Some recent GG posts of note from the GTR Forum.
DSL solves telco problems rather than pursues telecosmic opportunities. Cable modems fit with the general move of Wavelength Division Multiplexed fiber ever deeper into neighborhoods. Cable companies are becoming the local fiber providers. DSL companies are still bandwidth conservers rather than bandwidth boomers. There is still an interesting business window for them but they are not truly aligned with the paradigm. 5/4/00
It seems to me I have written about Terayon as much as about any of my companies over the last few months, most recently in a response to Denny about five minutes ago. Terayon has become a more complicated company than it was. Beyond its unique S-CDMA for cable modems in noisy environments (ie nearly all cable environments), Terayon is becoming a vessel for an array of Israeli last mile technologies that are difficult to appraise until they are integrated with other Terayon products and deployed widely. Terayon still has by far the best cable modem technology. 5/4/00
Do you have plans to expand on your Nov '99 storewidth research in coming issues? Things are changing rapidly in this space. I see EMC is moving from almost exclusively SAN, to more NAS. NTAP seems to be moving up to challenge EMC can they suceed? Storewidth seems to be a large market with fewer players than some other sectors of the telecosm. Your comments would be valued. KM Poster
Within the next month, I will visit virtually all the Storewidth companies you mention and several more. 5/4/00
I was wondering if you've heard of ParkerVision? - They seem to at the Front and Centre of the tetherless telecosm with their D2D breakthrough technology - they have now recieved their first patent on it... They have a Dynamically Tunable Direct RF to Data converter - Meaning Zero IF & allows integration into Normal Silicon chips with - allowing single chip radio+DSP radio configurations along with very large RF range (10Mhz to 6 GHz in CMOS)...
I know there has been some controversy around this stock (mostly centred on the famous short attack of Arsenio XXXX) but the stock has held up very well and the issued Patent would seem to make the shorters points mute (since they thought ParkerVision didn't have any technology & wouldn't get any patents) But a US patent is a strong one and they have over 40 in the pipeline (Qualcom sound familiar)? - Neo poster
Don't talk Qualcomm unless these guys build the system and prove its superiority and then continue to lead in its advance. Patents, these days, are mostly just pettifoggery for rivals to surmount by alliance with one of the patent stars. I actually see as a serious negative any stress a company places on patents as their crucial edge in the marketplace. Patents are only significant as a complement to prowess in execution and enterprise. Your description of Parkervision's Intermediate Frequency bypass could fit scores of products that I know about from companies as various as Analog Devices, Quicksilver, Harris and several others whose names elude me at the moment (see the Software Radio paradigm covered in several GTRs). 5/4/00
As far as I know, Terayon's refusal to give away its patents is at the heart of its dispute with DOCSIS (the cable industry cartel). Globalstar commands proprietary technology difficult to duplicate. If Global Crossing is not a gorilla, it is a killer whale. As for the Internet issue, my continued support for Wave Systems, risky though it is, derives from my belief that it commands the best system for solving the key Internet problem, which is price polarity: everything is either free or hundreds of dollars. But seamless and hasslefree microtransactions will open up the promise of the net for perfectly calibrated pricing. Pricing is pivotal to the key role of markets as information systems. Moreover, by pushing authentication, security, and microtransactional power to the edge and the appliance, Wave even offers something of an answer to the Napster, Gnu-ster, MP3, DVD crisis. I believe that people will pay when the price is right and the technology is ready and hasslefree. The system does not have to be ironclad. Even in the snail economy, the huge majority of payments are based largely on trust. (By the way, I am on the board of WAVX and although I do not plan to sell any shares for five years or so, I am seriously long the company and close friends with the management). 5/4/00
I discussed Bookham at length about a year and a half ago. Nothing that I know has radically changed since then. 5/4/00
QCOM Fortune Article 5/15/00. This seems to be a little more balanced than the hatchet job on TERN. fortune.com - Rha poster
After ten years of fatuous propaganda for Europe's GSM and TDMA, with supercilious disdain for Qualcomm--continuing with an article as recently as early this year--FORTUNE has finally hired a former Forbes ASAP editor, discovered the Pacific Ocean, and is posturing like "yon Cortez on a peak in Darien." I have to admit; it is a terrible sell-sign. But Qualcomm has survived worse threats in the past, so maybe all is not lost. 5/4/00
It is hard to address with appropriate humility and consideration the comments on the Internet of Berkshire Hathaway, one of those inside trading portfolio companies that have captured much of the market's upside over the last several decades without supporting any technologies more sophisticated than the secret Coke (TM) formula. Buffet is the world's most overrated billionaire golfer, with his parochial newspaper monopolies, gaseous stock market wisdom, and governmental insurance schemes, all eveloped in a mist of high minded public service by heavy investments in the Washington Post and the Democratic Party. Companies that lead in exploiting the Internet will have rapidly declining costs and sharply increasing profits, and as market knowledge spreads, the portfolio stars like Buffett will have increasing difficulty arbitraging the ignorance of others. 5/4/00
Broadcom vs Avanex in optical components.
These are radically different kinds of complementary companies. BROADCOM is a fabulous fabless designer of communications chips, beginning at the enterprise and residence and moving outward toward the net and hub with onechip 10 Gigabit CMOS ethernet and other dazzlers. It takes advantage of the increasing prowess of Asian foundries and depends on its design ingenuity to compensate for its lack of the exotic fab capacity for Silicon Germanium and other heterostructures commanded by its competition). AVANEX manufactures its own unique inventions in optical systems coming from the fertile mind of one of the two or three supreme figures in the history of the industry. Optical system design is a completely different discipline and is still far more rare and embryonic than the digital and mixed signal chip design skills in which Broadcom excels. I would not even know how to compare the two companies, but if Avanex fails, Broadcom's prospects would decline since the efflorescence of tunable bandwidth will be crucial to the expansion of Broadcom's chip markets, while if Broadcom (and its real competitors Conexant, Atmel, AMMC, TI, PMC-Sierra, Intel and others) fail to expand local loop and enterprise bandwidth, Avanex (and the other optical network stars) will see their prospects diminish to the usual zero sum battles on the network backbone. 5/4/00
I am the triple threat around here--ghastly puns, impoverishing Novellties, and noggin nines that magically expand into a Telecosmic noosphere of scores of proud companies, from BROADCOM blasting into optics overnight, to QUALCOMM, still ascendant in CDMA, NORTEL outmaneuving the investment banks to assemble an optical diadem, AVANEX rendering the network tunable and adaptable, GLOBAL CROSSING ruling from the Halls of Montezuma and the beaches of Burmuda to the Shores of the Battery and financial center, GLOBALSTAR giving you the world for one percent of the costs of the competition, NATIONAL providing one chip systems, including analog and www.Foveon.net(check it out, if you haven't already), and MIRROR IMAGE and EXODUS cacheing out the net for storewidth, along with Network Appliance, Procom, and Novell (send emergency get well cards to Eric Schmidt; I will make a visit in the next week or so). 5/4/00
A great deal of discussion is centering around what to do with NOVL. Let me preface my comments by stating I disagree with a few persons who want to blame --GG for their investment decisions/choices, particularly regarding NOVL. Nowhere has Mr. Gilder ever instructed anyone to buy NOVL or TERN, AVNX, GBLX, QCOM, JDSU, CIEN, CNXT, et al., for that matter. Rather, Mr. Gilder has provided you a crucial advantage over the average investor by introducing you to certain companies and helping you understand the potential of their technologies. He spends many hard hours to provide us with info we simply would not have the time to obtain on our own. (Have you thanked him lately?) Who else would you turn to...brokers...they sell stocks mostly without a profound understanding of the technology. However, brokers and our comrades here on this board are the second step in your investment decision. Before you invest in a technology, you should investigate if the company which owns the technology has the management ability to make the company work. You should inquire who the technology's competitor is. (In this case MSFT a formidable foe--at least they are being sued for their tactics, but I digress). You should inquire if you are paying too much for it (want to buy a brand new Mercedes, with the latest technology...its 2 million, others will pay only a fraction of your cost but does price matter? YES IT DOES, again I digress) Also, one should inquire whether the individual's timing is right for the persons investment goals and protfolio mix. Many factors are involved in investing. To even suggest that Mr. Gilder has lead you astray is not even credible. The weak link in the NOVL analysis is its problematic management and a fierce competitor (MSFT). The storage technology discussed is still in tact and may result in recovery someday...check CIEN's chart...see the gruesome "crash?" Look at it now. - mrheythere Poster
Novell is a turnaround situation. Its old Netware forte is under seige and Eric Schmidt is not particularly interested in it. Its new technologies in directories and caches have yet to yield large revenues. Falling between these two stools have been several companies we have recommended, including most dramatically Atmel, National, and TI. I cannot confidently answer the above question about Novell, however, because I am not sure of their prowess in execution. I have scheduled a visit to Novell during the next two weeks and I hope to have a report soon. My general feeling is that the company is a good bet for those oriented to high risks high rewards. But most of you should discount my feelings until I give them a firmer foundation. 5/4/00
**************
Alot to digest. I see the continuing EXDS mentions, but fail to see where any of their technology fits the Telecosm. IBM/Quest venture is more of a probable threat to them. I see HWP which make the million computers that EXDS buys as more of fitting into the paradigm.
It's obvious to me that a future issue to the GTR is focusing on storewidth.
For SAN - EMC, IBM, HIT, Compaq are the four leaders in SAN sales as far as I can figure out.
For NAS - NTAP, PRCM are the competition.
Other that I am trying to figure where they fit in the macro picture are: Agilent, Hewlett Packard, IDC, Ideas International, NEC, Sun Microsystems, Unisys, VERITAS Software, Western Digital.
I learned that LSI because of Symbios, which they bought over a couple of years ago is a very successful designer and manufacturer of storage control chips, boards, storage subsystems and complete storage systems.
Articles on storage that I have to DD. Message 13595983
Message 13575390
Message 13551458
Jack |
