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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (115142)	10/29/2000 6:26:43 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "If they used an "A" team, it did not include people with VHF design experience, or they weren't heeded. Something went wrong" Gee, first you claim they used the "D" team, now you think they might have used the "A" team but nobody listened to them. You're shooting from the hip here Tony and insulting a lot of very good engineers who worked very hard trying to polish someone else's turd. EP

To: Tony Viola who wrote (115142)	10/29/2000 6:27:25 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: "Even before that, why did they go with such a risky interface design that Rambus is for something not in "the top ten" for PC performance?" ----------------------------- Hi Tony, Management went with the risky design, not the engineers: I don't think you read Elmer's post. Evidently, Albert Yu was behind Rambus, not the engineers (for that particular product/market/timing). IMO it appears Albert got too disconnected from the engineering team (which I would guess made him misjudge/trust what I'll call, the timing of the stability curve to market) and he appeared to be a bit disconnected from the market (i.e. cost evolution curve, appropriate market segment, and market timing of all these factors). It's my WAG that Albert Yu was personally distracted about the time the Rambus decision was made, which it appears from Paul's post was about 1997. I believe Rambus was a bit too early in the evolution curve. And I wouldn't be surprised if I heard that Rambus engineering was dragging their heels, gating Intel's performance. Regards, Amy J