Mike, i was asking you about this:
1. mcginn states lu leads in wdm. that is, lu has more technological capability, can deliver more and better wdm product (not press releases) than anyone. do you know whether this is true?
2. mcginn implies that because of 1) at most in a year or so lu will take the lead in supplying the world with broad bandwidth which is now held by nt. so (say mcginn and the writers) nt's lead because of OC-192 is transitory. would you have an idea whether a lead in wdm overcomes a lead in OC-192. that is, is wdm technology the fundamental technology in optics while OC (optical carrier)-192 merely one step in speed/bandwidth soon to be leapfrogged by the company that has all the smarts in wdm, namely lu?
3. or does it work the other way? does the guy currently selling almost all the product in 10Gbp/s, namely nt, get the revenue to spend on r & d to take over wdm technology?
and does he have the unbeatable edge because all the users flock to him because he has the product right now?
i know lu has 4bill a year r&d vs. nt's, what, 2bill. but does mcginn know what to spend it on if he missed so obvious a target? made a deliberate decision to skip the highest bandwidth? it's like having the leading restaurant in location, service and decor -but no food. BUT - again - if you lead in wdm, maybe it means you have plenty of room to u-turn to victory.
yes, you can go 1/3 each in csco, lu and nt. but IF lu really leads big in wdm (not in wdm news releases) and IF leading in wdm means leading in THE fundamental optics technology, then lu is a screaming buy. while IF leading in OC-192 gives nt the momentum to CONTINUE be the world's major supplier of high bandwidth then nt is a screaming buy.
now i'm gonna give you guys 5 minutes to tell me the truth or i'm going 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. |
