Pat,
Again, you should still be ashamed. You know Cablelabs continues on two paths, one of them "likely" to include S-CDMA IF TERN delivers it, it's cheap enough, and it works as claimed.
You sidestep my point with irrelevant nonsense about wading through TERN's filings for analysis of possible future DOCSIS inclusion. You yourself have posted the CABLELAB's statements on the matter, and they clearly say TERN is welcome to participate- quite in deference to your post, I do believe.
Speaking of the filings though, folks were wanting to know how "cost of goods sold" could vary pro-forma vs. actual. I think the following may be the answer. From the filings:(check my bolding)
corporate-ir.net
"The purchase price was allocated
(based on an independent appraisal) between the net tangible assets of
Imedia on the date of acquisition (approximately $645,000), in-process
research and development (approximately $11.0 million) and intangible
assets acquired (approximately $97.3 million). Intangible assets
consist of developed technology (approximately $27.0 million), assembled
workforce (approximately $2.5 million), trademark (approximately $4.0
million) and goodwill (approximately $63.8 million). The intangible
assets will be amortized straight line over lives ranging from two to
six years. The amortization of developed technology will impact cost of
goods sold in future periods. The amortization of the other intangibles
will principally impact operating expenses in future periods."
While I'm at it- here's the TERN version of the DOCSIS issue. Read the parts I bolded- they tell us plainly that your statements which I've responded to here are indeed not right.
"In September 1999, CableLabs indicated that it intended to
proceed with the advanced PHY work on two parallel tracks: one for the
development of a prototype based on our S-CDMA technology and one for
the inclusion of Advanced TDMA technology, as proposed by other
companies. In February 2000, CableLabs further clarified the status of
the advanced PHY project regarding a separate release that will include
TDMA technologies. In addition, CableLabs reiterated that it is
continuing to work with us on the development of a DOCSIS specification
that could include our S-CDMA technology. To that end, CableLabs has
requested that we submit a prototype of a DOCSIS system that
incorporates an S-CDMA advanced PHY capability for testing. CableLabs
has stated that if the testing of this prototype reveals that the S-CDMA
advanced PHY works as claimed (including proper backwards compatibility
and coexistence with the other aspects of DOCSIS), and if the costs for
adding S-CDMA to DOCSIS products are in line with estimates, then it is
likely that S-CDMA advanced PHY capabilities will be included in a
future version of the DOCSIS specification. The prototype we submit to
CableLabs may fail to demonstrate the level of performance that
CableLabs seeks, even if it does meet performance expectations there can
be no guarantee that CableLabs will incorporate the technology into a
future version of DOCSIS specifications. In addition, if CableLabs does
proceed to include S-CDMA in a future DOCSIS specification, there can be
no guarantee that the DOCSIS S-CDMA specification will be the same as
the specification we incorporated in the prototype submitted for tests,
which may require us to further develop our prototype. .We intend to
develop future products that are standards compliant and are actively
participating in the development of additional industry standards. As
part of our efforts to offer standards compliant products we introduced
a CableLabs certified DOCSIS 1.0 cable modem to the market in the third
quarter of 1999."
Yeah, these guys are really hiding the pitfalls, no doubt, LOL.
By the by, this whole issue of TERN's DOCSIS modem being an OEM DOCSIS modem, and the poor margins to be derived therefrom, is pretty silly considering that there is no indication they have sold any significant numbers of said modems. The major revenue gains were from S-CDMA systems designed and built by TERN, not DOCSIS modems- and Pat, NOT Imedia's cherrypicker- a claim I never read anyone but YOU make, thank-you.
"The increased revenues
in 1999 were primarily attributable to the addition of new customers in
1999 and continuing deployments of our TeraComm system by existing
customers, and, to a lesser extent, the sales of products acquired as a
result of our acquisition of Imedia."
Of course, Imedia Cherrypicker revenues might have significantly contributed to gains, I don't know. But as I once tried to tell you simply, I believe Cherrypicker is ahead of the development-stage competition about which you once posted, VBG(sorry to newcomers who didn't follow the battle on the CMTO thread, but my advice is don't bother).
Oh, Back to DOCSIS and revenues to finish up. TERN does recognize the possibility that sales of DOCSIS modems may adversely affect their margins. Here:
"We also are currently developing a
DOCSIS system that will include a headend controller. We believe that
the widespread adoption of industry standards will result in further
price pressure. We anticipate that the relationship of revenues
generated from the sale of our proprietary TeraComm system versus a
DOCSIS compliant system will result in fluctuations in our gross profit
in future periods. The impact on our gross margin in 1999 resulting
from the sale of our DOCSIS 1.0 cable modem was not significant."
Yup, they are sure hiding the pitfalls, LOL. See, I really don't own TERN- and I really do try to be fair- it pains me to read people whom I feel don't.
Dan B
|
