonder what will happen if the market turns around and takes a
    dive. That I guess would be the curtains.

        I have to agree with Greyhawk and Tex on this one.  I work for Systems
    Integration and spend my life in the customer's "tent."  Just yesterday
    my customer was relating to me the story of a Digital laptop that he
    won at a Digital sales event.  He gave it to his son and the laptop
    literaly "smoked" about the 3rd time he turned it on.  This customer
    loves his Alpha machine, but didn't have much to say good about our PC
    product quality.
    
        I have now heard many stories from customers about problems with PC
    quality and customer hotline support.  I just read the Information Week
    article and I believe there is probably some validity to the quality
    issues raised there.  On the other hand, I have heard no such
    complaints about Alpha quality....so we must be doing something right
    in the Alpha workstation manufacturing line.  Perhaps its this
    "commodity" market that is the culprit, i.e. less control over
    component quality.
    
        IMHO it is better to spend our time responding to customer
    complaints than whining about what some writer forgot to say that is
    good about Digital.  Don't get me wrong, I believe that we have the
    strongest product offerings that we have ever had in this Company.  But
    we still have some areas that could use some work.
    
        In our "golden days", customers would often justify spending more
    for Digital or HP equipment "because the quality is worth the extra
    buck."  I would hate to lose that enviable position.
    
        Perhaps someone closer to the PC product line could comment upon
    the PC quality issues raised in this article.  Someone once said in
    this conference that (paraphrased) "A satisfied customer will tell two
    people, but a dissatisfied customer will tell 22."  That would seem to
    tell me that you can make a big difference in the public perception of
    this Company by "jumping right on" these customer satisfaction issues.
    
        Just my .02...your mileage may vary.
                      

>        Exactly what is "connectivity software"?
>
>        Bob
    
    That's easy, Bob, software that isn't "platform software" or "si
    software" :-)

>    	I suggest everybody at DEC/Digital grow up tonight, and realize
>    that unless you are *DELIGHTING* the customer , you are putting this
>    company at risk...

    Is it just me but whenever I see or read anything about "Delighting
    the Customer" I immediately get a mental picture which a sense of
    decorum doesn't allow me to further articulate in this forum...

         That's where our "whatever it takes" initiative comes in. :-)

    I found this part pretty embarrassing.  I haven't been hearing this. 
    As a matter of fact I heard that most people building PCI-based board-level
    products use DECpc because they can be guaranteed of its EMI/RFI integrity 
    and the products reliablility.
    
 According to some customers and even resellers, Digital's PCs suffer from poor
 quality control. "It's not uncommon to have Digital PCs arrive DOA or
 near-DOA," says Benjamin Joyce, director of applications integration at
 Business Equipment Center Ltd., a Digital value-added reseller in Washington.
 He says the machines' motherboards fail unusually often. "It's not
 predominant," he adds, "but it happens often enough that [Digital] needs to
 address it." 

 Mike Spohnholtz, PC network administrator at Virginia Mason Hospital in
 Seattle, had such a bad experience with his 40 Digital PCs that he ditched
 them altogether. "We refuse to buy any more Digital PCs," he says. "They're
 behind the market in both price and technology. The last of them were just
 sold through a garage sale last month." 

re: .16

I'm not sure I understand your point.

A board is only 1 part of a system. Just because 1 board is reliable 
doesn't mean that all boards in a system will be, or that the system as a 
whole will be. There are a lot of other variables involved, many of which are 
non-technical in nature.

        C'Ya,
        Wayne

    I understand that, and you understand that, but those two customers
    (and the people who read the article) will probably NOT understand
    that...

    > I suggest everybody at DEC/Digital grow up tonight, and realize
    > that unless you are *DELIGHTING* the customer , you are putting this
    > company at risk...
    
    Yep - makes the phrase 'getting into bed with the customer take on a
    whole new meaning (yes , it has been known).
    
    However, I agree with Greyhawk, Tex et al - have to be THE BEST and we
    have to be seen to be the best.
    
    Alan

    I read a quote last week that has stuck with me.  It had to do with how
    people purchase, stating that they basically purchase out of fear.  In
    essence, they choose the product that causes them the least amount of
    fear.  Hearing that Company X creates products with a high degree of
    failure is just the thing that will chase customers away from Company
    X, even if the product is supposed to have the cheapest/fastest/hippest
    technology.
    
    Steve

and look at the questions the article raises and try to 
figure out some answers...

1.  As for PC motherboards burning up, and perhaps PC reliability
    and cost, one thought I had was when our engineering group manager
    set up a series of talks by manufacturing.  I only went to one
    talk, but the last speaker (by which time lots of people had
    left) spoke of reducing the number of holes through the layers
    of boards, as it was very hard to "cut" umpteen holes in
    *exactly* the same place in the layers.  Just physically hard.

   One person I know in PCland said that when you deal (or *want*
   to deal) with extremely high volume, saving two screws in your
   design can save a lot of money.

   In both cases, perhaps a manufacturing/engineering confab could
   help with that problem.

2.  Resellers responsible for maintenance of our PCs; no help from
    Digital.  It seems odd that we are lauded for MCS's making money
    by offering value in servicing others' equipment; other companies
    lost out by trying to tout their own equipment.  It seems odd,
    then, that we don't service our own PC's -- or train the resellers --
    to close that wound.

3.  Alpha chip not selling, in part due to nonsupportive software
    vendors.  Why would that be?  The article says "most applications
    will run on Intel platforms first."  That can be analyzed in a
    lot of ways.  E.g., we should continue using Intel chips in
    our PCs and desktops, to get some portion of market share.  This
    seems shortsighted to me.  The article quotes Bill Milton of
    brokerage Brown Brothers Harriman as saying the Alpha chip is
    "where their growth potential is; it's nowhere else.  The company
    has done a superb job of developing great technology, and it's a 
    shame so few customers and licensees have expressed any great 
    interest in it."  Why is that?  

    A huge market that *should* be interested in a low-cost Alpha 
    are applications that are graphics intensive.  Anyone who has
    heard their child whine about Doom II "getting stuck" has to
    wonder why we can't produce a low-cost Alpha that would let the
    people who do computer games knock the kids socks off.  The
    graphics themselves are getting better, but still crude.

    Are vendors courted by marketeers, as well as customers?  I
    suppose so, but the entertainment industry would be blown away
    by what Alpha could do if they only knew about it...if they
    could see the hologram-like displays in PK3 for example, I would
    think Stephen Spielberg himself would sit up and take notice.

Just my ramblings.  Thanks to .4 for putting the article in; I never
would have seen it otherwise.  What points did others notice; what
solutions do others see as possible?

    As far as the article itself, one can dismiss all they want that "the
    authors did not know what they were talking about", or "that they
    plagarized a Business Week article from awhile back".  The bottom line
    is that other customers and potential customers are seeing these
    articles and taking actions based upon them.  I think we all know the
    truth lies somewhere in-between; yes, we are having problems in some
    areas, but perhaps not as many or as serious as such articles would
    imply.
    My suggestion is one that I have seen other companies do on a regular
    basis.  When an article is printed that has inaccuracies in it, a
    high-level executive should send a retort out to be printed in the next
    issue of the magazine.  I don't care if the executive actually pens it
    or if an underling does; in reality the executive probably couldn't pen
    one correctly anyways, down to the bits and bytes level.  But the point
    is that you are attempting to correct in the customers' eyes any
    misperceptions that do exist.  And perhaps the publication's editors
    will be more cognizant the next time before printing potentially
    negative articles about that firm.
    We have to stop being like a fighter that can take a punch - can't ever
    win, but boy, can he take a punch!  I'm tired of taking punches and
    would prefer to let a few fly myself.  But I want to feel like I have
    someone in my corner when I do let loose.
    My 2 cents (or 1.999998 cents depending on how much we dropped since I
    starting penning this reply.)

    The article does I believe reflect clients perception of us and it is
    that perception that has to be addressed. 6 consecutive quarters of
    profitability will help overcome some of the negative perceptions and
    delight the clients certainly but perhaps always have in mind 'always
    give the client more than he expects'. That added something needn't
    cost much but we have to change the markets perception of us and that
    starts with the clients.
    
    my tuppence worth.
    
    
    Pete

        Part of the problem isn't the writting of the reporters. Most
        customers with any knowledge will understand errors by them. They
        know reporting not every nut and bolt that a company makes. Of
        course in a publication like info-week there should be less errors
        then in say business week because of the subject matters etc. 
        
        What really gets me is 'where do they come up with these quote
        people?' Often the quotes come from unknowns in accounts that
        no-one even knew there was a problem with. What sort of PC's were
        sold in that garage sale? Were they robin's or Rainbow's or
        Tandy's? Probably not Hinote Ultra's or Celebris's etc. What were
        the purchase criteria ie did the customer only want the systems in
        the quote (that might have spent months in company approval
        processes) or newer models? What were the quality problems? 
        
        Sometimes you can talk with these folks and find out that they got
        hand me down's from someone else or that one switch didn't work on
        100 systems. Maybe it was a total failure but you only get an
        inuendo that has to be defended against. 
        
        And what is an 'it staffer' of shell's doing talking to the press
        about Digital/Shell relations? And what is the press doing
        publishing something like that? Couldn't they get a bad quote from
        a named source? or from another large company?  
        
        I always wonder where they get these folks. Do they have code
        names and call in the middle of the night.. 
        
        Do they get matco mugs?