Robert,
I believe Burt reiterated the key reason for Intel's ability to
maintain its dominance in the Information Processing Industry. To quote Burt, if I may,
"The problem with defeating them is the size of the bet you have to place to compete. You have to design a better mousetrap.
Unfortunately, it better be 100% compatible with Intel's
mousetrap or there's no software to run on your device."
Robert, As you know I have had high regard for your opinions. I have written you such when we were both on Prodigy. Therefore, it was most surprising for me to read your current views, as stated in your posts on this, as well as the CYRX, threads. Over the years I have written many times, both on SI and Prodigy, that even if a competitor could develop a chip that was 100% backward compatible with Intel's, it could not guarentee or ensure compatibility with Intel's products going forward. And it is this fact that ensures Intel's future.
When I think of the aggravation that I go through, each time I install a new software application on my computer, and it doesn't work, I am reinforced in my conviction for Intel's dominance. $400 more for the cost of "Intel Inside"?, why I would pay 10 times more. To have the piece of mind in knowing that the problem I am experiencing, by installing that new software, is NOT because I do not have "Intel Inside", is worth a great amount. Certainly you must realize, that the ability to eliminate the possibility that the problem could be caused by incompatibility with my Pentium chip, is worth a lot of money, for both individuals and the corporate users.
Jules |
