Paul & Harry, RE: WSJ article,
Harry, the $2 million against a significant problem, I think, was part of the negative slant of the article.
Paul, the quotes about Intel's not doing original research were in part from A. Grove and the COO. (the Grove quote had a .... in the middle, which I always distrust as that could have been an important qualifier for his statement)
The importance of the perspective of this article is not the past, as Intel has past performance to prove an excellent business model. The part that concerns me is going forward, is the current Intel technology (archetecture) at a dead end? If so, will Intel be able to convert to a technology without allowing a window of opportunity for the significant competitors (IBM, Motorola, DEC), large companies with deep pockets?
I've always said that Intel is the best bet in the market, but you have to be aware of changes over the horizon that could change the competitive balance. I'm not trying to be negative, just trying to understand (as a non-tech person) where Intel and the marketplace are headed.
Thanks,
John |
