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: Mike Buckley who wrote (31238)	9/8/2000 11:59:18 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

<< For me, to say that a gorilla game doesn't exist just because there is no gorilla would be tantamount to saying that just because there is no King (with a marketshare that is twice its nearest competitor) there is no royalty game being played. Neither thought process makes sense to me. >> Our good friend Geoff kinda fudges on that 2x market share distinction in his various, sometimes contradictory, writings. Arguably, I think, one might make a case for Nokia being King of handsets, Ericsson being King of wireless infrastructure, both being Princes of wireless. Even if you convincingly make these arguments, Qualcomm seems like a much purer play, particularly now that they are out of infra, out of handsets. For NOK & ERICY, infra or handsets, is only a chunk of their total business. Qualcomm is pure CDMA, the technology, and the architecture. - Eric -

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (31238)	9/8/2000 12:02:11 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

<<ask Bruce or someone else who follows the list-serve to ask Moore about that.>> Message 14325474 cheers, kumar

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (31238)	9/8/2000 12:13:23 PM
From: synchros	Respond to of 54805

Mike and Sditto, Memory is fuzzy, but I seem to remember Moore highlighting application software as a market in which a group of chimps can play. No gorilla and not a royalty game (i.e., they are using different architectures that are not compatible). I will check tonight for the reference. Synchros

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (31238)	9/8/2000 12:43:03 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike, But because proprietary architectures are at the core of the many companies competing in the marketplace, it's still a primate game being played rather than a royalty game. I follow & agree with you on the above point. Where I am lost, is : Can there be a Chimp without a Gorilla? Yes. I hope my stuff above explains why. IMO, The fact that a primate game is being played, (ie game may not have a decisive result yet), disallows designation of 1 player as a Chimp, without designating another player as the Gorilla. cheers, kumar

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (31238)	9/8/2000 2:13:34 PM
From: sditto	Respond to of 54805

<<My thinking is that there are primate markets in which proprietary architectures exist that are gorilla-less by virtue of the fact that no single company exercises control of a de facto standard. More important, no de facto standard exists.>> I view control of an open proprietary architecture as being an important and necessary criteria of a Gorilla but I would still maintain that achievement of that attribute does not define a primate game. As you suggested, just because you control an architecture doesn't mean it is or will become a de facto standard. Additionally, just because a company has control of an open proprietary architecture that becomes a de facto standard does not ensure it will become a Gorilla if there is no tornado or the market is too small (one pin in a bowling alley). In my view the result is not a Chimp - it's a company with limited prospects (certainly relative to Gorillas and even to bona fide Chimps).