QUANTUM Message Board - Msg: 3496387

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 : QUANTUM

QNTM 9.940

-0.6%

Dec 5 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hungry Investor who wrote (7379)	2/21/1998 8:02:00 PM
From: Stitch	Read Replies (2) of 9124

Scot, Both you and Lawrence have rightfully pointed out that we cannot know the numbers of IBM for the sake of this argument. But I want to point out that my original use of IBM as an example was to dispute Alan Hume's contention that you cannot have the "leading edge" in a vertical integration model. Clearly IBM has shown that you can. Now, having said that, I also intimated, and herein state more clearly, that IMHO a vertical integration model is a better path to commercial success then a so called "virtual" integration model ala W-D. Recent quarters aside I think Seagate's dominance in the market prior to their becoming arrogant over their market share, is support for this contention. Also, keep in mind, that the current market momentum has swayed to IBM, Fujitsu, and Maxtor. All are vertical integrators or moving in that direction. One advantage of vertical integration is the ability to use outside supply for buffer margin. Anyone agree with this last statement? (Or disagree). Best, Stitch

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next