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 (36298)	12/9/2000 5:16:39 PM
From: saukriver	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 54805

Intel is a gorilla. The book say so. I don't think anyone who pays much attention to this thread is in this camp. Really? That's a bold statement. Mike, This is not at all a bold statement. No one who pays serious attention to this thread accepts everything in TRFM as the inerrant word from on high. We have been critical, where appropriate, of the authors, the goofy Chapter 12, etc. The mere fact that the book says Intel is a gorilla does not make it so. Although it can be a catalyst for further inquiry, the mere fact that the authors declare some company or other a gorilla does not make it so. There is a contingent on this thread (in which I placed uf, bb, Kumar Rangen, Eric L., maybe Apollo, etc.) that believe Intel is a gorilla of PC chips. I cannot recall that this camp ends its argument with nothing more than a bald declaration that "well, the book says so." They have critically applied the gorilla game factors and concluded that Intel is a gorilla of PC chips. Fair enough. Their argument is that Intel has proprietary control of an open architecture for PC chips, has enjoyed tornado-like revenue growth, has a developed value chain, etc. etc. That is a valid argument involving reasoned analysis based on gg principles. I disagree with the conclusion of this camp because I am not convinced that Intel has proprietary control over the PC chip architecture. That suspicion is based on the breadth of Intel's license to AMD. But I certainly accept the "Intel is a gorilla" camp's reasoning as a valid and rational application of gg principles. What I do not see people arguing on this thread is that Intel is a gorilla merely because the authors in the book say it is. The people on this thread--yourself in particular--tend to apply, question, re-apply, examine and re-evaluate the factors the authors laid out to try to determine for themselves whether they think Intel is a gorilla, king, or neither. I think LindyBill's view that Intel does not have proprietary control of the chip architecture is also interesting. It challenges the book's analysis. It challenges the assumption of many who follow this thread. Heck, it may even challenge Lindy; didn't he purchase Intel this week? I disagree with the chant--sometimes like a Greek chorus--that Intel is a gorilla, sometimes stated as if there is no dissent from that view. But I applaud the continued analysis--in the tradition of this thread--of whether Intel is (or ever was) a gorilla based on the requisites of a gorilla game analysis. saukriver