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: Amy J who wrote (115146)	10/29/2000 7:23:47 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "Evidently, Albert Yu was behind Rambus" I don't think this was the case but I don't know for sure. The pressure on the chipset group was coming down from a VP named Avtar Siani(sp?). Who was yanking his chain I don't know. Remember Craig Barrett's quote from a week or so ago? That in retrospect it was a bad idea to let their performance be gated by an outside source. This is what CEOs are for. To stop bad ideas from becoming the plan of record before they damage a company, not to just realize the obvious in retrospect. Why didn't Barrett, Grove and Moore ask the obvious question early on? What do we do if this thing doesn't work? The MTH was the answer, supposedly, to RamBus availability problems, but the MTH still had a RamBus interface to the MCH. Intel was still completely dependent on RamBus working, not just availability and pricing. This is where the Executive staff should have been looking out for the interests of Intel as a whole. They dropped the ball, IMO, not the engineers. No backup plan. No plan "B". Trying new unproven technology is a good thing and Intel needs to continue doing it. Intel was born from new technology. They just need to plan for recovery from failures as well. EP