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: Apollo who wrote (26825)	6/26/2000 4:45:00 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 54805

CompactFlash : Dunno if y'all use the card this way, so I thought I'd post on one of the "non-traditional" uses : often times I'm at a prospect/cust site, doing presentations. In the past I used to lug my laptop. these days, I copy the info onto a compactflash card, carry my pcmcia adaptor for the card, and borrow a laptop at the destination. works like a dream, and no baggage apart from a credit card sized device to carry!!! cheers, kumar

To: Apollo who wrote (26825)	6/27/2000 10:26:00 AM
From: nosmo_king	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 54805

SNDK, gorilla criteria: Sir Apollo, Yesterday you outlined SNDK's gorilla characteristics with comments I generally agree with (and thank you for outlining months of discussion in easy-to-understand terms), though with one exception. (#3) CompactFlash is a discontinuous innovation but I don't feel it is truly better than film. This is a small point, I think, for whether a discontinuous innovation is better than its predecessor isn't important as long as the value chain develops (digital cameras, Palm/MP3 etc.) and the remainder of the criteria are met. A direct analogy might be Poloroid with it's instant photography. They made a fortune based on a technology/discontinuous innovation that most would agree produces inferior (compared with film negatives) photographs. Even though digital cameras have been improving, the quality of the photographs is not as good as film based cameras (at least the sub $1000 models). There are clearly advantages to digital photography (ability to delete pics/goofed shots) but most would be able to detect differences in quality when compared to film-based photos. Am I splitting hairs? My intent is in trying to understand whether the discontinuous innovation must be better, and would appreciate your thoughts. TIA, nosmo PS A few messages back, you commented, I was dismayed to read that I sounded smarter last year than this. <g> LOL! I'm impressed with both years. PPS Awesome archeological data, TB! I found your finds (messages 26866 and 26868 very helpful. PPPS Stan, film negatives can be easily converted to "digital" photography with film scanners, though it takes an extra step: usa.canon.com