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.

Pastimes : All Clowns Must Be Destroyed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: re3 who wrote (11224)	2/20/2000 11:05:00 AM
From: Thomas M.	Respond to of 42523

Message 12923106

To: re3 who wrote (11224)	2/20/2000 11:45:00 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42523

Are you saying that you would rather own NN than CSCO?

To: re3 who wrote (11224)	2/20/2000 12:50:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 42523

Before you let those posters persuade you, and I'd rather not say anything personal so I'll just say that I wouldn't rely on them for advice in technology issues, is that you should dig further, but how? This isn't an industry where reading a balance sheet is going to tell you what you need to know. You need to understand the future of the Internet, and none of us are psychic. George Gilder recently stated in ASAP that Cisco's business will be moribund in a few years, due to changes in technology. On the other hand, yesterday I read something interesting about Cisco, in the latest "Fast Company": fastcompany.com >>Cisco Systems is a classic example. Cisco is best viewed as an extremely efficient sales-and-marketing machine. Its research-and-development strategy largely entails identifying and buying small, single-product companies just as a particular technology is beginning to prove itself. As a result, Cisco can eliminate much of the guesswork that would otherwise go into its research function. The selling price is often high, but what may seem like an outrageous valuation for an untested startup is actually a bargain for Cisco. That strategy works well precisely because many of the companies that Cisco acquires and integrates are built to flip. Buying such a company -- one that has focused almost exclusively on the creation of a new product or service -- involves overcoming relatively few barriers. In this model, the acquired company is generally young. It has few ingrained beliefs about "the way we do business around here," and so it is more adaptable to the culture of the acquiring company. And because it has not focused on building strong sales and distribution capabilities, its employees welcome what the acquiring company brings to the party. Is it wrong for Cisco to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on such a strategy? Is it wrong for entrepreneurs to create single-product companies that they can flip to Cisco? Not at all. In my view, that's a very creative and compelling strategy. In any case, it's hard to argue with Cisco's performance over the past few years.<<