Malcolm,
<< You dismiss HDR as vapourware >>
I don't dismiss HDR at all.
HDR is exceptionally important and very exciting technology. I did however refer to it (perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek) as vaporware, or actually I used the English English, vapourware, instead of the American English, vaporware. My spell checker is bilingual
<< Vapourware means something that does not exist yet >>
We are in synch so far
<< and in fact is unlikely to exist in the future >>
We are now NOT in synch.
What does the dictionary say?
>> va·por·ware (va'p?r-wâr') n. Computer Science
New software that has been announced or marketed but has not been produced
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition <<
Well their definition comes close to mine. In the case of HDR phase 1 (1xEV-DO), which has just begun standardization I applied the term in the denotative sense.
Your definition seems to be more the (somewhat negative) connotative usage that is used frequently on the Qualcomm threads to describe WCDMA.
It is sort of like the use of the acronym FUD as it is used on those threads, more in its connotative than its denotative sense.
<< I find it difficult to understand your post >>
I can see why. We are defining terms differently. Would you prefer I use the term slideware? VW40 is a pretty neat amalgam coined by Maurice Winn.
<< I carefully read what you regard as a momentous post from Beijing >>
Well if you follow 3G development, there is actually quite a bit more to this, but bottom line is that after 18 years, a European SDO, no longer controls the GSM standard, except as it pertains to EU regulatory issues. That is, to me, a pretty dramatic event, even if the press release is a bit dry. 3GPP's press releases tend to be that way, as do GSMA's.
This has some very important potential significance for Qualcomm as it pertains to the possibility of a 1xMC or 1xEV overlay of an existing GSM-MAP network in countries outside the EU.
<< 3G stage ... There's no hint as to how or when they will get there >>
For that you may have to go up to the 3GPP site and pull any one of the 131 specifications that constitute 'release99' of UMTS, or any of hundreds of documents related to the efforts of the various working groups, or the state of the development of 'release2000'.
<< I personally believe that advance to the 3G level absolutely requires QCOM's technology >>
I personally believe that advance to the 3G level absolutely requires QCOM's essential IPR.
I personally believe that advance to the 3G level does not absolutely require cdma2000 technology, or any component thereof, at least for a carrier operating a GSM-MAP network. If ANSI-41, different story, at least at the current time.
<< The so called plans and committee formation mean nothing unless they decide what they will do about CDMA >>
They have decided. IP issues still open. These are not insignificant issues, but I personally have confidence they will be, and on terms favorable to Qualcomm. In the case of GSM which launched commercial in 1992, all IP issues were not resolved for several years thereafter. Hopefully it will be quicker with UTRA.
<< I can only assume they mean to steal it >>
I do not assume this at all. I don't think it can be stolen. I don't think it can be worked around. That is why I am invested in Qualcomm.
- Eric - |
