Uncle Frank:
I've never been so sure of the mighty Q's future than I was after reading the following article:
smartmoney.com
"For both Schmitt and Pfau, the real question will be Qualcomm's role when "3G" -- the next generation of wireless-data service -- becomes widely available on phones and other devices. Pfau, like many of his colleagues, argues that the future, however long it takes to arrive, will "converge to some kind of" endorsement of Qualcomm's standard. Schmitt argues that the things people will want to do with their wireless devices -- get and send email, do a little shopping, perhaps check a map -- won't require for several years the kind of bandwidth that Qualcomm can harness. Now, Schmitt has a reason to think this way -- he helped build his company around a different standard. But he may have a point. Dataquest analyst Naqi Jaffrey says the speeds available from rival standards will be "good enough" to satisfy customer demand through next year. After that, says Jaffrey, it's not at all clear whether demand will emerge for, say, videoconferencing from your car -- the sort of thing Qualcomm's standard will allow."
If in 500 years of development it has never been wise to bet against increased bandwidth, why start now? And if we can't think of anything useful to do with it, well that's not our job is it. In all probability, not only is there someone working right now on an application that will use the increase to its fullest, but they'll undoubtedly also be demanding even more bandwidth than the Q can deliver. It seems to me that at this stage the safest position is to consider CDMA simply a new tool that has so far gone largely unused.
(This whole problem reminds me a little of Laser in the 60's and 70's: A new capability without an obvious use for it's full potential.)
In addition, if the competition will only put up a fair fight for the next year or so, and it takes 2 to 3 years to build a system to replace the one they have now, aren't they toast?
Fred |
