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 : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (1110)	3/29/1999 11:14:00 AM
From: John Stichnoth	Respond to of 5853

Liked your post. I'd take some issue with one point, perhaps: The problem with all the focus on "disruption" is that everyone knows about it. It's true that the leaders of the companies you discussed know about it, but I think if you go into the ILECs and talk with various middle managers, you'll find a great deal of acceptance of a still-existing status quo, managing the introduction of new technologies to avoid cannibalizing old, etc. Much of which is based on the still uneven playing field in local access. The ILECs may wake up one morning and discover that they have been caught up to while they're trotting along, and being passed by the CLEC's and DLEC's who are running at full speed. Best, JS

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (1110)	3/29/1999 12:04:00 PM
From: Robert Sheldon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

I too have noticed the absence of the likes of EMC from his lists. However if you read post # 1088 and the reply thereafter you may find his reasoning insightful. It sounds like you are very well-read. I hope I did not sound too heavy handed with my earlier reply.

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (1110)	3/29/1999 1:21:00 PM
From: bwtidal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5853

Bill, Enjoyed your post. I don't think anyone believes the msft-csco-intc trinity is going to marginalized any time soon. And certainly they are "paranoid" re: emerging markets. But in Christensen terms your comment "The problem with all the focus on "disruption" is that everyone knows about it." misses part of his point. IBM and DEC "knew" about the PC and had the technology and the capital resources to master it. Christensen says that the problem lies in the value networks that established companies operate in that make it undesirable to move into the new disruptive markets. And there IS evidence that msft-csco-intc have been slow to embrace thin client PDA SW, cable modem chips, DSP's, dumb networks, et al. Microsoft initially missed the Internet/browser biz. What the big three are doing is moving rapidly to address weaknesses in their product offerings through acquisition (e.g. INTC - Level One; Cisco Systems - Granite Systems) or JV/equity ownership (e.g. MSFT - QCOM, QWST, CMCSA (part owner ATHM)). And loads of venture capital investments. Despite the prolific cash reserves of all these companies, they don't make investments that are likely to grow slower than their existing lines of business. Another point. When is the last time that intc-msft-csco introduced a "disruptive" technology? Pentium III is a "sustaining" technology. So is Windows 2000. Net? Disruptive technologies will still be more likely to arise from entrepreneurial companies - QWST, GBLX, NXLK, AMZN, pick 'em. And that is where George Gilder is SO helpful in early identification. And when the technology is ready for prime-time, the MSFT-CSCO-INTC will likely be there. So buy an XLK and enjoy. Enjoy GTR, this thread and your posts. Regards,