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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (96663)	3/3/2000 8:56:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574854

Tench, re:"How would you do things differently at Intel" Craigs strategy is BRILLIANT. The execution SUCKS. To really have meaningfull growth in SHORT ORDER (2-4 yrs) on a $25Bn biz you don't buy $100M to $500M/yr companies with modest growth. You buy an ANALOG DEVICES for DSP and Mixed signal and wireless. You buy LSI LOGIC the leader in SOC and ASICS. You buy a long distance PHONE company ala GTE. You buy exodus if you are serious about web hosting. If they had done this type of acquisition 2 years AGO Intel would be FAR FAR along the diversification path. Instead they have tinkered buying chips and tech, dialogic, DSP, Level One. All modestly significant companies - buts folks that had MODEST GROWTH, MODEST PROFITS etc. regards, Kash Johal

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (96663)	3/3/2000 10:02:00 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574854

Perhaps two years from now, Barrett will be hailed as a visionary for success in diversifying Intel, for success in IA-64, and for success in making the controversial Rambus a winner in the end. But of course, that's just my own opinion as a mind-controlled slave of Intel. Tenchusatsu, The jury is still out; however I think Barrett has been on the job long enough so that his acquisitions should provide some benefit to Intel's bottom line. Its possible things may be turning slower than he may like but I think there may be mistakes being made as well. I think its really critical what the BW article said about the people from CSCO's acquisition targets getting incorporated into CSCO's organizational structure. I think that is why CSCO's buyouts have been so accretive to the bottom line. Co-opting the key people ensures continuity and helps keep the most valued employees of the acquisition. Certainly CSCO's way is not the only way to do this but it is one of the more successful ways. In the end Barrett may pull it off but I suspect he is on borrowed time right now. Whatever happens I think getting a company to migrate from business to another is one of the more exciting jobs. ted