Dell, ATX connector non-standard

Manufacturers can build what they want and build it the way they want and they have the right to differ from any standard set in the industry; however, if they differ from the standard, they should not advertise it as adhereing to the standard. This is where Dell is deliberately misleading their customers. (The word "Lie" comes to mind.)

I discovered this just last week and called Dell to ask if their systems adhered to the ATX standard. I was passed from person to person until I finally got to someone who supposedly knew. The Dell representative assured me that the system I was working on adhered to the ATX standard as set forth by the appropriate standards-settings organization.

This customer had attempted an upgrade on his own and blew the power supply, the new board and a new P4 processor. He brought it to me after he had let the smoke out.

Don't take my word for it; make that call yourself and see that Dell is misrepresenting the product.

 

Either I am going nuts or we are all missing something here.

I myself am beginning to see this a a lack of common sense.

Alex is correct about Dell ( or anybody ) building something as they see fit. Even though it may be setup differently.

We buy a new Coffee maker and get it home and it is AW SHUCKS. That the darn thing won't use the same filters that the old one did. We break the pot, oops same problem. So its is back to the store to get the PROPER PARTS. And if we have taken our common sense with us we look at the package to make sure the item is the right one. and I still got the wrong one.

Same rule applies to just about everything we buy. Shelves for a GE fridge won't fit in a Westinghouse fridge. Some shelves for one MODEL of GE won't fit in another Model of GE.

Now why all of the sudden do we expect a computer made by one company be the same as one made by another ?

Isn't that a little lacking in common sense ?

Even though they may wind up doing the same job of getting us over the roads from place to place, a FORD computer will not work in a Chevy. But BOTH are supposed to meet all STANDARDS.

So again. Why should we expect Computers to be any different.

When a Washer, Vacumn Cleaner, Coffe Maker breaks down we go to the proper place to get the right replacement parts.

Should we or should we not use the same idea with computers ?

BillyBob

 

Well BB if you go back to the old days (and I have a feeling you were around back then )PCs were referred to as IBM CLONES. Which means they should all be alike.

Those of us involved in this discussion realize that some companies use proprietary components. The average consumer doesn't know that. They assume that they will be able to upgrade their machine eventually. The salesman will even tell them that. I have listened to these guys at major retail chains telling people that they will be able to upgrade their machine easily. The buyer doesn't realize until much later that their machine is filled with integrated components.

In the perfect world everyone would research every purchase they make and know all the possible pitfalls. Most people don't do that. Hell, I don't even do it for most the things I buy.

Hows this for another analogy?
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its a duck. Dell has an ATX connector that looks standard, fits in a standard connector, but its not.


Hex92
------
Dude, don't buy a Dell.

 

BillyBob,

You missed the point of my post. Dell is advertising these machines as adhereing to the ATX standard. They obviously don't.

This situation then becomes a booby trap waiting to spring on the purchaser.

 

I believe you are restating, illustrating, and presenting some of the points already made. So I agree with that statement if the "all" wasn't included in your comment. Obviously, you understand the economics of merchandising. Age does give one insight into matters that many people take for granted.

If Dell or any other merchandiser misrepresents their product, there are legal remedies. Competiton is very aggressive for market share, so I am not surprised to hear about misrepresentations. It doesn't make it right, but management may be making a calculating decision to misrepresent their product and pay the consequences to gain market share. It may prove to be a big mistake in judgement!

I can vouch for the fact that Dell has/had misrepresented their advertised product. The PC was the 4300 (slim chassis) and advertised as having a 200W P/S. It had and always had a 170W supply. Because of the form factor an upgrade to another P/S was not possible. Dell settled favorably and generously.

 

You missed the point of my post.

I most certainly did.

Dell is advertising these machines as adhereing to the ATX standard. They obviously don't.

This situation then becomes a booby trap waiting to spring on the purchaser.

If that is the case then I will in no way dis-agree with it being mis-leading. And I firmly agree that they should fix that.

I have only dealt with one OEM machine. ( a long time ago )

I do know that Packard Hell did it. If I remember correctly they were caught putting used parts into new machines.

And quite a few of us know how proprietary they were.

I will start another thread in the proper place later but I have an old Acer machine here that I may asl for some help with. But I can tell you right now from just booting it once. It sure ain't like mine.

BillyBob

 

More Info,

After reading Alex's comments on his phone conversation with Dell, I remembered reading this http://www.theinquirer.net/19040209.htm several days ago.

It's Dell's official response to the original Inquirer article. They state that the connector issue began in the mid ninties but that current machines are ATX compatible. Unfortunately, they do not give a date for the change back to the standard.

KenKeith,
As to your marketing argument "differentiation ", although from the above information Dell wouldn't currently use a non-standard ATX connector for the purpose, I have not seen any advertising purporting the advantages of their systems due to the connector. Seems to me, when you want to set yourself apart from the crowd you advertise the difference and the advantage the consumer receives from it.

Regards,
Tin

 

Tinknocker,

That's good work on your part for reporting that statement by Dell. It reads like a bunch of non specific jargon that doesn't tend to justify their position. When you consider what they say in light of their later actions, you have to wonder how dumb they think the consumer really is.

I couldn't agree more with the argument of, if the departure from norm was so great, why did it get reversed so soon.

The fact is, there remains a group of machines that got shipped with non standard connector configurations that represent a hazardous adulderation of the ATX standard and there was no good reason for it. Even if they could justify changing the standard, they should do so in a "fail safe" manner so as to protect their own customers (now they have sold both configurations) and any unsuspecting party who falls victims to their actions. What do you think they'll do about that? I think we all know.

The obvious path would have been to select a completely different connector that wouldn't mate the standard ATX and then an aftermarket adapter would have immediately sprung up that addressed the issue and made it safe to use a standard ATX replacement part. I don't think they wanted to lose that business and intentionally wanted to fry anyones computer who tried to depart from their custom configuration.

Furthermore, the legal standard of care demands that you not create a blatently dangerous or self destructive situation without having certain responsibilities.

I think they did this maliciously and with little regard to what the consequences would be to the user other than trying to increase their revenues.

Their course of action was ill conceived at best and malicious at worst.

To offer better quality was not the driving force.

Now they're exposed so let's give them all the hell they deserve!

 

I think this thread might be better entitled "Beware the Dell Booby Trap ".

I think Zephyr's comments are right on target.

 

Tinknocker, you are exactly correct in your latest comments. I am not arguing the computer industry is free of market deception or a given company does not puff their product. But if there is false advertising, negligence, or deception (not mistake), the business is liable for provable damages. That is the remedy to the consumer, and it usually/should keep a business engaged in fair business practices. Granted a mail-order business presents barriers not experienced with a brick and mortar, local business, but following certain procedures the complaint can be effective and redress is available to the aggrieved party. I will accept purchase orders for all inquiries.

Dell's history indicates they have a knowledgeable and competent management team. They as well as any other business would appreciate a successful niche that would capture post-sale revenue. It appears Dell is trying to break away from an industry standard component or components without the risk of losing potential customers in order to gain market share. At the present time profit margins are very thin, and a company may be willing to take a loss to gain market share.

What I have offered for consideration as an explanation is that as the computer industry evolves there will be attempts for a business to distinquish their product by fair or borderline ethical means in order to differentiate their product from the competition. This model would enable the business access to a post- sale revenue stream and a loyal brand customer. It is not in the best interest of any company to make it easy for Joe Sixpack to upgrade their system with off- the- shelf products.

 

Here I am, once again, dragging my feet. Sorry for the delayed response.

I understand what you have described and suppose it helps to explain Apple users as concerns product loyalty. They are willing to pay a premium for a product that Steve Jobs has convinced them is superior. Unfortunately for Apple, their market penetration is what.... about 10%.

With the effort to differentiate their products would you think that there will be a point in the future when PC clones cease to exist? Already, I've heard more than a few small system builders complaining about the high percentage of total machine cost alloted to the Windows OS. Might MS allow these costs to further rise thus driving the small guy out of the market. Then dealing with only a few large companies whose systems are completely proprietary ala Apple?

Just a few thoughts,
Tin

 

Very good points! When Apple was a fledging business they had a strategy that introduced their product (I believe free) to schools believing young students taught on Apple machines would continue to use the same upgraded product as they got older. Apple users are loyal to the product and are willing to pay a premium and although market share is probably 10% the profit margins are running 20 to 30% or higher. Something like a Rolls Royce or a Rolex watch where the product has little market share but very, very high profit margins.

"PC clones cease to exist?" Economic theory would reply yes to that question. Smaller companies would be hurt by higher software prices for the O/S because they are unable to easily pass on the higher cost. The larger company can spread the fixed costs on volume, and variable costs can be absorbed with an increase of market share by meeting the competition with lower prices. For a smaller company to succeed, they will have break away and distinquish their product creatively.

With fewer manufacturers, the dominant players that have a large market share can be price setters. With higher prices of computers, microsoft can expect and demand higher prices for their product. There will be less innovation in the industry and the result will be unfavorable to the consumer. But an industry welcomes some competition within the ranks to avoid becoming a monopoly and the consequences thereof. So there is not any motivation to completely wipe out competition.

 

Hated to see this thread move into economic theory so decided to set up another handle so I could post while traveling. Have to concur with Alex Ethridge comments and take exception to a few others.

BillyBob ... no one is saying all machines have to be alike. You know that a K6-2 500 and a 550 run at different voltages and some systems (poprietary?#$% ".?) are using 170 watt PS versus 250, 300, 350 or 400. NVidia isn't Raedon and Rage isn't S3. Intel isn't Via and Southbridge comes in a variety of different flavors. That doesn't make this Dell ATX thing legitimate and its not a question of "cheap generic components ".

KenKeith ... We'll debate product differentiation in another forum and at another time, however, this has little to do with establishing a point of difference and communicating same to the target audiences at hand. On the contrary, this is about "trick wiring" and sleezy practices designed to keep it "All in the Family ". Personally, I won't disagree with "keep it all in the family" from a philosophical point of view in a strict business sense, however, Dell isn't into repairing machines as a source of revenue, so your arguement holds little water.

As to the "castigate" Microsoft commentary correlating cost of operating systems to total component costs in a comparative venue of big vs small, c'mon? Does anybody really believe that a few bucks differential really makes for an effective arguement. Heck, lets get into the savings associated with a passive CPU cooler or on board graphics and audio chips. ****, just how dumb are we supposed to be? AMR versus a hard modem? 2 or 3 PCI slots versus 5 or 6? I don't and won't buy the arguement about quality proprietary components as it relates to some of these OEMs and their "stuff ".

Not trying to grind an axe here, just need to get this back on topic. What Dell did was sleezy.

Disagree? Convince me I'm wrong.

Rockster2U aka RocksterOnRoad

 

Rock, I don't see how one can make an argument about a businesses' production without involving the economic aspects of a production decision! Rather naive statement in view the definition of economics is the analysis of the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.

I also agree with Alex's comments (if true) in that Dell used deception or made a production mistake. In either situation Dell will/should suffer the economic consequences in consumer confidence that could/should effect their future sales.

"Dell isn't into repairing machines for a source of revenue..." May be, or may be not at the present time, but an on-going concern certainly would keep open/ and or develop all options for future sales by setting the ground work in their present environment.

"Does anybody really believe a few bucks differential really makes an effective arguement..." Heck, yes. I find the argument persuasive, assuming I understand the syntax and meaning of your comments. Somewhat convulated, but I believe I get your point. But nevertheless...

_____________

So the discussion is on the same wave length. Your point refers to a few dollars difference in a products' selling price compared to another company that may or may not be a smaller business. Not even relevant. I am referring to profits.

A few cents of profit for a quarter that exceeds on a pro forma basis analysts' consenses can increase a corporations capital by 10% or more! I am talking about revenue minus cost of production less expenses and excluding extraordinary gains or loses not associated with the business.

 

Hey Thanks.

Didn't realize I was talking about production. Thought I referenced product differentiation as it related to your comments.

Also didn't know I was discussing profitability. Thought my comment was, "correlating cost of operating systems to total component costs in a comparative venue of big vs small, c'mon? Does anybody really believe that a few bucks differential really makes for an effective arguement. Heck, lets get into the savings associated with............ "

Don't recall discussing selling price either ......

Did I say all that? ****, I must be good ....... Even got some feedback about a "pro-forma ", market capitalization and a disclaimer about extraordinary items.

Maybe I'll be discussing incremental costs, providing a quick overview of marginal analysis next.

Rockster2U aka RocksterOnRoad

 

When marginal revenue equals marginal costs profits will be maximized is an easy enough concept to contemplate. So for that your overview is not much of a contribution. However, I am impressed you brought that subject into the discussion.

Incremental (marginal) costs is nothing more than the extra cost of an extra unit of production. That has some significance in the context of this discussion as it relates to pricing a product in a competitive market. How an increase in materials (MS software) will affect marginal costs of a small (less market share) firm vs. a larger business is relevant. I believe it can be shown that a larger firm has a competitive pricing advantage. That is the point I thought I was making. I am not clear where you are going as some comments don't make a heck of a lot of sense! For instance "comparative venue" is fuzzy. Do you mean in a competitive market for analysis? Two bucks differential from what?

BTW, excluding extraordinary items from the bottom line for analysis does not mean a "disclaimer!" And I have to make this comment because it is beginning to annoy me to continue to see the misspelling of argument.

 

This particular aspect of this thread began with my question to KK (if you don't like the abreviation, tell me) concerning his opinion as to the possibility of a future dominated by proprietary machines. I prefaced my query on certain information, some of which I had read on the web (don't ask me to quote time and place) and some I had heard first hand. One such first hand testimony came from a small system builder I occasionally bought from. He is no longer in business. Another, is from my youngest son, who works for his father-in-law, at a shop in southern suburb of Atlanta. His experience was that it was cheaper for them to purchase Window's OS's from Sam's Warehouse than through Microsoft.

I fullly understan that as the volume of buying goes up, the cost per unit goes down. But apparently, when dealing with MS the difference is substantial. Enough, that if one is building basic systems i.e. Celerons & Durons, the cost of the OS becomes a major component in the cost structure of the overall system. Given that there is no viable alternative to MS (although there are those that will argue MS is not a monopoly, they have yet to offer any other competive OS) and given that MS seems to currently be tightening its control over its product is it unreasonable to project to a time when the small system builder can no longer be profitable with the result that a number of large companies are essentially the source of the majority of the computers sold in this country and that they are in some way proprietay.

I know that there is more I want to say here, but I feel my twelve minutes is just about up.

Tin

 

Well said and I agree with your viewpoint. Another aspect for consideration from the supply side is that large firms get a price break from their source when there are purchases in larger quantities and quicker and more dependable shipping dates that may or may not reflect favorably on inventory costs. A major supplier that has a market advantage can certainly hurt the small entrepreneur.

 

OK, I'll try to lose the e from my argument - never made it to the National Spelling Bee.

Believe your research will show that Dell is currently running an industry best, four to five day inventory with JIT deliveries compared to the next best at twelve to fifteen. As to the higher cost, tough times for the small entrepeneur - that's the nature of the marketplace where economies of scale are very much in play. And, if that same small entrepeneur is trying to wage his war on the big guy's turf, he loses. No handicappers necessary to call this one.

Most successful entrepeneurs try to carve out a niche which permits them to compete on a different basis. They know they can't compete profitably from a pricing perspective if their costs are considerably higher than that of their competitors. The guy who's buying OS's from Sam's will never compete with the big boys on pricing (unless he gets a bigger truck). He's got to establish other points of difference and successfully promote them to his potential customers. We should all know that, so what are we arguing (no "e ") about?

My original point (beyond the "trick wiring" in an ATX connector)was that several of the "big guys" are also using a lot of pretty cheap (not to be confused with inexpensive) componentry, too. And, the savings associated with that is even more significant than the cost differential of OS's comparing big guy vs little guy purchasing economics.

 

What I was indirectly alluding to was the misspelling (we all do that to some degree and not worthy of criticism) of a word continuoulsy when another spelling was presented numerous times on the same thread , and why wouldn't that cause some curiosity? It would for me! I thought there was a message there that may be relevant but unimportant in a general sense.

Can't disagree with anything you have stated, in fact, I thought that would go without saying or it had been said. But it appears the discussion may be who are the "Big Guys" and their interactions may have been blended without making a distinction vis a vis the "small player ".

From my perspective one doesn't have to go any further than this BBS for part of the answer. BillyBob recently stated he put together a system that cost $450. There were no labor costs, and I don't believe the price included software. I recently purchased a system for $699 with no tax or shipping costs. It included XP OS and other software.

Now if BillyBob would charge labor costs to a third-party for a purchase of the system, his price would exceed a manufactured price. As you say and in my opinion a very small business cannot compete within those parameters, but to survive the business would find it necessary to do post- sales a service and sale of accessories together with consultation with the establishment of good will within his/her community.

The med to larger firms will compete for market share and potentially use their volume of sales to cut costs. Every dollar that can be cut from costs does provide an edge, and it is not unusual for a business to take a loss to gain market share. That would enable them to successfully utilize an economy of scale
as we all know.

Does microsoft gain with fewer corporate customers that use their product? I suggested that with fewer corp. customers, prices of proprietary systems could rise and with higher prices MS could successfully raise prices. If prices of M/S OS became unreasonably excessive, hardware manufacturers would begin looking for an alternative source. That would be in keeping with economic theory. If you will excuse the comparison, it is not unlike oil producers. They do not raise their prices to an extent that would cause consumption to go to other oil sources or develop new technology. However, reliance on foreign oil is foolish regardless of economic benefits to some people, but I digress.

I don't see MS as a culprit in the computer environment at the present time although they have been engaged in unfair business practices. One should be reminded of the computer environment before microsoft when computer manufacturers had their own OS and provided their own programmers to maintain, modify and install. App programs were written and tailored to each individual business. Very expensive compared to what microsoft has done for the consumer and and business today. Programmers may disagree.