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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tcmay who wrote (135559)	5/20/2001 1:10:10 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Betting the company For Intel, I'd include dropping all memory options except Rambus based only upon another company's technology when that technology was at a powerpoint slide level. Intel's 3 year "affair" with Rambus has allowed AMD to grow to the point that Intel no longer has monopoly power in its key markets. It remains the dominant player in the market, but has lost both pricing power, and just as important, timing power in its key markets. Intel must now release its key products at prices heavily influenced by AMD pricing - shown by the recent halving of its price structure. Intel must also release its products on a schedule heavily influenced by AMD. The result is more rapid depreciation of plant, and much more rapid erosion of the prices of leading edge products. Absent the "Rambus Affair", there's a good chance Intel wouldn't have lost control of its markets. For AMD, I'd include their construction of the copper FAB at Dresden in the late 90's while the company was nearly bankrupt. Had Dresden been a failure, AMD could literally have been wiped out.

To: tcmay who wrote (135559)	5/20/2001 1:31:13 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

>IBM made its second bet, I would argue, with the 360 family. (Various smaller bets in the decades prior.) Its third bet? Probably the move into PCs and smaller systems, going against the "big iron" culture within the company. While not always successful, and not always profitable, their dominance in the public perception ("the IBM PC") let them escape the fate of the other Big Seven members like Univac and Burroughs and even DEC. So far, I don't think they've made a _fourth_ big bet.< The introduction of the PC was hardly an example of betting the company, but the subsequent move to MicroChannel was. >On to the Third Bet. Was getting out of DRAMs the Third Bet? I don't think so, but I am willing to be persuaded that it was. I think getting out of DRAMs, as shocking as it was to some of us at the time, was a consequence of this move above. And Barrett pushed the manufacturing group (the fabs) to obtain the extremely high yields on complex chips WITHOUT having high-volume RAMs as "process drivers." (A lot of us, including me, doubted it could be done.)< Actually, the third bet was moving to a radically different cell design for the 64Kbit generation of DRAM (along with the all the rest of the manufacturers, with the exception of the Japanese). By sticking with a shrink of tried and true cell designs for the 64Kbit generation, the Japanese took a commanding lead in DRAM. The fourth bet was obviously the 386. Intel neglected their 286 market while focusing on the 386, enabling the likes of AMD and Harris Semiconductors to take over the 286 market. The fourth bet is Itanium. The fifth bet was the communications market. And the sixth bet was Rambus.

To: tcmay who wrote (135559)	5/21/2001 3:13:28 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi Tim, RE: "Someone once said that every majorly successful company has "bet the company" at least three times" Very good post and interesting discussion on computer history. The biggest risk a company (or person) can take is by not taking risk, or as you called it, betting the company. Slow stagnancy is a guaranteed slow loss. From your other post, a bet like Cisco merger. When Cisco reached $90+ market cap, I was wondering if Intel was going to nibble, but evidently not. RE: Broadcom merger - I think a big competitive drag on Intel was Broadcom's comp package, but I doubt this is an issue now that Broadcom's stock has slumped significantly so. And why spend all your cash when you can build it at so much less? Intel tends to have a build-it-here philosophy, supplementing technology with the occasional merger. Regards, Amy J