Ok, I found the article interesting except one thing - what's a "channel" in this context? I've never heard the term before in the context of a way in which one sells computers, so I'm left a bit confused.

The Channel in this case is the business model in which PCs are sold.

Whilst Dell sells direct to its customers - it makes the computers, it markets them, it sells them and if you're really lucky it will support them too.

The channel however is the structure of manufacturers like Acer, distributers like Computer 2000 or Ingram Micro, and the network of resellers, both independents like your local computer shop, and the big heartless operations who don't like to fix your laptop because you put Linux on it.

There's a lot more in the channel than that, see

http://www.channelweb.co.uk

Like 1000s of others, I have been waiting several months for my Inspiron 1720. We've all had repeated messages about delays due to non availability of parts, yet they are very vague about which parts. Their customer services are hopeless.

I took legal advice and issued a notice last week making time of the essence, which finally got a response from someone with some authority. Nevertheless, it was clear that they wanted me to cancel my order, which I did. They also refunded interest accrued to my credit card while I have been waiting.

Tomorrow I take delivery of an MSI laptop with a very similar spec for £230 less. The money is a side issue. The fact that I will finally have my laptop is a matter of great relief.

Check out Direct2Dell. Many people are cancelling and going elsewhere. They even lost an order for 20 and potentially cost one small business it's contract.

You might think this all suits them since they are trying to get into the channel, but why do they continue to advertise direct sales, most of which are going to be cancelled?

It's about time,

I've been suffering with Dell hardware at work for four years now. I wish I had a shot of scotch before every tech support call. It's to the point where I quit calling and resolve the issues myself unless they require hardware replacement. Someone needs to bring them to their knees. Why not Acer?

In the latest Washington Technology magazine, I stumbled upon this little article:

"Dell Inc. has won a large contract to serve as the exclusive provider of desktop computer systems to the Veterans Affairs Department. The three-year, $248 million contract calls for Dell to provide desktop computers to support more than 200,000 agency employees. Under the contract, Dell of Round Rock, Texas, will provide a minimum of 249,000 Dell OptiPlex desktop computers with monitors. Additionally, the company will provide the agency with such related professional services as deployment, asset management and the option of asset removal at lease-end. Dell will partner with a number of service disabled veteran-owned small businesses to provide deployment services, the company said. Dell ranks No. 17 on Washington Technology’s 2007 Top 100 list of the largest federal government prime contractors."

URL: http://www.washingtontechnology.com/online/1_1/31212-1.html

---

Now if Dell is really wanting to help the IT Channel and SMB government solution providers, I don't see this a step in the right direction. In anything, Dell should have partnered up with a smaller government solution provider, thus giving the SMB sector a better chance at competing with some of the larger federal government prime contractors rather than just taking it on directly.

Dell reminds me of CDW-G -- another part of the puzzle looking to screw over the smaller SMB solution providers rather than pair with them.

There is nothing wrong with direct but there is something wrong with Dell. Making a profit for someone else isn't a winner and never has been, the switch over is whats doing in the last of Dells credibility what fucked it's sales up originally was a bad QA and cheap almost no customer support afterward. Their list of mistakes is quite long and short sighted behavior is now utterly crushing them it should be a lesson instead it's being confused as a business model issue which it never has been. Greedy executives will always try to confuse the issue when it's plain their policies are destructive and this is just one more example.