@HangLai:Besides, America needs this kind of manufacturing jobs.
Forget it. That sort of thing migrated to China for lower costs, and won't come back in that form. The market simply won't pay what it would cost to do it here.
If that sort of manufacturing does come back, you can assume it will be robotics, with machines doing the assembly. No one will pay US wage scales to have that done by human beings. There will be jobs created, but they won't be the unskilled/low skilled jobs that made assembly lines popular employment. The new jobs will be programmers for the robotics and techs to maintain them, and a factory using robotics to build this stuff will employ a fraction of the work force and old style factory did.
HP and Dell will gain shares at least in the US market for a period of time. In the other market, Lenovo may not gain share either even with IBM's name for some period of time. HP and Dell cost base is not much higher than Lenovo's since both of them have manufacturing (ODM etc.) in the Far East. Lenovo was able to gain PC share due to its home market in China, which is much larger than the US market (4.5 times of US population), consumers like to buy product from their home manufacturers; yet, its PC revenue is no more than HP PC sale, the total profit is about 10% of HP's. IBM really should work on 'low margin' business; that is the future of this business. If not, IBM's revenue will continue to shrink, eventually will become irrelevant in the field. Besides, America needs this kind of manufacturing jobs.
This is simply the next logical step after IBM sold the PC business to Lenovo.
The problem is that Intel X86 architecture based products are commodities, with commodity pricing and razor thin margins. They are fungible: given the same specs, it largely doesn't matter whose name is on the box, and the purchase decision comes down to price. In that environment, lowest cost producer wins, and IBM isn't and can't be the lowest cost producer.
As the market for servers developed, things like dedicated rack servers emerged, and later blade servers. In the early stages, they provided added value that customers would pay more for. Those innovations are now standard and widely available, and don't command a price premium. Servers are commodities just like destops and laptops. (At a former employer, we were adding rack mounted servers at a rapid clip. I preferred HP for reliability, and so did my boss, but Dell got the nod because they were cheaper.)
It made perfect sense for IBM to sell the server lines to Lenovo, and for Lenovo to buy them. IBM can't make money on the hardware. Lenovo can.
The question is whether Lenovo can maintain the needed level of quality and reliability, and it's a safe bet that they'll certainly try to. The market still has higher expectations for reliability and useful life on server products than it does for PCs and laptops.
Does the market benefit from commoditization of servers? Sure. It lowers costs and increases what the market can do with servers, because server based computing becomes more affordable. It's another instance of the same forces that made the PC ubiquituous. The barrier to most things that might be desirable is what it will cost to do them, and as costs drop, more things happen.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.