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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (75780)	10/18/1999 4:11:00 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 1572777

RE: "But when it comes to a tech company, I don't think maturing is a desired goal." Hi Tejek, If you mean "maturing" as in low growth, I agree with you. But, this wasn't what I was referring to. I meant, generally speaking, "some maturing" could be a desired goal in order to establish "standards" within the industry, within Windows, or to shift the market from specialized silicon to non-specialized silicon, etc., where mass deployment could become feasible - this is what I was referring to. Generally speaking, I was talking about healthy maturing as it relates to establishing standards whose net effect could possibly result in substantial market growth --- a market can sometimes grow quicker if there are commercial industry standards in place for all to use, rather than proprietary technology which only a few know. But it depends upon the market phase. And proprietary technology can be much better at certain phases. RE: "Maturing means your products are outdated and that a sales decline is eminent." That's definitely not how I was using the word "maturing"! Generally speaking, maturing could possibly mean your sales are ready to take off like a hockey stick [I'm exaggerating to make my point, and I'm being general here in my post, not specific to any particular company] because you've just deployed standards which may be used and deployed by many, rather than a few (all depending upon the market phase.) RE:"I think startups learn early on that the name of game is more about staying on the cutting edge and having the resources committed to insure that that happens." I agree. RE: "Money was no object" Legally, it has to be. There is a fiduciary responsibility with which executives must fulfill - they must be focused on increasing price/share. The names of officers and directors even get filed with the State. The executives must make their very best effort to make it profitable to their investors, which includes employees, who are share holders too, and the investors will, at some point, demand liquid stock so they may cash in on their return, and an IPO is one way to achieve this goal. RE: "He lost touch with what was important in the never ending struggle to stay on top." I can imagine it is all-consuming. RE: "As for the acquirer, my understanding is that intc bought DSP and LEVL not because they are strategic fits but because they are businesses to which intc wants to migrate." I would consider filling a gap as a strategic fit. I'd add, deployment of building blocks could possibly be a bit of a twist to maybe some of these company's goals, but would still be strategic. Thanks for your comments. Amy J