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 (36480)	12/12/2000 1:38:54 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Respond to of 54805

>> Nevertheless, are you saying the Intel engineer can't render an accurate opinion about open proprietary chip architecture? Isn't that a stretch? I'd prefer to call it nit picking. I've been watching too many courtrooms recently to allow you to qualify Ten as an expert witness on Gorilla gaming without a challenge <gg>. uf

To: Apollo who wrote (36480)	12/12/2000 1:52:20 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 54805

Apollo, << Nevertheless, are you saying the Intel engineer can't render an accurate opinion about open proprietary chip architecture? Isn't that a stretch? >> No. It is not a stretch, by any stretch. << Ten has TRFM...............but he admits he needs to read it. <vbg> >> And that is the reason why. << The Intel chip engineer, when asked to describe present open proprietary architecture his colleagues design into the chips, decides it is not a Gorilla. >> While the chip engineer has a much better understanding of chip architecture, Mike may well have a better handle on what constitutes a "proprietary open architecture with high switching costs". Then again, none of us have as good a handle on this as we should have, because Moore does not elaborate on it in great detail in the manual even though it is an important distinguishing characteristic of a gorilla. And so we debate the subject. - Eric -

To: Apollo who wrote (36480)	12/12/2000 2:50:34 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Apollo, Nevertheless, are you saying the Intel engineer can't render an accurate opinion about open proprietary chip architecture? Sure, he could accurately categorize the architecture. But he can't appreciate it in the full context of the manual. I maintain that he can't render an informed opinion about whether or not a company is a Gorilla or King unless he has absorbed the various nuances about that in the manual. If someone posted in the folder such an opinion and at the same time acknowledged that he hadn't read the manual, we know the responses he'd deservedly get. --Mike Buckley P. S. Now that your survey is complete, good work once again!

To: Apollo who wrote (36480)	12/13/2000 8:30:48 AM
From: Michael H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Intels proprietary open architecture is defined in the design and pin-out of their CPU, how the communication and the timing of CPU and the main board works. IMHO that is pretty obvious. They were playing the changing game since the old 80386 time changing a couple of open proprietary features: 386SX-architecture with small memory bus, Numeric Co-processor, later incorporation of the Coprocessor, redefining instruction set and pipelining features (affecting compiler designs), increase of bus frequencies (affecting board designs), changing slot and socket designs. These standards were always set by Intel and the monkeys hat to follow and copy. Cyrix, IDTI, IBM and others could not follow. Next step will be switching to a 64Bit architecture, which has major impact on board, chips, ram, compiler and software design around the CPU. The name of the game is to prevent your value chain partners to support another architecture and to change the standards often to keep the monkey always a step behind, while keeping the value proposition for your value chain partners intact. The OPA criteria raises the barriers of entries and supports the formation of the value chain. IMHO Intels standard setting ability melts at the moment, because AMD monkey is the more attractive alternative, and even the alpha-gorilla has to give way to his younger follower. AMD is in a position today to set its own standards (e.g. Socket A design). On Transmeta, the next up and coming in the CPU war, with disruptive technology, very interesting: techreview.com But Transmeta has to show it can execute. At the moment it is Vaporware. JMHO. Michael