Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gdichaz who wrote (2613)	6/13/1999 4:16:00 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

goes to a basic problem with the Gorilla Game as some sort of Bible for application throughout all forms of technology. I believe it holds as a set of tools to use to examine companies, GDI. The difference with Qualcomm is that you don't have to buy the basic chip from them, but you have to pay them a royalty for using the ideas. Imagine if Microsoft was set up so that you could buy a license to produce and sell Windows, but you had to pay Microsoft a royalty for each Windows package you sold. This would still make Microsoft a Gorilla, but they would just not be the only company in the business of producing the Window's package. This would open up Windows, but would lock companies even tighter to the Windows standard, which is one solution that could come out of the DOJ case. As far a Q goes, like any other company, we get rich because the earnings go up dramatically, or we don't! But, the fact that we understand the "Gorilla" nature of their business gives us a better perspective on the future of the company.

To: gdichaz who wrote (2613)	6/13/1999 11:44:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Chaz too, I didn't immediately respond to your post about Geoff Moore and the book because I wanted to give it some more thought. Now I'm ready. :) Moore is either not interested or doesn't have the time to deal with a central point of (non)knowledge on his part in telecom. I agree, but I think that's his right. Just as I'm making the decision not to spend a lot of time looking at UNPH, he's apparently making the decision not to spend a lot of time looking at QCOM. So you won't find me saying that it's wrong, bad, sad or anything. It's simply his choice. That's where the comparison with my lack of interest in UNPH ends. I'm not offering an opinion about UNPH. However, Moore is offering a public opinion on his list-serv about QCOM. That opinion, relative to the models in his book, is based on his inferred perception of media coverage while at the same time he admits not having a handle on the facts. That is the sad part. In fairness, he said all the right caveats,... Yes and no. (My opinion.) He used the right caveat by admitting that he didn't have the facts. But he also maintains the position that QCOM has no way of becoming a gorilla. His stance is that the telecom industry won't allow a gorilla to rule the turf having seen what the Wintel machine did to the PC industry. Extending that logic just a little bit more, should we conclude that there will never be another new gorilla supplying enabling software to a hardware industry because everyone knows what Wintel did "to" the PC industry? (A rhetorical and sarcastic question.) ... his answer is very discouraging to me and perhaps others who find the TGG a useful analytical tool. Here is where I side entirely with LindyBill. For me, Moore's thinking about QCOM doesn't invalidate the book in the slightest. Ironically, the validity of his book makes me see even more clearly the error of his ways regarding the Q. One of the co-authors disagreed with him about including Netscape in the hypothetical Internet Gorilla Game. I have to think the act of writing the book helped that person (I can't remember whether it was Johnson or Kippola.) crystallize his disagreement with Moore. To the extent that the book helps each of us form crystal-clear opinions, the book is time and again validated. Lastly, on page 309 the authors write: "We should note that, when we have to eat crow, we will no doubt attempt to slather it with a sauce of explanation and self-justification. ... On the other hand, should we get to serve crow, we will of course dress up as if it were a Thanksgiving feast. In short, we will act shamelessly in either case, and we can only trust that you, the discriminating reader, will penetrate all our machinations and skewer us good and proper." Not only have we skewered him good and proper but we've roasted him too. In the end, we all deserve our just desserts. He's gotten his by virtue of this thread and I think we'll get ours by virtue of our undersanding of the Q. --Mike Buckley