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: Uncle Frank who wrote (19952)	3/12/2000 11:10:00 PM
From: rel4490	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Interesting comments from Geoff Moore on the GG Digest: Subject: RE: gorillagame Digest #826 - 03/11/00 From: "Geoffrey Moore" <geoffmoore@chasmgroup.com> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:09:41 -0800 Gang, I'd like to comment on this post by kumar: * If I understand the book right, the biggest differentiator between a gorilla and a godzilla is the presence/absence of a tangible product (with lockins in either case). I see INTC, CSCO, MSFT have tangible products. I also see AOL, HLTH etc have "a not so tangible product", but have a mechanism for a lock-in. They work on the basis of "user stickyness". Do we call that attribute a product ? I thought so, but I'm not sure anymore. Godzillas also tend to get evaluated on "potential future stickyness" in areas outside of their curent sphere of operation. comments ? cheers, kumar * There is an important point to get here. Product-based technologies force users and partners to adapt to technical standards that create switching costs -- the core of the gorilla lock-in. Internet-based services, for the most part, do not have this feature. They do, however, create other types of switching costs, ones that are less blatant but not necessarily less effective. In the case of AOL, if you have all your buddies on AOL, if everyone has that email address for you, and if you like to chat in their chat rooms, you have BIG switching costs to leave. In the case of Healtheon, if you have committed to a business process that is HLTH-enabled and you decide to stop, again you could have big switching costs. Then there is the issue of increasing returns. The more people you know on AOL, the more valuable it becomes to you (and them). The more companies that transact on HLTH, the more valuable it becomes to the whole industry. Thus one can achieve de facto standard lock-ins without proprietary technology. The reason why we use two different words, however, is that with products we know the locks hold, whereas to date, with Internet services, it remains to be seen. Geoff Geoffrey Moore

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (19952)	3/13/2000 3:35:00 AM
From: Dr. Id	Respond to of 54805

OT It appears you have your priorities in order, RJ. Well, maybe except for the UCLA/Penn part. Stanford is a lock. Gee, Frank. I seem to recall a few Saturdays ago when UCLA beat then No. 1 Stanford...hmmm. I could be wrong, but I think that UCLA has won 6 in a row, and Stanford has lost 2 of 3. I'm not so sure of Stanford's Gorilla power... Dr. Id, a proud alumnus of the original Gorilla basketball school...they had a great CEO (John Wooden), high switching costs (you'd have to sit out a year), strong Value chain (Sam Gilbert), proprietary architecture (Pauley Pavilion)