I have just recently returned from Comdex 2003. Honestly, it ended up being a complete waste of my time and the time of all the exhibitors there. Yes, that is a very bold statement, but I believe I can back up my feeling with some all-too-cold hard facts.

Before leaping into why COMDEX was so bad, it is important to understand what trade shows are all about and why anyone would go to them in the first place. Computer trade shows fall into two broad categories, that is, shows for the suits, and shows for the geeks & rest of us (often referred to as "Consumers").

Shows for the suits are where exhibitors show their wares, hoping for the big sale by enticing the corporate IT director, or purchaser into agreeing to or signing that multi-million dollar deal that leads to retirement heaven. These shops have lots of glitz and lots of drunken parties. The people working the floor are from marketing so they have little, if any, knowledge about the products or services the company offers outside of the product press kits assembled by other marketing types, or even worse, they hire local young ladies to entice you to see their booth. These shows are feeding frenzies for the assembled masses. Most serious computer people or, as we are affectionately known, "Consumers" should avoid these shows at all costs. For the most part there is not much to see except what new technologies are being introduced, though the parties at night are great. Oh, yes, one other vital point: There is generally nothing sold at these shows except very over-priced food items. ($3.00 for a 6 oz coke is not unusual.)

The other type of trade show is a consumer trade show. The consumer trade shows look a lot like the corporate trade shows except there are a lot more vendors showing off their wares, the people manning the booths actually know something about the product, and there are actual sales going on. Seldom is there anyone wearing a suit, conversations center around the latest & greatest software or hardware, and not last quarters sales.

Now, on to Comdex: Comdex has been billed as being primarily for suits, and the consumers are allowed to attend. Sales take place, but nothing really of merit. The guys there are selling the cheap digital cameras that have lens made of coke bottle bottoms, the array of disk cleaners, memory, and other odds & ends, but there are no real systems being sold.

Exhibits were from all the major manufacturers showing off anything and everything computer related. And the center ring was held by Microsoft who would make major announcements with Bill Gates always trying to upstage Steve Jobs. Comdex had become the Mecca for computer geeks, at one time playing host to every major computer vendor including Apple and IBM. That was the high point of Comdex.

At last year's Comdex, things were just not right; many blamed 9/11 for the poor attendance, which dropped from 140,000 to perhaps as low as 60,000. But, honestly, everything being shown was tired; there wasn't anything there that excited the attendees, nothing that sparked their neurons, making them drool while waiting for its release. Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that a lot of stuff at past Comdex shows never actually came to market but was shown as potential. In the heyday of Comdex, it would take four full days, eight hours a day, to cover the exhibits. Last year, it took less then two hours, and there was really very little to see. Well, that is, except for Windows XP from Microsoft.

Then the reorganization and re-focusing came. Everyone was told that the organizers of Comdex had a plan, and this year's Comdex would be great. The focus was going to be on new technology, and Comdex wasn't going to be a consumer show. The fact that previous Comdex shows were being touted as consumer shows had everyone scratching their heads. Had they been to the same Comdex as we had? Everyone was told the show was going to be slightly smaller, but the quality was going to be much higher. (The lack of quality is what the organizers used as an excuse for poor attendance, as well as 9/11, the phase of the moon, sun spots, and the Cubs potentially winning the pennant.

With this new focus, many of the show's past attendees, those "Consumers", thought Comdex would be a good show again, a place were they could see what new and exciting things were coming down the pike. Best of all, there was going to be an entire section on Open Systems and Open Source, the thorn in the side of Microsoft.

Then the doors opened to the refocused Comdex 2003Š.

I should have suspected something when the lines were not hours long (five minutes to get in, as opposed to well over two hours three years ago), and only the central hall of the Las Vegas Convention Center was being used (as opposed to all of the LVCC, the Sands CC, and almost every hotel in Las Vegas). But, let's face it, quantity is not quality; it still could be a great show if it lived up to its promise of new technology.

Life contains many disappointments but none as great as seeing Comdex 2003. The lower level was almost exclusively international vendors who seemed to have brought just about anything they wanted. Some sales were taking place, but there was no new technology being demonstrated. After walking for about 15 minutes (I walked the whole lower level in less than an hour), I found, hidden nicely in a corner of the floor, the Open System area. There were only two booths: One was devoted to the Open Source database program, mySQL, but no one there spoke Linux or UNIX, just Windows, and some vendors whom I had never heard. None of the big names in Open Systems were there. Noticeably absent at this year's Comdex were any major companies such as Olympus, Sony, HP, Epson, etc. It seems that the powers-that-be decided that vendors could not show any consumer-oriented products at Comdex, only "technology" and the organizers were the ones to determine what that meant. This rule did not seem to apply to international vendors who almost exclusively were showing consumer-oriented products.

There was an exception, for some reason: Sprint was allowed to show their new line of digital phones, but they were stuck in the middle of the international vendors. I had always thought they were US, but maybe not.

I moved up to the normally very crowded upper level where Microsoft had their traditional huge exhibition, but again, I didn't see anything new. I can't even remember what Microsoft was showing, but whatever it was did not make a big impression. Dell was there with a small booth, as was Gateway, but they were not showing new technology, but rather their current offerings. I did not see any new technology in the two hours it took to walk the entire Comdex exhibition. That's including all presentations I endured. To complete the day, I went to a mall and shopped, and I found more new technology in the mall carts than at Comdex.

As you might have noticed, the problem with Comdex was focus: The show had none. It was not a show for consumers, nor a show for suits, nor a show for geeks. It turned out to be a show for no one. I am not only one who feels this way; I heard it over and over again as people walked the non-crowded isles looking for something new.

This will be my last Comdex. There was nothing to see or do. Fortunately, there are two shows left that have great attraction for me and many others. MacWorld is a great show for consumers of all types, not just Mac users. It is the only show of which I am aware that still has software vendors eager to rent floor space, and most of them are multi-platform.

The other is CES, or the Consumer Electronics Show. This show used to be only about stereo, television, and related items, but it has now expanded to be a huge software and computer peripherals show. Unfortunately, both CES and MacWorld take place during the same first week in January. If given a choice between San Francisco for MacWorld, or Las Vegas for CES, I will chose San Francisco.

- 30 -

John is the President and Dictator-for-Life of the Mountain View Computer Users Group in Sierra Vista, Arizona.

This article is © by John Buono, 2003. There is no restriction against any non-profit group using this article as long as it is kept in context with proper credit given the author.

Date Revised: 23 December 2003