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: Road Walker who wrote (44204)	1/6/1998 8:22:00 PM
From: David S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John, I like your arguement and agree with it 80%. But, there is a difference here with computers that make the processor compatibility almost as important as performance. Most products we buy, even electronic products, pretty much operate stand-alone. Coke tastes good reliably, BigK soda is doubtful. Zenith TV is on par with Sharp TV and so on. But most computers have to accept a variety of programs that are highly sensitive to the CPU architecture. We are a long way from fault free software. And most computers, in companies and universities and among friends are subject to a lot of sharing and interaction that is equally sensitive. The Intel platform provides that compatibility, and the box design, the added features, power systems, etc. and other box maker added-values aren't all that important. So I withhold 20% from your arguement, and that is why Intel is almost a monopoly and Apple is almost dead. Compaq may want to fuss and fume about this, but they can't win this issue as long as the internet keeps growing and companies want to share data between workers. Regards, David S. Long on Intel and Iomega

To: Road Walker who wrote (44204)	1/7/1998 1:04:00 PM
From: Harry Landsiedel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John Fowler. Re: "EVENTUALLY, the finished goods manufacturers (the box makers), would win the brand equity in the PC product category." Does it have to be either/or? Can't Intel and CPQ both have strong brand equity for what they stand for? I once heard "Brand" defined as, "the sum of all the promises made and kept between a maker and the consumer." Using that definition BOTH Intel and CPQ make promises to the consumer. They exist as separate brands who build their own equity with consumers. Could the best analogy be the gas you use in your car. Do you think you have a better Buick because you use Exxon Gasoline? Following that analogy, INtel has to convince consumers that the CPQ ownership experience is better with Intel than the experience with AMD or Cyrix. BTW I think the analogy with Exxon may work on another level too. Just as Standard Oil won the gasoline wars by having the funds to invest aggressively in more capacity, Intel has the same strength in microprocessors. In this sense selling chips in ALL segments is the right one for Intel IMHO. HL

To: Road Walker who wrote (44204)	1/8/1998 7:09:00 PM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

John, re:"boxmaker brand recognition". There's a lot to what you are saying. Especially in the home PC market, which I think you're addressing. Most people make a choice of manufacturer before they look at what's inside. The manufacturers reputation for quality, service and support, (brand recognition), are the first decision maker for most people, whether buying a TV, Cofee maker or PC. You can usually buy a Packard Bell PC at a price point below a similarly equipped Compaq machine. I think one of the reasons Compaq replaced PB in the low end is due to PB's poor rating for quality, service and support. HP's recognized high quality is another reason I think HP is becoming very succesful in the market, and IBM of course has always had a stellar reputation. Once you've decided on the boxmaker you may take a look inside. If you're convinced Intel is the only way to go you have that choice. And Intel has done an outstanding job of influencing that decision point. The majority of people will make that choice. But for many people the fact that someone like Compaq or IBM has chosen to put an AMD chip inside doesn't degrade the quality of a product. They expect the same quality no matter what's in there. Some people wondered why it took so long for Compaq to make the AMD decision. I think part of the reason is Compaq's extensive quality assurance program. I know from experience that it can take six month's or longer to get QA approval at Compaq. In the case of a CPU I'm sure they put maximum effort on QA. After all, Compaq's reputation is also riding on that decision! Their choice of AMD for some products has provided AMD with an invaluable amount of "Good Will" and "Brand Recognition". This probably upsets some people at Intel as much as the price erosion they seem to have created. The consumer is the big winner! And of course, Intel will always be the winner in this market. But with a slightly different spin.