Sam,
Terrific post! You pushed my brain cells into high gear.
When you question the "matter of degree," my take on it is in two sentences you skipped over which, for me, might be the key. I'll run them by you to see what you think.
Go back to your quote at the very top of the page (75 in the FM or page 82 in the RFM.) It sez: "The market position of Intel's architecture ensures that the competitive advantage within category is long-lived. This frees Intel from the pressures of chimp [my emphasis] competition. It does not free it, however from the pressure of monkey competition."
That context might explain why the authors call it a matter of degree. The gorilla is free of competition from the chimps but not the monkeys.
The power of the gorilla is based on its control over a value chain.
GULP. I was the one who wrote Friday night that the gorilla doesn't control the chain, that that is not how gorilla games are played. OUCH! I couldn't find that. What page is it on, please? I'd like to review it in context.
I did find this: "The companies that gain ascendency within these value chains, however, not only have power over the value chain, they have the power of the value chain. That is, they can compete using the chain itself as a weapon, not just their own company's offers." (Italics were in the manuals. Page 45 of the FM and page 44 of the RFM.)
In that context, the importance of the value chain for me is that the value chain supports the gorilla because it must to survive. Members of the value chain hate the gorilla because they would prefer to be the gorilla and because any link of the chain that decides to compete with the gorilla is immediately thrown off balance by a subtle or not so subtle change in the gorilla's strategy. Yet I still submit that the essence of the value chain is that it adds value, and the fact that it is subject to the whims of the gorilla is less important.
That's what I think at least until I read the stuff about control you found in greater context.
--Mike Buckley |
