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: Apollo who wrote (36338)	12/10/2000 12:14:19 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

In fact, why is it the Athlon seemed so easily interchangeable with the Pentium III by OEMs? Mike, if the market was so Intel-dependent on its proprietary architecture, then I don't understand why AMD gave Intel such a run for its money with arguably the best high end PC processor for 2000. I think I have generally been in the Intel as a King camp....however, a counter argument occurred to me. I hope that I can explain it... I think a distinction needs to be made between having a proprietary architecture which are the result of IPR (Qualcomm) and having control over the design of an architecture. Obviously, AMD has the ability to manufacture chips which are a direct substitution to Intel's Pentium series. However, the key to Intel's success has been it's control of the future of the microprocessor. They are singlehandedly able to change various design elements of the microprocessor which AMD must copy. The PIV and the 64 bit processor, expected next year, are two examples where Intel has the power to change the rules of the game. This seems to suggest some form of Gorilla power.... In contrast, Qualcomm has a different form of control over their value chain. It is a given that each and every implementation of mobile CDMA must pay Qualcomm....however, I believe that they only have control over the architecture of those carriers who use IS-95. The W-CDMA camp will pay Qualcomm....but the control of the details of the standard lie outside of Qualcomm's domain. I think that Microsoft would have control of both....they control the standard AND have IPR preventing others from duplicating their OS. I'm not exactly sure where Cicso would lie. From what I have read, much of the Gorilla power of Cisco comes from IOS. However, doesnt Juniper have the ability to create software compatible with IOS? Just thinking aloud.... Slacker

To: Apollo who wrote (36338)	12/10/2000 12:22:38 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Apollo, I don't believe discussions of Cisco's IOS, Gemstar's IPR, Qualcomm's patented innovations of CDMA, and the like are "technical proof." But if that's all you need, the software that Intel puts in the CPU might be the technical proof you're looking for. There are so many functions that Intel has added and can continue to add to the CPU in successive architectural improvements that Moore refers to Intel's CPUs as the black hole of the motherboard; profits gained from processes initially placed on the motherboard are sucked into Intel's coffers when Intel puts them in their CPUs. It's that control of the architecture that allows Intel to restrict AMD to perpetually having to resort to living on the low-end crumbs. If that's "technical proof," take another look at the two posts as recently as the last few weeks by Tinkershaw eloquently giving you the evidence I think you're looking for. Those posts go into as much detail about Intel's control of the architecture as any discussion we've had about any of the other companies discussed here. --Mike Buckley

To: Apollo who wrote (36338)	12/10/2000 12:36:11 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Respond to of 54805

Apollo, YOu asked two questions I forgot to address. In fact, why is it the Athlon seemed so easily interchangeable with the Pentium III by OEMs? The larger point is Tinkershaw's explanation that when that became apparent, Intel used its Gorilla power to construct the PIV in such a way that the interchageable nature is minimized if the end user is to achieve full capacity. Mike, if the market was so Intel-dependent on its proprietary architecture, then I don't understand why AMD gave Intel such a run for its money with arguably the best high end PC processor for 2000. I suspect that the amount of the marketshare AMD captured was relatively small. Moreover, I think Tinker wrote that they took it from other competitors, not Intel. And if we accept that AMD's product line might be better than Intel's, AMD's comparatively slim marketshare is yet another testament to Intel's Gorilla power much as Apple's OS was better than Microsoft's. --Mike Buckley