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 (36299)	12/10/2000 10:19:26 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike, Re: Intel Gorilla v. Apple Chimp << I can't remember if the manual characterizes Apple as a chimp or a prince. >> The manual, first characterizes Apple as a chimp on page 61 of the RFM. There are other references. This extended characterization is presented as part of the subsection of chapter 3 ("Understanding Gorilla Power" called "Gorillas, Monkey, and Chimps" which begins on page 57. << the architecture wasn't open, preventing the company from being a Gorilla of a niche.">> Certainly it was not open enough and not the de facto standard of the desktop. What you say, is not very different than what Moore has to say: "it tried to assault the gorilla (INTC) in its stronghold of corporate IS. Unfortunately, because its chimp architecture required its own dedicated support, Apple's partners could not afford all the software adjustments necessary to make this assault viable." Moore uses Intel and Apple examples to illustrate the differences between a Gorilla and a Chimp. When saukriver says: << (2) Intel is a gorilla. It has control of a proprietary architecture and meets the other requisites for gorillahood. I think uf, Kumar, Eric L., BB may be in this camp. >> I agree with that statement as it applies to me. However, when saukriver says: << (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. >> I am one who pays a lot of attention to it. It is not just that I am not highly critical of the book ... and I need to state that overall I am NOT highly critical of the book, although I do not take every Moore statement as gospel. It is. that I am of the opinion that the distinction made between Intel & Apple by Moore, is key to understanding what constitutes a Gorilla and what constitutes a Chimp. This is part of the fundamental premise of the investing theory I subscribe. For this reason I fundamentally and somewhat dogmatically reject "(4) Intel was never a gorilla." As for your theory, "(3) Intel is a gorilla. But it is facing a substitution threat in the Internet", I have an open mind, although I don't think a threat is imminent, and I think INTC will play big if there is a substitution threat. This is certainly a topic for further discussion. - Eric -

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (36299)	12/10/2000 12:39:14 PM
From: Todd Bishop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I can't remember if the manual characterizes Apple as a chimp or a prince. My thinking is that the architecture wasn't open, preventing the company from being a Gorilla of a niche. The MacOS provides an API and supports a number of programming languages. It was open enough for Adobe and Microsoft to create numerous applications from Acrobat and Photoshop to the Office suite. How does that differ from Windows? The manual focused more on the hardware and compared it to Intel and identified it as a chimp. I'm trying to ignore the hardware and just focus on the OS. Todd