SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Eric L who wrote (32925)10/8/2000 5:13:10 PM
From: saukriver  Read Replies (1) of 54805
 
I find that one even harder to swallow than INTC all of a sudden becoming a King which I find very hard to swallow.

I am not for one minute offering that Intel as a gorilla suddenly became a king. I am suggesting that Lindy was correct that it was not a gorilla to begin with.

Moore's statements and examples about Intel's gorillahood in the manual are numerous

So what? I readily concede that TRFM--while the single most useful construct for assessing technology investments--is not inerrant. The first half of TRFM is pretty solid in laying out the method of analysis. The second half is weaker in application. Chapter 12 smacks of "making it up us as we go."

Geoffrey Moore was quite slow to assess Qualcomm's gorillahood. Why not be equally suspicious of how quickly he annointed Intel? He was too quick to conclude Intel is a gorilla and in that instance should have applied his own criteria more rigorously.

There must be something more to the argument that Intel is a gorilla than (1) the book says Intel is a gorilla, (2) if you were too stupid to understand the book, even the some of the headings in the book suggest it is a gorilla, (3) like gorillae, Intel has a pile o' cash, (4) like many gorillae, INTC spends alot on R&D, (5) Intel has a history of strong management, or (6) INTC performed very well in the first 8 months of this year. None of those is an argument that Intel is a gorilla. None of them addresses the fact that Intel traded proprietary control of the CPU architecture for ubiquity when it licensed the x86 architecture to AMD.

Intel is a king that executed superbly for many, many years against very weak hands, and Geoffrey Moore should have recognized as much.

We have heard for at least 4 years that Intel may dominate the 64-bit architecture (first code named Merced, then Itanium(sp?)). (Is the reason for Intel's slowness in rolling out Merced, or whatever it nows calls 64-bit, is because the 64-bit architecture will hurt existing x86 sales. Shades of Polaroid.) I grant you--as indeed one has to--that Intel may control the 64-bit architecture. But that is a "wait and see" argument.

saukriver
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News