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: GVTucker who wrote (72768)	2/3/1999 10:00:00 AM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

What brought down IBM was a double whammy of: 1) A president (or CEO - can't recall now) named John Akers who WAS PROUD OF THE FACT THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE A PC IN HIS OFFICE AND WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO USE ONE IF HE DID. This from the company that had to literally decouple the company from the development program in Boca Raton to invent their first PC so that corporate IBM wouldn't "contaminate" the project with paperwork and meetings. IBM never understood THEN what they had invented, how important it was, how useful CLONES were to establishing the "IBM PC" as the world standard. IBM gets a grade of D- or F+ on botching the opportunity to dominate the PC world the way they dominated the mainframe market. They never "got it" until it was way too late. 2) A related but different factor - they didn't understand or act on the fact that the PC was a serious threat to the growth of the mainframe and minicomputer business. Faced with that possibility, they took the ostrich defense - pretending that it didn't exist. With that posture they were guaranteed to get their clocks cleaned. IBM didn't hit the skids because someone else was selling more mainframe iron than them. It hit the skids because something REPLACED the mainframe and miniframe iron they would have sold. As Intel calls it, an inflection point. The bitter irony is that Apple (and IBM itself) didn't spring this (the onslaught of the desktop pc) on the world as a stealth attack, but with an open, advertised, publicised approach. IBM leadership was paralyzed by its culture to ignore a sea change in the landscape (to mix metaphors). I'm sure that there were some in IBM's upper middle management who saw it coming but couldn't get the message to the top with a pickaxe. If the technology is going to beat your brains in, lead the parade (and exercise some control) - don't ignore it. Dilbertesque management will defeat talent every time.

To: GVTucker who wrote (72768)	2/3/1999 12:10:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GV - Re: " That attitude ('people will buy our product no matter what the competition offers') is what brought about IBM's downfall in the late 80's, early 90's. " If you think Intel is an IBM, you are greatly mistaken. Paul

To: GVTucker who wrote (72768)	2/3/1999 12:18:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 186894

GVTucker, >>>That attitude ('people will buy our product no matter what the competition offers') is what brought about IBM's downfall in the late 80's, early 90's.<<< Adding to what Burt Masnick said about this, I'll tell you, based on very close hand experience, that IBM in the era you mentioned had a "this is what we developed, you need to buy it, and don't ask for anything different" attitude. Intel doesn't, and as I've said here before, I've been part of meetings with Intel in which they take your suggestions about new products extremely seriously. The then consolidate input from many customers in a best effort to come out with the right functions and features. IBM then, Intel now: night and day. IBM has since "repaired" that walk on water attitude, BTW. Had to! Tony