Intel...Watch & Wait??????
Agreed, that is why we should stick it in the Watch and Wait porfolio. Just like ELON.
You raise an interesting question. Should we place Intel in the W&W? BTW, mentioning Intel in the same breath as Elon has got to be the ultimate slam to poor ol' Intel. <vbg>
When this Thread was developed in February of 1999, I wasn't here yet. But our Thread Forefathers conceived of the GKI and the W&W Portfolios. It's my understanding that we have developed the W&W Portfolio as a place to follow Gorilla & King Candidates.
Placing a gorilla that has stumbled in W&W is a novel idea, but goes against the grain of what W&W was intended to do. If Intel is a successful gorilla, it is simply transitioning between recurring tornadoes spawned by new CPUs (ie P-III to P-IV), as suggested by Moore. If Intel is a King, it remains so by definition in that it commands > 2X the market position of its nearest competitor in PC microprocessors.
If Intel is a stumbling gorilla, it may be alternatively moving to Main Street if it cannot induce a new tornado as it has so successfully done in the past. Should Silverbacks on Main Street not be a part of the GKI? I don't know the answer to this. But I would say that the Silverback on Main Street doesn't belong the W&W Portfolio.
To recapitulate, Sauky, you've made us think more about Intel. My view is:
1. Intel as a fallen king or gorilla, or any other fallen leader, doesn't belong in W&W because that is not how we have previously designed the W&W (which was designed for up an comers, crossing the chasm or entering the bowling alley). W&W hasn't previously been a waystation for Main Streeters. However, if Intel cannot make a comeback (same for MSFT), then I would agree with you that Intel doesn't belong in our 10 best GKI.
2. I'd like to thank you for teaching me the word "inerrant". I didn't know that word existed before, until you used it today about a dozen times. <g> Now, it's deeply ingrained, and I'm going to try to wow my residents with it on rounds next week. <vbg>
3. I'd like to thank you for making us think this weekend. You're entirely right that we should question TRFM, and refine our understanding.
Best,
Apollo |
