Yes and no. From a customer perspective, I'm sure declining quality did them in. But that declining quality didn't happen in a vacuum.
From what I remember, Dell did a much better job of managing supply chain costs than Gateway did. I suspect that the declining quality was Gateway cutting corners to remain price-competitive with them. It's quite possible Gateway could have maintained quality at higher prices, but that would have just been a different way to die (and quite possibly a faster one - declining quality takes more time to recognize than higher prices, plus Apple's resurgence would have complicated any plan to go after the high end). Either way, pressure from Dell is what backed Gateway into that corner in the first place, so it is entirely reasonable to attribute Gateway's problems to them.
I wonder now, should they have kept their quality level even at higher prices and keep some value in the brand (at the cost of shrinking sales of course). If you adapt by lowering the proposition don't you fade away faster ?
There wasn't really a market for premium Wintel boxes other than the gaming makers and they were a niche. (And even Alienware ended up selling out to Dell.)
From what I remember, Dell did a much better job of managing supply chain costs than Gateway did. I suspect that the declining quality was Gateway cutting corners to remain price-competitive with them. It's quite possible Gateway could have maintained quality at higher prices, but that would have just been a different way to die (and quite possibly a faster one - declining quality takes more time to recognize than higher prices, plus Apple's resurgence would have complicated any plan to go after the high end). Either way, pressure from Dell is what backed Gateway into that corner in the first place, so it is entirely reasonable to attribute Gateway's problems to them.