Jd,
However, Intel doesn't control Ram chip mfgs. and box makers to a point where they tell them this is what were making take it or leave it. Intel would be leaving much more then the current 10-15% on the table if they didn't counter PC133 solution with their own solution over the next 12 months.
To a certain degree, I agree. I've said before that I wasn't sure why they weren't supporting PC-133, and that I didn't see it as any big deal (in the past, not yesterday). As long as RDRAM is still their strategic direction, we'll get there. Wherever they were planning to support PC-100 before, they could just fill in PC-133 and phase it out over the same timeframe. So we're in agreement here.
With respect to the DRAM manufacturers, however, I think some game theory comes into play (a la OPEC). Certainly the DRAM manufacturers could close ranks and say that they're not going to build RDRAM, but as soon as one of them cheats, they all have to cheat or risk not competing in the RDRAM market (again, as long as Intel sticks to its guns and says it's the strategic direction). And the incentive for the first one to cheat is very high -- more revenues and profits. A similar analysis applies to the box makers, focusing instead on the need by the leading manufacturers to look "cutting edge". Without RDRAM support, they look like laggards. Maybe HP and IBM would be happy with that, but I don't think Compaq and Dell would.
So I think Intel still has a tremendous amount of muscle to move the markets to RDRAM, almost to the point of saying take it or leave it. But they won't do that because, as you point out, it does open up their flank to the competition. Better to take the battle to them directly.
JMO,
Dave |
