> Indeed, all the big companies "only" survive because they invest > heavily, in R&D and in leveraging their existing product lines. It's > a normal and sensible strategy that you make sound like despairation.
Well Intel *were* pretty desperate. AMD, with almost no R&D budget in comparison, were kicking Intel's butt with the K7/Hammer micro- architecture. Analysists reckon it was more luck than strategy that allowed Intel to pull through. > Sounds like Intel had a sensible strategy in place (lots of different > teams working on different stuff) for managing project failure, even > on the core (sic) product line. That's probably a bit of an optimistic interpretation, given how they allowed AMD to dominate for so long all the way into the profitable server segment (i.e. Oracle recommended Opteron rather than Xeon). Itanium was more of the sensible parallel diversification line you have in mind, which was buried for more mundane backwards compatibility reasons. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
