價值網與動態競爭: 電腦晶片組廠商之競合研究

Abstract

此論文的前提是研究電腦核心邏輯晶片組之產業競合，此論文旨在以更有結構性和系統化的方法來分析研究電腦晶片組行業的競爭格局和競爭的動態，因而以價值網和競爭動態為主要研究架構。論文主要使用價值網分析四個階段的電腦晶片組產業的主要演變。基於巨觀的觀點，我們的目標是要瞭解競爭格局、供應商、互補者、客戶和競爭對手，這些公司如何建立彼此任何競合的關係，每個參與者如何透過改變參與者、 增加價值、規則、戰術與範圍的一種或多種要素部分而改變賽局之間的相互作用以建立其競爭優勢。我們也嘗試解釋這些企業如何在其相關價值網中，可能開展的競爭或合作之關係。 我們也利用動態競爭架構”察覺-動機-能力(AMC)'來理解電腦核心邏輯晶片組產業參與者在兩個最重要的策略轉折點期間，如何在市場中進行的攻擊和回應競爭對手，並且比較分析這兩個不同的時期競爭爭鬥之後所產生極端不同結果的原因。我們的動態競爭分析集中兩個主要的競爭者威盛(VIA )和英特爾( Intel) ，時間分別為1999年-2000 年，2001年-2003 年的兩個期間。AMC 架構可以微觀觀點來預測競爭對手，這可進一步深化我們對競爭策略與競合之分析。我們亦採用競爭分析（市場共同性 /資源相似性) 來解釋威盛如何經由其高調合併和收購而改變了英特爾對威盛的競爭者定位。尤其當任何公司未來正在塑造其行業地位時這可能引用作為任何策略地圖的參考。我們還進一步探討了威盛的競爭類型和英特爾相予比較，給小公司與大公司競爭之間很好的參考性。 基於價值網和動態競爭分析，我們瞭解產業技術進步和互補者進入後電腦核心邏輯晶片組產業如何重新改變。事實上，互補者進入晶片組市場對整體電腦核心邏輯晶片組公司產生不利的影響。英特爾作為平臺的領導者--特別是'主導者'，控制主導了個人電腦平臺創新 ；雖然電腦晶片組公司 –傳統上扮演'順應者'角色，卻未能從英特爾的策略觀點乃在意圖在實現提升電腦系統的整體性能上于以配合英特爾。威盛除了攻擊英特爾記憶體標準的爭議，它也轉變自身從順應者角色變成主導者， 但威盛雖以主導者角色但無法在中央處理器( CPU) 平臺與英特爾競爭，英特爾已在其平臺優勢上建立了網絡效應。此外由內而外來分析威盛的資源，威盛儘管試圖加強資源如收購 Cyrix，IDT 和 S3 graphics。但以資源基礎比較後，還是遠遠落後英特爾 。 從價值網的分析，它清楚地說明晶片組公司如何與客戶、 供應商、 和互補者共同創造價值，但也被迫與客戶 (比如主機板業務）、 供應商 （IP 授權者-英特爾） 和 互補者 （圖形晶片供應商和處理器供應商） 彼此進入競爭的模式。公司應嘗試更改賽局以有利於各自的優勢發揮。 從 AMC 的角度，威盛的高姿態攻擊引發英特爾的嚴重回應，威盛的競爭優勢不能維持很長的時間。此外威盛也未能建立'回應障礙'或防止英特爾的進一步行動。

The premise of this thesis is to study co-opetition of PC core logic chipset industry, we aim to analyze PC chipset industry competition landscape and competitive dynamics in more structural and systematic approach; we thus incorporate both Value Net framework and Competitive Dynamics framework. We mainly use Value Net to analyze the four periods of main evolution of PC chipset industry. On the basis of macro view, we aim to understand competition landscape, interaction between suppliers, complementors, customers and competitors, how these companies established any co-opetiton relationship and how each players established their competitive advantages by changing the games via PARTS( player, added value, rule, tactic, scope). We also try to explain how these firms in Value Net, possibly developed competition-cooperation relationship. We aim to leverage off “competitive dynamics framework-the Awareness -Motivation- Capability ” for understanding how core logic chipset industry players interacted in their attacks and reactions in the marketplace during the two most important strategic inflection points, and compared why these two different period battles generated substantial different outcomes. Our competitive dynamics analysis concentrates on two major battles between VIA and Intel in 1999-2000, 2001-2003, respectively. While AMC framework can predict competitors’’ move on micro view, this could further deepen our analysis on competitive strategy and co-opetition. We also apply competitive analysis (market commonality /Resource similarity) to explain how VIA’s high-profile merge and acquisition changed Intel’s view on its competitors mapping, this could be a reference of future usage for any strategic mapping when the company is shaping its industry position. We also further explore VIA’s competition types versus Intel, to give good reference for a smaller firm versus a bigger firm competition. Based on Value Net and Competitive Dynamic analysis, we understand how core logic chipset industry was reshaping in light of technology advancement and complementors’ entry. In fact, complementors’ entry into chipset market had adverse impact on core logic chipset companies. In particular, Intel- as a platform leader- is “ Architect”, who controls PC platform innovation; while PC chipset companies –typical role played as “ Adaptor” , failed to complement what Intel aimed to achieve for PC overall system performance from Intel’s strategic point of view. VIA, in addition to attack Intel in memory standard dispute, it also transformed itself from adaptor to architect but was unable to compete against Intel in CPU platform as Intel has network effects in its platform dominance. Moreover, from inside-out analysis on VIA’s resource, VIA was far behind of Intel in resource base comparison despite VIA tried to enhance its resource via the acquisition of Cyrix, IDT, and S3 Graphics. From Value Net analysis, it clearly illustrates that there are ways for chipset companies to work with customers, suppliers, and complementor to create value, but have forced to compete with customers( eg motherboard business), suppliers( IP licensor- Intel), and complementor( graphic chip vendors, and MPU vendors). Companies shall try to change the games favoring their advantages. From AMC perspective, VIA’s high profile attacks brought Intel’s severe reaction, in return, VIA competitive advantages can’t sustain for long period of time. In addition, VIA also failed to establish” response barriers” or prevent Intel’s further actions.