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.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MIKE REDDERT who wrote (21400)	4/22/2000 1:56:00 PM
From: gpowell	Respond to of 29970

Well said, Companies like Intel can afford to address secondary and tertiary concerns like branding because their execution is already flawless. Branding, ex post facto.

To: MIKE REDDERT who wrote (21400)	4/22/2000 1:59:00 PM
From: Mooster	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Mike, Intel has really never been on the cutting edge of microprocessors, or even Si fabrication. Execution has not been flawless. Remember the likes of Cyrix? Intel was broadsided by a simple integration of "graphics features" and cpu. They ignored the cheap pc, and the stock price suffered because of it. Then what happened? Celeron to the rescue. A new brand was born which segmented the market and actually drew the line between the basic pc (k5, cyrix, and yes, Celeron), the performance pc (PII/III), and server (Xeon). The market immediately responded and cyrix sold out to NSM which is nothing more than a grave yard for Si mistakes. By creating the basic pc, they transformed the image of a cost effective pc to low end pc. The cheap or cost effective message is positive, while basic helps clarify low end which is essentially a negative message. After the marketing dust settled, Intel's margins were squeezed due to the creation of the Celeron image, but over time their Si processing took the reigns and actually turned a tidy profit. Over time, sales have migrated back to the performance pc. The lesson here is that first, a market was created through the use of branding, and later manufacturing made it profitable. There was never a new product. Back to cutting edge. I said Intel has never had cutting edge processors, much as msft has never had a cutting edge os. Remember the 8086? The 68000 architecture was years ahead. Remember the 486? The Alpha was several years ahead. Remember the original Pentium? The PowerPC was years ahead. It's not the product alone which makes Intel successful. It's not manufacturing alone. Like I said before, it's several things, including luck, timing, and in some cases strategic investments from IBM, a failing Dram biz with empty fabs and most certainly, marketing.