c2,
<< I am indebted to mightylakers' explanation of the synch/asynch business. >>
I am often indebted to mightylakers' explanation's myself.
However ...
... my question to you (or rather the statement I made) was:
"I assume that you are aware that there is a very specific functional reason for an asynchronous mode of operation in WCDMA ... similarly there is a functional reason for every differentiating characteristic of UMTS."
What you just regurgitated to me (with the capable help of our good friend mightylakers) has nothing to do with the functional reason for commercializing an asynchronous mode of operation in WCDMA.
<< It is high time that the complexities associated with asynch be dealt with by eliminating it in the interests of time. And billions of dollars of possibly wasted money. >>
Now that is a batch of pure unadulterated self-serving and/or wishful thinking bull puckey (whether yours or Lakers).
Just another Qualcomm advertisement from an inveterate basher whose "agenda" for promoting Qualcomm on threads other than Qualcomm's remains a mystery.
Technology exists to solve challenges. Qualcomm solved the challenge of commercializing narrowband CDMA for application in mobile wireless.
<< See how well proprietary standards can work? Invent the technology, make it work, then draft the standard, instead of the stumbling, bumbling other way around. >>
One might ask then why the CDMA geniuses in San Diego didn't listen to customer requirements (not their forte) and perfect (and patent protect) asynchronous CDMA, just as they did synchronous CDMA ... or maybe they already have ... or maybe DoCoMo has, or Ericsson has, (patented the best solution) and now it is being perfected.
One might ask why they didn't focus on underlying services or network to network interoperability in the early going and why they tried to convince people that roaming could be addressed at another time, all of which leaves them today with about 14% penetration of the wireless world, no brand, little marketing expertise, and negative profit.
<< Why shouldn't the inventor and the force behind a new technology be allowed to have architectural control? >>
There is no reason that they should not so long as they have sufficient strategic business skills to be able to market it successfully.
<< Why should the innovator allow a bastardization of his invention so that his patents are avoided? >>
First of all, lets get one thing straight. Qualcomm did NOT invent CDMA, and they weren't even the original patent holders. They simply commercialized (and patented) a specific implementation of it and did a fine job of it ...
... and in this case they capitulated to Ericsson and the ITU, and were wise enough to know that if they didn't their patented "invention" or flavor of the "invention" was going nowhere, and you and I wouldn't now be holding Qualcomm unless we thought the Eudora client was the wave of the messaging future.
<< I am indebted to mightylakers' explanation of the synch/asynch business >>
Tell Lakers to tell you how Dr. Willam Y. C. Lee thinks wireless technology development, testing, trialing, and standardization should REALLY be done.
No. Don't bother. That took 15 years with AMPS, and there are no more AT&T's (as they existed before breakup) so we'll continue to do it the way the dominant wireless technology was developed while "management" drops "hints".
Innocence is bliss.
- Eric - |
