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 (36235)	12/9/2000 2:38:45 AM
From: saukriver	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

One of the great characteristics of a Gorilla identified in the manual . . . Fine, but what do the characteristics of a gorilla that have to do with Intel? <g> It seems that people on this thread have any of (2), (3) or (4) as their view on Intel: (1) Intel is a gorilla. The book say so. I don't think anyone who pays much attention to this thread is in this camp. We are far too critical of the book (e.g., the goofy chapter 12) to accept it without questioning its precepts. (2) Intel is a gorilla. It has control of a proprietary architecture and meets the other requisistes for gorillahood. I think uf, Kumar, Eric L., BB may be in this camp. (3) Intel is a gorilla. But it is facing a substitution threat in the Internet. This is your view raise I believe thursday night for the first time. (4) Intel was never a gorilla. It gave up control of its architecture when it licensed it proprietary architecture to AMD; the license is so broad that it is a joke to say that Intel retains control of its proprietary architecture. LindyBill first posited this, and I agree. Perhaps others agree with this view. The central tenet is that one can draft a license that gives the licensee virutally all the right the licensor has, and as a result of the license from Intel AMD holds IPR rights in the PC chip akin to Intel's. For someone who "pays little attention to Intel," your comment wondering when shareholders are going to "boot the current management" seems extreme if not irresponsible. I pay little attention to Intel because I don't think it is a gorilla. As a king, it doesn't dominate a very interesting market. Nevertheless, it has been very hard to miss Intel's repeated surprises (is it 5 of the last 7 quarters?) over the last year and a half. Craig Barrett is either no Andy Grove or he has been handed a company caught in a difficult market. As Michael Dell said in the Monday, December 4 NYT, there is no compelling reason to buy a PC. But I have been very surprised that the Intel "mystique" (as another article in Tuesday's NYT put it) has let Intel management avoid the beheading Lucent's management suffered. couple missed quarters in 1999 (?) followed by three straight in 2000 would be enough to at least get the institutional holders questioning whether Barrett was the correct person to succeed Grove. But then again, go figure why Armstrong still at AT&T? Apollo wrote: CEO Barrett indicated at the beginnning of the week that he was expecting a record quarter, and now Intel warns on Thursday after the bell. Go figure. They may still have a record quarter, but I don't think Chambers or Jacobs would do this, in terms of sending confusing messages. Intel clearly does not have the grip on its numbers that Cisco does. Maybe Cisco could help Intel out of its misery.