SI
SI
discoversearch

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: John Hull who wrote (144706)10/4/2001 5:05:31 PM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 186894
 
John,

Yes the Fortune story was good.

re: the headline seems to have been written by someone who didn't read it, however.

With the way the markets have gone in the last year, and the criticism that the press and analysts have received for "pumping" stocks on the way down, I think they are loathe to put a positive spin on any company, at any time, for anything.

I bet you miss those analysts <g>.

John



To: John Hull who wrote (144706)10/4/2001 5:18:18 PM
From: wanna_bmw  Respond to of 186894
 
John, thanks for the link. I like the contrast between the two CEOs.

AMD's Sanders can barely contain his emotions when he talks about Intel. "This is a fascist organization that uses intimidation of their customers and the rest of the infrastructure guys to make our lives extremely difficult," he says. "This is their 'cut off the air supply' strategy. No matter what they say, they want to be an out-and-out monopoly. If we're gone, there is no competition, and if you believe, as I do, that competition is the key to innovation, we'll lose that too."

Hold on, he's not finished yet
[I love this line]. "There's another reason we're attacking their business model, and that is that the entire PC hardware industry, thanks to Intel, has become an unstable molecule. It's unreal, it's unbelievable, that a company is making as much money as they are when all their customers are suffering huge losses, and have delegated most of their R&D to them."

Grove's explanation for the missteps sounds a whole lot less geeky: "The past two years have been rough, no question, and there's a whole litany of factors, but there's one you probably haven't heard: The disappearance of our COO. When Craig got kicked upstairs he could no longer play that old role, and it took a while before people spread their attention, capabilities, power, influence, and competence into the vacuum he left behind. Only now have we gotten back to executing like we ought to." In other words, it was a human failure, not a design flaw.

All this helps explain why Barrett seemed such a promising successor: Like Grove, he is an engineer who has shown he can excel at the personal side of the business. That duality is reflected in the way he approaches his job as CEO. Barrett still logs thousands more miles each year than Andy Grove ever did, visiting customers and Intel facilities around the world. And he still occasionally holds what some Intel engineers call "prayer meetings" to inspire technology-development groups he thinks are falling behind. Says he: "If you or anyone at Intel asks me what keeps me awake at night, I'll say the same thing I've been saying for more than ten years: I worry about the internal execution of our product road maps. If we do that, we win. If we stumble there, we give the competition a chance."


Which one would you want running your company? <g>

wanna_bmw



To: John Hull who wrote (144706)10/4/2001 5:47:01 PM
From: The Duke of URLĀ©  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Thank you for the linc.



To: John Hull who wrote (144706)10/4/2001 7:13:35 PM
From: brushwud  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
interesting story. the headline seems to have been written by someone who didn't read it, however.

Perhaps it would have been more germane to have headlined the story, "Intel: plowing on regardless because it's not in VC primarily to make money".