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 : Network Appliance -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DownSouth who wrote (3267)	5/15/2000 4:33:00 PM
From: John F.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10934

DS, I am not so sure that "this tactic" IS just an "old mainframe sales tactic". In modern times, Intel has learned how beneficial keeping competitors at bay can be. And, Intel has only had minor antitrust related problems. IMO, Intel's success in the mid 90's was due to ... 1. the arrival of Windows 95 which took forever to boot, .. and even longer to set up, and 2. the arrival of new applications that benefited from additional microprocessor .. horsepower (ie: Autocad, CD ROMs, and PC based games), and 3. staying 1 step ahead of competitors in the race to supply .. the highest performance chips in volume, and finally 4. the marking down in price of older chips by Intel in such a manner .. as to make competitors lower power offerings less profitable. 5. the success of the Intel Inside marketing campaign, and It is item 4, above, that IMO represents the kind of tactic that EMC could embark upon. lthough EMC could not mark down older systems for sale, EMC could develop NAS systems to be sold at prices that would erode NTAP's penetration into EMC accounts. Only time will tell how EMC will address the threats from NTAP, IBM, & Hitachi. EMC no doubt recognizes that the most critical need is to keep focused on the SAN market. But, EMC has also recognized the need to counter the NAS threat posed by NTAP. Fortunately, for the immediate future, the pie is big enough for all!! Now to do more reading so that I'm better able to post something more insightful. I clearly need to do further reading on SAN and NAS... Again, thanks for the book suggestion. And thanks for your well thought out answer to my post #3252 (your post #3264)!

To: DownSouth who wrote (3267)	5/15/2000 4:41:00 PM
From: kas1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10934

Isn't this strategy sort of what Christensen's book tells large firms to do? Sell a leading-edge product even if not many customers want it, even if it loses money? The strategic rationale for EMC would be twofold: achieving some sort of lock-in with customers (since vendor-switching costs are not negligible), and maybe starving out NTAP. Yup, it's just like the mainframe days. This is a bit like Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer for free. Of course they lost money on that product per se, since they spent money writing and distributing it, and didn't charge a penny for it. But unlike Netscape, which was (at first) a one-pony show, Microsoft's other businesses could subsidize that loss leader business. So DS, do you think NTAP's product has a sufficient technological advantage so that even if EMC were to pull a Microsoft, customers would still buy the NTAP product?