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 : 3DFX -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (12444)	5/11/1999 3:37:00 PM
From: Casey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16960

First let me say that "arguing" on this thread is so much nicer than trying to deal with some people on the Yahoo boards:) I think our main difference is that you place a great amount of emphesis on 3dfx being very open about there plans and roadmap so we, the investor, have enough information to base our decisions on. I personally agree with this to some extent but when I consider whether managament is doing the right thing as far as running the company goes this type of silence does not bother me. This is probably because one of my biggest pet peaves is mangament running a company for the sole perpose of raising the stock price (this one will definitely get me in a lot of trouble on an investment board:). I feel this leads to decisions that ultimately destroy the company (and the economy to a great extent). The reason I like 3dfx management is because they basically ignore the day to day price of the stock in order to slowly build a great company (that will eventually pay off for us investors). I guess the part you don't like is that it takes some amount of faith to know that this is true (i.e we don't have all the facts). When you say the mistakes have been short term in nature and that we are really just talking semantic differences I partly agree with you. But my real point is that its not a mistake to try something and have it fail if it doesn't hurt the long term growth of the company and you learn from the "mistake". Filling channels incorrectly is something you have to go through (as you agreed to some extent) and also they were never really in complete control until now. To address some of your points 1)Saying that they are interested in set-top boxes is giving us some clue as to their direction. Just because we don't know about any deals is not a concern to me at this time. If they are making deals now then they are right on track. 2)I completely agree that if OEMs want certain features then put them in anyway. My point is that if they get the OEM wins anyway its not a problem. From reports (10 wins, 20 possibles, some tier 1 wins) it seems like they really did build what the OEMs wanted, an inexpensive, high quality part. Thats why I mentioned ATI, they have thrived with the price advantage and good relationships for years. Time will tell on this one. 3)As far as missing dates it all depends. At some point the "management" made the decision and allocated the money and resources to build the 2D part and Banshee. Was this decision made soon enough? Were enough resources allocated? These are management desisions and possible mistakes. But, if some technology gliches occured that were beyond "managements" control then we have to look at the technical side of the company. 4)The troubles with DIMD and CREAF were going to happen at some point. If they announced the STB merger later what would have happened? Would they have made deals with other board makers for V3? The time had come to make a decision about V3, they decided to do it themselves. EVERY DAY they delayed this decision or announcent would mean a delay in V3 and 3dfx's move into the future. I IN NO WAY feel that this was a mistake of any kind. Did it cost them money, sure it did but in the big picture it will reap much bigger profits and the stock price will soar (IMHO). I feel that if you look at the dollar amount it cost them in a couple of years it will be hardly noticeable. Why on earth would you risk the companies future for a small savings now. I do agree that as investor it is frustrating having to guess. I guess it comes down to if you believe in the management and trust them to do the right thing for the company (even if they don't tell us). In seeing 3dfx management in actions and judging the decisions we do know about I personally trust they are making the right long term decisions. Casey "I can't believe I went on this long" K (Yes this is my alter ego)

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (12444)	5/11/1999 4:21:00 PM
From: Piranha	Respond to of 16960

<< If full AGP and 32 bit rendering is what they want, then that is what you should give them if you want their business. >> I still think lack of a full OpenGL ICD (a problem that will hopefully be resolved soon) is a bigger issue than either AGP compliance or 32-bit 3D rendering as far as OEM sales go. Nobody really needs full AGP or 32-bit 3D right now. They may want it, but not actually need it. However, some people really need OpenGL for their business. The number might be small, but I believe system designers pay them at least some thought when choosing components. If they just have to choose between two cards -- one with a full ICD and the other without -- that little bullet item on the spec sheet might be enough to sway them. They may think of it as just "having their bases covered." Piranha