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: shamsaee who wrote (25908)	6/6/2000 8:52:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Shamsaee, I also think being a consultant to Nokia is a conflict of interest and reduces objectivity on his part. I don't, at least not to any significant degree. Don't forget that it's his responsibility as a consultant to Nokia to tell those folks exactly what the market strength of CDMA is regardless of what they think of the other issues involving the technology. That's why they hired him. And if a potential conflict of interest prevented him from writing about a particular sector, it's likely he wouldn't have been able to write about the computer sector in which case he never would have written any of the books. In summary, I have no problem with him writing about sectors in which he operates. If anything, it's natural that there would be more mistakes on his part when he writes about areas in which he doesn't operate, one example initially being the wireless area. (By the way, we have no idea if Moore is consulting to Nokia about anything having to do with the wireless industry.) I would appreciate your opinion of his long list of candidates across various sectors. It really doesn't matter what I think. Each of us has to form those opinions for ourselves. And it really doesn't matter whether or not we agree with Moore as was demonstrated when Moore initially wrote that Qualcomm was a prince playing a royalty game to King Nokia. There are only two important issues -- that we invest our heard-saved dollars based on our own research and that Moore gave us the ground-breaking basis for doing that research without having to understand the details of the various technologies. --Mike Buckley

To: shamsaee who wrote (25908)	6/6/2000 11:52:00 AM
From: tekboy	Respond to of 54805

chamois, re <<I would appreciate your opinion of his long list of candidates across various sectors. When I read TFM he identified 4 companies as gorillas having the benefit of looking back but now he seems to have a mutual fund of candidates going forward.>> First, remember that there is a crucial difference between different kinds of gorillas. At the top of the hierarchy are enabling technology gorillas, which are indeed few and far between. The short list was always about those guys, not about gorillas in general. Second, I see nothing in the new book that fundamentally alters Moore's view of the gorilla game and its dynamics. It is a subsidiary topic of the new book, not the main focus, and I would still use the RFM as a guide to thinking on the subject--although as we parse out the new book and see how Moore responds to questions about it we may find that his views on some minor points have evolved over time. One interesting feature of the new book, for example, is a discussion of just how difficult it is now to become a gorilla. I think one can say that, partly thanks to Moore himself, the market now understands what gorilla power is and is loath to tolerate the emergence of any new major pongids. Hence everybody now teams up to strangle the gorilla neonates in their jungle cribs--as the forces of evil are trying to do with Qualcomm as we speak. This new awareness of gorilla power, Moore implies, makes it necessary for aspiring gorillas to be far more devious than they would have to have been in the past. Third, the list I posted was not--repeat not-- a "mutual fund of [gorilla] candidates going forward." It was a list of previous discontinuous innovations that produced tornados and new value chains, along with companies that profited therefrom. Yes, some of those market sectors are still around, and some of the companies are still leaders in them. But in no way was the list meant to be a recommendation for current or future investors. One final point, since people might be interested. This new book confirms the convergence that has been noted between the work of Moore and Christensen. Not only does the latter blurb the book, but the text is shot through with explicit references to the innovator's dilemma and Christensen's work. tekboy/Ares@canipleasefinishreadingthedamnthingnow?.com