Intel Corporation (INTC) Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 40.34

-2.6%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Tony Viola who wrote (115142)	10/29/2000 6:27:25 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) of 186894

RE: "Even before that, why did they go with such a risky interface design that Rambus is for something not in "the top ten" for PC performance?" ----------------------------- Hi Tony, Management went with the risky design, not the engineers: I don't think you read Elmer's post. Evidently, Albert Yu was behind Rambus, not the engineers (for that particular product/market/timing). IMO it appears Albert got too disconnected from the engineering team (which I would guess made him misjudge/trust what I'll call, the timing of the stability curve to market) and he appeared to be a bit disconnected from the market (i.e. cost evolution curve, appropriate market segment, and market timing of all these factors). It's my WAG that Albert Yu was personally distracted about the time the Rambus decision was made, which it appears from Paul's post was about 1997. I believe Rambus was a bit too early in the evolution curve. And I wouldn't be surprised if I heard that Rambus engineering was dragging their heels, gating Intel's performance. Regards, Amy J

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next