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: Jay who wrote (42499)	12/16/1997 11:58:00 PM
From: Fred Fahmy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jay, Re: IBM in the 70's Your post is right on. IMO, Paul's comparison provides great insight into his credibility and understanding of the market. IBM ran into rough times for one reason, poor management and poor strategic decisions. You are right about pricing. IBM's fame and fortune came about at a time when they had very little real competition (much less competition than AMD and CYRX have been giving Intel). This lack of competition caused IBM to become arogant with respect to pricing and complacent in general. When the competitive landscape changed they had no idea of how to react or compete. In addition, their management lacked a basic understanding and vision of where computing was heading. It is easy to see why the stumbled so badly; poor management, no vision, and misguided strategies were IBM trademarks in the late 70's to mid 80's. In fact, if they would have had any vision at all, everything that MSFT and INTC have now could have been their's. On the other extreme we have INTC, who as you mentioned has been the leader in reducing prices. We have an extremely sharp management team who is keenly paranoid with respect to competition and is anything but complacent. Indeed, pre Gerstner IBM and INTC are excellent examples of opposite stories. Good luck, FF

To: Jay who wrote (42499)	12/17/1997 2:25:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 186894

Jay Intel's mode is keep reducing the cost of computing - making the market ever bigger For some time, top of the line chips were $1,000, the cheepest about $100. That has not changed. Today's top of the line and entry level chips are more powerful then yesterdays, but so is everything else in your computer. Intel has a preference for the biggest selling chips to be in $300 to $600 range. There has been a reduction of the cost of computing over last year, but Intel resisted it tooth and nail, until a recent capitulation (or should we say conversion). I think Intel mode of operation has been to increase percentage and dollar content of every PC you buy. Nothing altruistic. Just a business strategy. A pretty good one. Joe

To: Jay who wrote (42499)	12/17/1997 5:44:00 PM
From: Paul Fiondella	Respond to of 186894

What you decribed about IBM In the 70's IBM was a monopoly of computing and had completely cornered the busienss market. They paced the intro of computers and prices jsut as Intel has been doing. I believe what you said about IBM is even more so true of Intel recently. They kept the cost of Pentiums outrageously high because they had a monopoly. Now that they have some competition from AMD and Cyrix, they are lowing the prices. If Intel goes back to real performance improvements instead of fake ones (MMX etc.) then I for one would applaud their efforts. I don't expect the PII slot II with a 100MHz bus to be on my desk, do you?