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: Mike Buckley who wrote (13936)	1/3/2000 9:39:00 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike, << Do we know the quote is accurate? I don't remember the context of that article >> He was not quoted. The following statement was attributed to him. "Moore suggests that Qualcomm (QCOM), with its CDMA cell-phone technology, and fiber-optic components company JDS Uniphase (JDSU) are possible young gorillas in the making, joining such established gorillas as Microsoft (MSFT), Intel (INTC), Cisco Systems (CSCO), Oracle (ORCL) and SAP (SAP)." moneycentral.msn.com - Eric -

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (13936)	1/3/2000 9:42:00 AM
From: Bruce Brown	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike, (change - I had to edit this because I see Eric provided the proper link) I read the article where Moore said we might have two possible gorilla candidates in Qualcomm and JDS Uniphase. I believe it was Money Central, but would have to dig around to find it. It didn't mention when Moore was interviewed and didn't got too in depth about it. However, the context was that these two companies might have the possibility as young candidates to follow in the footsteps of companies like Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle and SAP. Regardless, given the thought process Moore has gone through in terms of the word/term Gorilla in his trilogy of books (plus the revised version), it appears that we might be too focused on nailing the term down because of the polishing done on this thread. At least we know what the elements we are looking for can do for our investing over the long haul. Whether the proper title is given to the dominant player by the book's author or we investors doesn't really matter when factoring in the growth, the technology and the position the respective companies hold within their technology adoption life cycles. BB

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (13936)	1/3/2000 3:27:00 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Merlin, I think you're being a little too generous, at least in the specific instance. We need to separate two levels of analysis: the general framework of the game and how it operates, and the operationalization of that framework in terms of specific companies, sectors, etc. Moore clearly has made some major conceptual breakthroughs in the first, but he seems a bit slapdash when dealing with the second. It takes nothing away from his original insights to point out that this thread has done a better job than he has over the past year in applying them to real companies in real time. I think that's partly because so many of us now are so heavily invested in a very few gorillas and kings--we have a lot riding on our judgments, that is, in a way Moore may not. I've been in situations before that are somewhat analogous. A senior professor writes a big book or comes up with a new theory, for example, but top young graduate students are better at implementing it or tinkering with it. Anyway, I have nothing against Moore, and am obviously extraordinarily grateful to him for what he has given us all. But I'll take our collective judgment over his, thank you very much, and I advise anyone who thinks that comment is overly arrogant to search the thread archives for Moore and the Q to see how y'all showed him up in the spring. tekboy/Ares@nuffsaid.com