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: slacker711 who wrote (36340)	12/10/2000 12:39:46 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Respond to of 54805

slacker, 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.... Exactly! In fact, let's go back to the time that Intel's architecture was accepted as the defacto standard. It was when IBM selected their architecture. It was a design win over competing architectures and the tornado that subsequently blew through the industry that permanently placed Intel in architectural control. --Mike Buckley

To: slacker711 who wrote (36340)	12/10/2000 1:23:47 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

slacker, I'd like to offer another example well known in the thread of your idea that 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. Siebel has absolutely no IPR that literally hundreds of competitors didn't have. In the early stages of their sub-industry, there were 400 front office software competitors. Yet it was Siebel's design win after design win that were accepted by the market during the tornado that caused their design of the architecture to become the de facto standard. The value chain formed around Siebel's design of the architecture instead of another company's design. Yes, Siebel has patents filed that protect its ownership of their architecture. But their competitors also have the same. The difference is that a much larger value chain formed around Siebel's design than all the other designs combined. The same is true for Intel's control of its architecture that makes it a Gorilla. --Mike Buckley