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: DownSouth who wrote (28896)	7/26/2000 12:51:48 PM
From: sditto	Respond to of 54805

<<INTC, for valid reasons, decided to license its IPR to AMD and others. The result, imo, is that INTC never quite made it to Gorilla status. They lost control of their IPR and the BTEs were lowered.>> INTC was forced by IBM to develop/allow secondary sources to foster competition and ensure supply thus reducing the risk of committing to the 80xxx design. In retrospect it was a great move ensuring a paranoid Andy Grove would move mountains to ensure continued INTC success. INTC never gave up control of the architecture, developed the strongest value chain, and has been able to stay one step ahead of able competition. Even when AMD beats them in some minor refinement to the architecture (does anyone really care if they announce availability of x00 MHz a month earlier) INTC is able to use their control to redefine the playing field. If INTC is not a Gorilla than who is?

To: DownSouth who wrote (28896)	7/26/2000 2:36:44 PM
From: Don Mosher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Gorilla Criteria and Logic DS, I understand that you are playing Devil's Advocate here to draw out our thinking. O.K, I will play along. To reduce confusion in playing the GG, you have to focus on the criteria. Mike has been doing that, and teaching us to do it. There is an acceptable consensus on the board that QCOM is a Gorilla. As the most respected opinion leader on Gorilla analysis, Mike gave his imprimatur to that last year. If you re-read my post, you will notice (if you have not already noticed) that it is in the form of a deductive argument: If QCOM is a Gorilla, and it has transferred the essential Gorilla properties to SPINCO, then SPINCO is a Gorilla. In more abstract terms the form is: If Q implies G, and if S equals Q, then S is a G. I believe not only is that argument a valid syllogism but also that QCOM is betting their business on it. IJ intends to transfer enough open proprietary architecture with high switching costs to SPINCO to enable its continuing Gorilla status. QCOM is becoming an intellectual property business. They believe that this can be done, and they cannot afford to make a mistake. All the rest of this is just confetti. It is heat without light. Turning to your counter example of Intel. First, I agree with sditto's post that Intel is a Gorilla, including his citing the historical necessity of licensing AMD and Intel's retained control of its architecture. I agree that it adds functions to its mother board that shakes its value chain as it vertically integrates, producing competitive advantage. I believe it continues to pursue a similar strategy in a stealthier fashion in the post-PC era, which I don't have time to describe in this post. Cross licensing does not give away Know-How. I hope that this helps. If not, I suggest a remedial logic course. (VBG). Don